The "Art" world
Larry Seiler
These are intresting discussions to contemplate upon.
I taught art for about eight years in the public schools, and now do my art
full time. Once I had a teacher come to me on behalf of another student
that was getting a low grade from me. Turns out the student was not going
to make honor roll because of the one grade he was earning from me. The
student simply didn't apply himself, and assumed art was easy. The teacher
pointing out that this person wouldn't make the honor roll asked if I
couldn't still raise the grade to a "B"....enough to not keep this person
off, then followed up with, "it is only art we're talking about here!"
There seems in much of the Midwest states here a prevailing attitude that
at a certain age, you put away your crayons and it is time to grow up. It
is worth keeping perhaps a full time art teacher at the elementary
levels....as long as art serves to promote multiculturalism and extend the
global village.....but does not concern itself nearly as much with
individuals exploring their world by art making. Then more and more
schools are keeping art teachers part time in the high school level.
An attitude exists that art is not really so important. Then...while
asthetic appreciation is good, (don't get me wrong)....not enough
understanding of the commitment to make good art is transferred to students
such that they can be more discerning later in life in what is good art and
what is not...as well as appreciation for any level of talent and
difficulty needed that would make owning "good" art desirable.
I do travel a great deal yet to sub-teach periodically, and in three
different school districts I've seen attitudes that you take art class
because its the "easy" grade that will bring your grade point average up.
Then, because it is an "elective" the teacher has to win the students over.
Tap dance on a table top if you have to....because if art is not "fun
enough" then the word gets around as an elective class to other students
not to take the class. Fear of such could mean the full time program could
become part time with fewer students. So I have seen some art rooms
chaotic and practically taken over by the students. Noise to unbearable
levels, with hardly a serious intent to produce any work that could be
called art making.
Now.....not all classes are like this. Some win the students over and
develop a unique reputation and working relationship with the
students.....still, it is an effort on part of the teachers. The system
itself sends a negative message about its value of the arts such that
teachers have to have a strategy of approach with students.
Students not learning basic understanding of composition, balance, form,
color, design principles, whom later having fulfilled their emphasis in
life to make lots of money then are possibly motivated to buy art if it
becomes the social circle "vogue" thing to do. This happened during the
Reagan years for example when if you had a medical profession or a law firm
you had to attend Ducks Unlimited banquets...etc., and out-bid in auctions
to buy wildlife art prints. This brought a flood of publishers and
marketers that created buyer dependence on collectibility and glitzy
marketing savvy to suggest that the artist who seems to be winning more and
more competitions ought to be the one to invest in.
Artists at first thought this "niche" was ideal to have, but later saw it
as a "ball and chain" creatively. For the middle-class people whom wanted
to feel upper class, getting their share of the wildlife market was
important too.....so this provided a level for mediocre artists to enter
and flood the market with as well.
It placed value of art again.....not in the image...but what marketers were
backing, what promised to increase in value. To this day, many have shrink
wrapped prints stacked in a corner or under the bed.
The good and bad of it however, is that once the money became more
scarce...painters that did learn to paint to compete for the collector
dollar, began to look to other markets (finally) that might produce income
YET represent more what they would want to paint or create. It has opened
interests in other genres, has made the market more competitive, but
still....the public at large hardly has a clue to the dedication of one's
life to developing an "eye" and the talent, the discipline.....etc;
One other possible debatable factor is that the shift from a Christian era
to a postChristian postmodern era. In general, a worldview that had as its
foundation a belief in a Creator that ordered everything by design and said
it was "good". Initially such sense of order in nature led to the idea
that design and understanding could be discovered by observation and
exploration, setting a sense that standards could be agreed upon and used
as measuring sticks for man's efforts to produce work that could be said,
"it is good."
Eventually "religion" was seen as a stifling element that would hold the
progress of such exploration back. It is possible that when this
particular worldview was overthrown and provided freedom to explore other
possible worldviews that the very essence of universal standards was also
done away, making definitions of what is "good" completely individualistic
or "relativistic."
This last point often brings debate.....but it is something to contemplate
upon. The thing now which concerns us as artists, is where does open ended
discussion of right and wrong, good and bad lead in a pluralistic society?
What does the future hold for the survival of artists and their body of
work?
I've seen a new paradigm I believe that is constructing art to find value
in its ability to contribute to social engineering. The New Age interest
in "creation spirituality" that sees Western man as being inferiorly
"evolved" by the rationalism and ordered universe of the Christian era,
whom has an inbalanced mental equilibrium because the left brain has
evolved beyond the intuitive side of the right brain half. Since artists
by enlarge (though they might think different hanging around on this
newsgroup...hehehe), are empathetic toward those that are different....that
is, they are drawn to differences with intrigue and embrace, where others
without art education tend to be bigoted and discriminating, then people
may become more enculturated toward a unifying global village with exposure
to Discipline Based Art Education. In other words...<shaking head> the
suggestion is that artists having developed their creative right brains are
more perfectly evolved, are the ideal global citizen prepared to live
peaceably!
So our value is shifting not from "what we make".....to that "BECAUSE we
make" we are "way showers" to a better sustainable planet with skills to
make peace with our neighbors.
This appears also to be the pattern of art education in the
elementary/middle schools now as well where art making is now less than 30%
of the classroom activity, and more indigenous/ ethnic exposure is taking
place, history, guest appearances....losing and de-emphasizing in
particular the European idea of art and academy and grip on traditional art
genres.
I do have my opinions on all this, but I should point out that I am of the
old school with European influences....and thus could be accused of all the
reasons this new paradigm is necessary. I do think it is possible to hang
onto one's culture and preferences....and yet however appreciate
differences and indivdual contribution. I believe empathy and aesthetics
does not necessarily require a sacrifice of one's preference in art making
traditions to be less a threat, or appreciate others.
peace.....
Leigh Kimmel
In article <6ku9ev$f...@newsops.execpc.com>
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> writes:
> There seems in much of the Midwest states here a prevailing attitude that
> at a certain age, you put away your crayons and it is time to grow up.
Very true -- and it extends to an almost hostility toward those who
wish to pursue art as a lifetime vocation. I've heard more nasty little
snide remarks and zaps that have as their central presupposition the
idea that artists are immature and unstable, and that I should "grow
up" and put away my desire to create art and become yet another
interchangable corporate droid for my own good. Certainly my mother
regards my fiction writing, drawing and painting as playtime, not work,
and whenever I am home to visit, she sees herself as being perfectly
entitled to interrupt me and ask me to help with various tasks about
the house.
"I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really don't see the
signal!"
-- Admiral Lord Nelson
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@siu.edu http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Listowner of Virtual Selyn, the Sime~Gen mailing list,
sime...@siu.edu
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel
Larry Seiler
hahha....my father used to call weekly when I was newly married and asked
when I was going to demonstrate responsibility and love for my family by
getting a real job..i.e. factory work or something. Then one year I won a
competition....state recognition, and a big fat check of $5,000.....within
weeks he was calling to make sure I was at my easel painting!
Same person.....same art.....but now cleansed by materialist's appraisal
and attention.
Hang tough! We do live in a mediocre world that applauds and rewards
passive conformity. But life is so much more valuable and precious. I've
struggled for over 20 years.....but I wouldn't if given the chance to do it
over, regret having eyes to see and gifts to express. I feel sadder for so
so many blind and "dead" people that just don't have the sense to lay down.
We are obligated to be a paradox such that people might yet come to
understand human dignity and worth.
later....
Larry
Leigh Kimmel <kim...@siu.edu> wrote in article
<6kuimv$d...@saluki-news.it.siu.edu>...
> In article <6ku9ev$f...@newsops.execpc.com>
> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> writes:
>
> > There seems in much of the Midwest states here a prevailing attitude
that
> > at a certain age, you put away your crayons and it is time to grow up.
>
DFRussell
In article <6kuimv$d...@saluki-news.it.siu.edu>, kim...@siu.edu (Leigh Kimmel) writes:
|> In article <6ku9ev$f...@newsops.execpc.com>
|> "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> writes:
|>
|> > at a certain age, you put away your crayons and it is time to grow up.
Only when you're asking the taxpayers to fund your hobby. The rest of the
time, they could care less about what most "artists" do.
|>
|> Very true -- and it extends to an almost hostility toward those who
|> wish to pursue art as a lifetime vocation.
caca.
"Hostility" is not applicable -- very few people are "hostile" towards
"artists"... even when modified by "almost".
Inappropriate use of words like "hate, hostile, or "fear" are done
to make the user feel more important.
>... corporate droid...
Yeah. Being an "artistic", parasitic, cultural droid is *much* more
individualistic :-)
[...] deletia
|> Certainly my mother
|> regards my fiction writing, drawing and painting as playtime, not work,
|> and whenever I am home to visit, she sees herself as being perfectly
|> entitled to interrupt me and ask me to help with various tasks about
|> the house.
:-)
OK... so you're living/staying in your mother's house and don't like being
asked to help....
What was that you said about "time to grow up"?
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
J-Bird
In article <6ku9ev$f...@newsops.execpc.com>, lse...@execpc.com says...
>I taught art for about eight years in the public schools, and now do my art
>full time. Once I had a teacher come to me on behalf of another student
>that was getting a low grade from me. Turns out the student was not going
>to make honor roll because of the one grade he was earning from me.
(( mucho palabra deleted here ))
Larry, I've been 'victimized' by the same thing in my past
school days, back when I was not interested in art except
as pastime. I took an art course or two as an elective in
my early college years. I don't want to make it sound like
I'm something special intelligence-wise, but I was able to
keep a 3.5 GPA by WORKING VERY HARD to do so. Until
it came to art courses. I received a 'C' in life drawing class
one semester when every other grade for academics were
'A's. It wasn't that I didn't work just as hard to do well in the
drawing class -- it was because art grades are largely
SUBJECTIVE on the part of a teacher. I too complained and
tried to get the grade raised and was told by the teacher that
I only 'thought' I was 'so damned good.' I didn't think anything
of the sort but was there trying to learn drawing just as I
was trying to learn other academic subjects in my other
classes. Needless to say I was soured on taking any further
art courses. I needed to keep a high GPA if I had any chance
of getting into grad school in those days. J'Bird.
Larry Seiler
J'Bird,
well....I can understand, and sympathize.....yet my case was a boy who
spent much of his time sitting and talking, depending more upon his belief
art was easy and he needn't worry or apply himself. In my class.....gifted
kids did not automatically get "A's". Some assumed that because their 15
minute effort visually demonstrated superiority to other students three
days effort, that they could sit for two more days and talk. Not so. As a
professional artist, we know that we are our own critics and cheerleaders,
and growth comes down to personal discipline and not a work perhaps better
than others but yet far mediocre to one's own capabilities. We know when
we are pulling the wool down over other's eyes.
So....I was much more concerned about genuine effort. All, it is a
learning process, and some start later than others. My emphasis was this.
If you are a master of all you possess now... (notice, of "what you
possess", not what the world applauds as "mastery"), and maintain that
attitude, you will be a master of all that you possess later in life.
Eventually skill level will surpass one's peers until one is collectively
seen as masterful. The key thing is rewarding effort.
This kid got a "D".....and to have rewarded him for sitting around would
have sent a message to the other kids that I did not want them to have, as
well as how little art matters when you can give "gifts" of grades rather
than actual work.
In your case.....I'm sorry you had a sour experience. It goes both ways
for sure. Unfortunately, at the college level.....it is assumed you
possess a certain skill (prerequisite) to take a class, which is not always
the case. The idea of subjectivity is why I think effort and attitude
should be more factored in than many professors do. Some however, are so
tired of their profession being looked at as the brundt of jokes by the
academics.....that they make it harder to get good grades just to try to
get a point across, and that is not fair either. Their cross they bear
should not have had to be your burden.
--
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you that matters, but
what happens in you!" (author unknown)
J-Bird
In article <6l17rg$k...@newsops.execpc.com>, lse...@execpc.com says...
>J'Bird,
>well....I can understand, and sympathize.....yet my case was a boy who
>spent much of his time sitting and talking
I didn't mean to imply that slothfulness should be rewarded
but unfortunately when I was going to school in later years,
earning two degrees in Studio Art, I found the same subjectivity
at work. Slothful students to whom the art work came easily
were rewarded not for their hard work but rather for their
god-given ability. Those of us who were shorted in the area
of natural drawing or design skills and struggled hard to learn
and earn a grade were not always given the higher grades.
So I sympathize with your point of view as you sympathized
with mine. We seem to be in agreement in general. J'Bird.
Kelly Godel
I didnt have many positive experiences with art education in either public
school or university. I often encounter professional and hobby artists who
speak less than highly about their art school years. The old saying "those
who can, do, those who can't, teach." often comes up. Not MY opinion by the
way, just one of the nastier comments I have heard. Either its politics, or
budgetary considerations, or technique philosophies, or subject matter
disagreements. It is impossible to escape human (all too human) nature in
any enterprise, but art and art education seems to be one of the most
volatile outlets for it. Hmmm this sounds depressing doesnt it? Oh well...
Ciao! :)
Larry Seiler
Simply looks like I should have been instructing this studio class!
When I went to college in the 70's I had a professor that had gone through
painting schools in Europe, spent time painting directly from the works of
masters in the Louvre, but yet would not teach those of us wanting to paint
how to. We got supplies and were just told to paint. Those that squirted
paint in cow manure and whipped it at a canvas or the like got the "A's"
and those adamant about wanting to learn more the cold shoulder.
Turns out though that I've learned that many college art professors keep
their position and receive tenure based on their developed grant writing
skills that brings large money's to the school. Many of these grants are
given only to schools whom commit to the latest trend in art...and
therefore the prof must follow along.
I imagine a good number of art students are rarely fully content, whereas
many that are seem often to be mimicks of their professors. I remember the
college I went to, our design and drawing professor wore like green stretch
tights, orange shirts, shiny silver platform shoes, five nuts and bolts in
one ear...and stars in the other. That, and boasted continuously of his
Harley Davidson. It never failed that within one month of a new year
starting out...about 6-7 freshman would have their hair cut similar to
his....wear similar strange apparel and nuts and bolts..etc; they would
travel in herds. The conformed "nonconformists" I guess.
Who can fathom it all, and take it all in huh???
Sorry about your experience. It simply was not appropriate on the part of
the profs!
Larry
--
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you that matters, but
what happens in you!" (author unknown)
J
Larry Seiler
I think one reasons is because of the accountability factor in public
education. Math...English.... Social Studies....the Sciences, these are
convergent classes in that you can utilize methods of comprehension
learning and thereafter measure or evaluate them quantitatively. You can
as an administrator then go before the board accountable to the public and
say, "see, we are using your tax dollars wisely and effectively! Our
scores fit right above the average of the national scoring!"
Since many adminstrators exist today thinking that it is their job to
improve how money is spent and believe every teacher has something wrong
that needs "fixing", art teachers find themselves at an automatic deficit.
They have no national averages to demonstrate scores of students.
The arts fundamentally deal with the "human" side of a person's
development. We KNOW that is important, but not everyone does or is
convinced of it. It can't be measured on paper. This is one thing I was
alluding to earlier when I said that the age of science has meant that only
what can be proven is true. Yet that life should have meaning,
purpose.....that beauty exists....these are inherent assumed notions, but
cannot be proven. The arts exist as a demonstration that indeed life does
have meaning and purpose. It keeps man from becoming wholly utilical and
dead of senses.
The problem is.....what we know, and what can be proven are at a state of
war with each other. Thus, until an art teacher can instruct without the
politics, the budgetary considerations, etc., the very existence of his/her
job and program is held hostage. There has to be a different way that the
public domain evaluates art programs. Art is not a rigid measurable
convergent subject.
The problem is....(this is funny, after ten years of not teaching art full
time, I have an interview today), an art teacher that sees that the process
for evaluating his program is forcing different emphasis upon his students
than what the nature of artistic pursuits should be and voices such
opposition risks losing his position. A reason I lost my last position!
(hehehehe) ....I've struggled financially since. Change does not come
easy, nor without its champions. Some who give up and just go along no
doubt become cynical, burned out, but dependent on their resource for
living.
Larry
--
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you that matters, but
what happens in you!" (author unknown)
Kelly Godel <Kelly...@mindlink.net> wrote in article
<3574C099...@mindlink.net>...
Bob C
Kelly Godel wrote:
>
> I didnt have many positive experiences with art education in either public
> school or university. I often encounter professional and hobby artists who
> speak less than highly about their art school years. The old saying "those
> who can, do, those who can't, teach." often comes up. Not MY opinion by the
> way, just one of the nastier comments I have heard. Either its politics, or
> budgetary considerations, or technique philosophies, or subject matter
> disagreements. It is impossible to escape human (all too human) nature in
> any enterprise, but art and art education seems to be one of the most
> volatile outlets for it. Hmmm this sounds depressing doesnt it? Oh well...
>
Fortunately, I've had mostly good experiences at the University and
College level. My experiences have also led me to be very suspicious of
any criticism of art instructors, because I've had plenty of occasion to
see my favorite teachers called worthless and my least favorite teachers
showered with praise. I think people respond to art education in very
different ways and not many teachers are able to conduct a class in a
style which can satisfy all of them.
My least favorite teacher was a realistic painter who taught nothing but
technique. I personally believed that all he was doing was giving us
shortcuts for creating things with a certain realistic or polished look.
Things like "put a highlight in the eye right here". Who cares where the
light source is, if you put the highlight there it's going to look good.
In a beginning drawing class, he didn't believe in things like exercises
or gesture drawings; every drawing the students did they spent at least
one or two weeks on it. I didn't learn a thing from this guy, but the
other students in the class had nothing but praise and couldn't wait to
take this instructor again.
At the other extreme, my favorite teacher was one who tried to avoid
teaching technique altogethor and instead make us think about what we
were doing and why. My skills developed much further in that course than
in any other I've ever taken. Yet I heard people complaining that this
instructor wasn't teaching them anything. They wanted to learn
specifically how to hold and handle and use their materials and the
instructor was giving them much too little of that to satisfy them. I
was able to learn those things by observation and experimentation and by
thinking critically about everything I was doing or could be doing with
the materials, and I was learning it much better than if someone was
simply telling me that this is the way to do it.
In spite of the abstract nature of his own works, this teacher strongly
believed that a strong background in the fundamentals of realistic
drawing is necessary for all artists. In fact, I've never had an
instructor who didn't believe that. I become suspicious of the many
postings where people complain about teachers who don't share that
belief, because I've seen people accuse my instructors of the same thing
simply because they didn't understand or weren't responding to that
instructors method of teaching. I don't doubt that instructors exist who
really do fit the "do your own thing" stereotype, but I wonder if it is
really as common as a lot of people say. I, for one, have been fortunate
to have never ended up in a class with someone like that.
- Bob C.
Leigh Kimmel
In article <6l3fsr$s...@newsops.execpc.com>
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> writes:
> This is one thing I was
> alluding to earlier when I said that the age of science has meant that only
> what can be proven is true.
Another (and perhaps clearer?) way to put this sentiment is "only that
which can be objectively measured is real."
Subjectivity is a difficult problem to deal with, and pretty much an
inexcapable problem in art instruction. There is also the problem of
human relationships entering into the equation, so that people wonder
if grades are being given out as much on the basis of how the
instructor feels about the student as on the basis of the student's
work. Perhaps this is unavoidable -- a student who goes along to get
along will probably always get a better grade than an abrasive one,
especially if there's a "classroom participation" or "attitude"
component to the grade, and this may mask the fact that the first
student is simply parroting the teacher and engaging in kiss-up games,
whereas the second one is really stretching him/herself and actively
questing for knowledge instead of merely slurping up what the teacher
feeds him/her.
mark webber
Bob,
I was very relieved to read your post, because my experiences at the
college level (and high school, for that matter) were very fine. I learned
a great deal from all of my teachers, and nearly all my classmates felt
the same way. I never even had a teacher with the formulaic lessons (such
as eye highlighting) you speak of. On the contrary, one actually refered
to technique as "cuisine", stating emphatically that observation, color
mixing and drawing were all I needed to worry about for years.
Another could speak so evocatively about form that it was hard to see what
else there was to see.
I was also lucky enough to attend terrific lectures at other nearby
colleges, some given by a former contributer to this group.
Naturally, this subject, as with any other, will bring out complainers
more often than not.
But seeing how many people did suffer poor educations goes a long way to
explaining some of what I read here....
Mark
J-Bird
In article <6l3o5t$b...@saluki-news.it.siu.edu>, kim...@siu.edu says...
> Perhaps this is unavoidable -- a student who goes along to get
>along will probably always get a better grade than an abrasive one,
>especially if there's a "classroom participation" or "attitude"
>component to the grade, and this may mask the fact that the first
>student is simply parroting the teacher and engaging in kiss-up games,
>whereas the second one is really stretching him/herself and actively
>questing for knowledge instead of merely slurping up what the teacher
>feeds him/her.
I doubt that one can ever generalize about what to expect
on not to expect from university-level art instructors. I had
classes wherein the instructor doted on the most abrasive,
outsider, adventurous student and then other classes where
kissing up was the way to get the grade. I suppose knowing
something of the instructor's way of doing should be important
to those who would enroll in their class. I was once in the
position of needing a painting credit and the only professor
teaching that class that term was someone who I had an
abrasive and incompatible relationship in another semester
class where he taught drawing. The very first class period
he told me that "I did NOT want to remain in his class." I
replied that I WOULD remain and take whatever he had to
dish out. My final (and private) critique was a shouting
harangue of my semester's work by him, the teaching assist.
cringing in the corner the entire time. But I ended up with
a B for the semester, much to my astonishment. J'Bird.
Larry Seiler
Leigh
> Another (and perhaps clearer?) way to put this sentiment is "only that
> which can be objectively measured is real."
Yes indeed.....I like this much better!
>
> Subjectivity is a difficult problem to deal with, and pretty much an
> inexcapable problem in art instruction.
Agreed......and since administrators like to measure....and since the vast
majority of administrators have had no art's background training,
well.....the art teacher must become like you state next...."goes along to
get along!" So, often one's principles and ideals are sacrificed, and the
purpose of art is once again obscurred as we all passively conform...and it
becomes less an idea of personal development and exploration in finding
meaning for oneself, to "how might I gain approval or acceptance of
everyone else?"
good points.
Larry Seiler
Bob.....
you said.....
> "My least favorite teacher was .... <snipped for brevity> ...but the
> other students in the class had nothing but praise and couldn't wait to
> take this instructor again......
>
> .....At the other extreme, my favorite teacher was...."
I think this underscores the value of art in a way. If art screams that
life has meaning, purpose, and that beauty can be known in an age where
only that which can be measured "objectively" is real or true.....then on
our search for such using art as a "means" we are going to perhaps find one
instructor's methods more appreciable than another's.
It can almost be compared dare I say, to religion. Religion searches for
meaning, purpose, and one may be able to sort their thoughts and
ideas....be challenged to contemplate an idea say perhaps better from one
leader or pastor than another. Similarly, people hop churches continually
until they find a man/woman whom preaches or teaches in a way they best
take it in. Some on the other hand could not for a minute appreciate
another's ideal!
There is not much of a state mandated guideline for art curriculum other
than those tenets adhered to from acquired grants. It seems though in our
discussion that some kind of a foundation or teaching philosophy "ethic" to
work from would insist upon "the freedom of inquiry" by the student, taking
into consideration that the "ideal" professor for a particular student's
search for meaning, purpose, beauty does not at that campus exist. For it
seems that the common frustration we are hearing is that moment a professor
violates one's personal passion or search.
Is art education (especially on a college level here)...then really about
discovering technique....and therefore objectively able to be evaluated, or
about facilitating free and unhindered student inquiry into the issues of
life and "being?" Can a basic curriculum be designed to protect and honor
such inquiry? In other words, how can the student be protected from
professors representing a department whose objective is to promote inquiry
for art students, who in reality insist upon the conclusions of their own
personal life's subjective inquiry?
It really comes down to the argument so much loved to be debated around
here on what is art, and what purpose does it serve? If art is to assure
we maintain our humanity in a world that is more and more assessing value
on stats, business figures, mega-growth...etc., then the search for
meaning, purpose, and what is beauty and truth? becomes more important than
acquired skill and prefered style.
What of the professional artist that discovers a certain style
"sells".....then at that moment determines to imitate the skills to produce
that which would sell. His/her use of art to discover meaning becomes such
then that materialism is what gratifies life? I would submit that if
indeed this person has a true artist's heart.....that inquiry will always
remain, even if for a time stiffled or buried under other pursuits of gain.
For in time, such gain will not prove to ultimately satisfy, and inquiry
again calls to find further meaning. The artist will no doubt again find a
need to re-evaluate his/her works and what his/her needs are artistically
versus basic creaturely existence.
Does a professor prepare a student for success in the real world, or for a
successful venture into life's meaning?
There are specific art & design schools that teach technique with boasts of
80% placement in jobs thereafter, if technique is all that one is after.
Unfortunately, many (and I was one of them), could not afford to go to a
private arts college, and <shrug> *sigh* opted to take the next thing I
could afford (the state university), bringing hope to learn what I wanted
to learn with me.
Perhaps such things of the intentions and purpose of a departments program
ought to be known up front by students entering college so that
disillusionment is more frequently avoided. Though some "profs" would
consider the confrontation part of what art is about. Hhhmmmm, just more
out loud thoughts!
peace.
Philip Ayers
In article <6l2e33$i...@newsops.execpc.com>, "Larry Seiler"
<lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
: > Simply looks like I should have been instructing this studio class!
: >
: > When I went to college in the 70's I had a professor that had gone through
: > painting schools in Europe, spent time painting directly from the works of
: > masters in the Louvre, but yet would not teach those of us wanting to paint
: > how to. We got supplies and were just told to paint. Those that squirted
: > paint in cow manure and whipped it at a canvas or the like got the "A's"
: > and those adamant about wanting to learn more the cold shoulder.
: > Larry
: > --
: > http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
: > "It's not what happens to you that matters, but
: > what happens in you!" (author unknown)
Larry-
It's unfortunate for you that you went to the WRONG school!
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Larry Seiler
Yes....<big grin>..I'm sure there are much better schools, and old enough
to acknowledge..much better professors. Just throwing my three cents in
(inflation) to let a few know they weren't alone. Heh...here I am. Life
goes on!!!
But....kinda curious what your response would be to some of the things I
mentioned to Mark Webber this morning on Re: The "Art" world.....
Larry
--
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you that matters, but
what happens in you!" (author unknown)
mark webber
On 5 Jun 1998, Larry Seiler wrote:
> Yes....<big grin>..I'm sure there are much better schools, and old enough
> to acknowledge..much better professors. Just throwing my three cents in
> (inflation) to let a few know they weren't alone. Heh...here I am. Life
> goes on!!!
>
> But....kinda curious what your response would be to some of the things I
> mentioned to Mark Webber this morning on Re: The "Art" world.....
>
> Larry
Greetings, Larry.
I haven't seen the post you mention here. Hasn't shown up, curiously.
Could you email me a copy, or perhaps repost?
Thanks,
Mark
mdeli
Bob C wrote:
>
>My least favorite teacher was a realistic painter who taught nothing but
>At the other extreme, my favorite teacher was one who tried to avoid
>teaching technique altogethor and instead make us think about what we
>were doing and why.
Great Bob. All I advocate is that we have a free choice between these
extremes. Most students have no such choice.
The Important point is that In museums at present we have no such
choice because all we can see is politically correct Modern Academic
Art. All else is considered kitsch, commercial, illustration etc. and
banned at present.
>
>In spite of the abstract nature of his own works, this teacher strongly
>believed that a strong background in the fundamentals of realistic
>drawing is necessary for all artists.
He can believe anything he wants, doesn't mean he can do it and if he
can't teach it his students will gain nothing.
All universities have courses labeled drawing. The results I've seen
indicate that its little more than a label.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Larry Seiler
duh...Mark, you know what I did??? I meant my post to Bob C. whom you
"also" replied to, and mistakenly said you. I quick glanced and saw yours
and mine together listed as a response to Bob...and my mind momentarily
spazed! It was my post to Bob C., Paul.....if you're reading along.
Sorry Mark.
Larry
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"I have deja vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this
before!"
(Steve Wright)
mark webber
Larry,
No problem!
regards,
Mark
J-Bird
In article <35774ee7...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com says...
> The Important point is that In museums at present we have no such
>choice because all we can see is politically correct Modern Academic
>Art. All else is considered kitsch, commercial, illustration etc. and
>banned at present.
Whooops. Made the mistake of reading one of Mani's
outrageous rants again. And once again it's as if this
idiot's visited every museum and gallery lately and can
speak in such broad sweeping terms with authority.
Obviously there is nothing worth debating here, as usual.
But keep baiting Mani -- there are still lots of newbie fish out there
who may bite. And this old bird did too -- dammit! Spitting... J'Bird.
kag...@ecr.net
I've found these posts interesting and well, guess I'll post my
thoughts . . .
First I must say something that will probably put me on the black
list. I can't say that I agree with mdeli's posts, but if I have the
same "I'm right and you're wrong" way of thinking, I'm not any
different than he is.
I have taken college courses (not art related) over the years but
don't have a degree. From what I've seen in life, a degree sometimes
gets too much emphasis. People get hired for a job because they have
a degree and it doesn't matter what that degree is. I DO think
college education is VERY important, but that doesn't mean the person
can do a job. And, people can gain the experience to do a job without
having a degree.
Perhaps one learns more from his unfavorite professor that they
realize. Or, they might have been fortunate enough to already be
skilled in what the professor was teaching. Different people required
different things. That's what make the world go 'round and not be
boring. Heaven forbid if we were all clones!
Can't belive I wrote all that!
Cheers!
k : )
mdeli
(J-Bird) wrote:
>In article <35774ee7...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com says...
>
>> The Important point is that In museums at present we have no such
>>choice because all we can see is politically correct Modern Academic
>>Art. All else is considered kitsch, commercial, illustration etc. and
>>banned at present.
>
>Whooops. Made the mistake of reading one of Mani's
>outrageous rants again. And once again it's as if this
>idiot's visited every museum and gallery lately and can
>speak in such broad sweeping terms with authority.
Right.
I'm sure that someone as informed as you can now name a few museums
where the best so-called illustrators, art deco painters,magic
realists etc. hang next to Picasso and company. I have yet to see a
Norman Rockwell hang in the modern section of an important museum and
be part of its permanent collection. MOMA, National Gallery,
Metropolitan etc?
Tell us where the viewer has a free choice to compare?
>Obviously there is nothing worth debating here,
Obviously!
>as usual.
>But keep baiting Mani -- there are still lots of newbie fish out there
>who may bite. And this old bird did too -- dammit! Spitting... J'Bird.
>
Newbies beware!
Philip Ayers
In article <357a3a01...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
: > Tell us where the viewer has a free choice to compare?
: >
: > Mani DeLi
: > ...no skill no art
: >
: > Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of
Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Mani-
Norman Rockwell is "one of a kind" and interesting in his own way. He
perfected a certain American sterotypical image to such a degree that you
must consider him important culturally, however he was an illustrator and
his work never rises above that level.
And my dear boy, if you don't know the difference allow me to explain briefly.
A -painting- which is art can only be appreciated in real time. It has to
be SEEN. No image of it will suffice.
On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY- an image.
Now if I sound patronizing, I am sorry,.. but you need to be spoken too
slowly and with a certain directness because you are not quick to see the
truth.
I can't very well expain it -all- as I'm a working artist with a garden
and time is not available for a free course in aesthetics.
Good day.
mdeli
A Modest Proposal
What can be done about musuems and critics?
I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which are
popular with a large facet of the public. What critics dismiss as
illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in museums.
Only then will our finest illustrators, nature and scientific artists,
cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc. have an opportunity to
have their original work shown to that audience.
I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
If you wish to see something other than Modern Academic Art in our
major museums, speak out and don't support these institutions.
--
mdeli
(Philip Ayers) wrote:
>In article <357a3a01...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
>(mdeli) wrote:
>: > Tell us where the viewer has a free choice to compare?
>: >
>Mani-
>
>Norman Rockwell is "one of a kind" and interesting in his own way. He
>perfected a certain American sterotypical image to such a degree that you
>must consider him important culturally, however he was an illustrator and
>his work never rises above that level.
He was an illustrator (I mentioned him as a good example) or whatever
you want to label him. However like Leonardo, Picasso, Matisse, de
Kooning and you he produced paintings.
His work rises well above your level and I suppose you consider
yourself an artist.
>And my dear boy, if you don't know the difference allow me to explain briefly.
>A -painting- which is art can only be appreciated in real time. It has to
>be SEEN. No image of it will suffice.
And you have apparently never seen an original Rockwell and
appreciated it in "real time."
However a good reproduction of a painting does give an excellent
general idea of a work. I would venture to say that most people
including you know the large majority of classical art through
reproduction.
>On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
>appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY- an image.
I see, Matisse and Picasso and your work aren't just images. Now tell
us what else they are that an original for an illustration isn't.
> Now if I sound patronizing, I am sorry,..
Not at all. Your just an old conformist fart who is used to being
agreed with.
> but you need to be spoken too
>slowly and with a certain directness because you are not quick to see the
>truth.
> I can't very well expain it -all- as I'm a working artist with a garden
>and time is not available for a free course in aesthetics.
>Good day.
But of course. I realize that you charge in order to bring up the next
generation of failures and only tend to expostulate to people who are
in general agreement with you. Namely those who pay for your garden.
Keep busy.
>
>Philip (never Phil) Ayers
>http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
>p.a...@mindspring.com.
>
>
--
Philip Ayers
In article <357b6144...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
: >
: > >In article <357a3a01...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
: > >(mdeli) wrote:
: > >: > Tell us where the viewer has a free choice to compare?
: > >: >
: > (Philip Ayers) wrote:
: > >Norman Rockwell is "one of a kind" and interesting in his own way. He
: > >perfected a certain American sterotypical image to such a degree that you
: > >must consider him important culturally, however he was an illustrator and
: > >his work never rises above that level.
: > Mani speaks:
: > He was an illustrator (I mentioned him as a good example) or whatever
: > you want to label him. However like Leonardo, Picasso, Matisse, de
: > Kooning and you he produced paintings.
Rockwell -is- an illustrator, yes, but the others are NOT!
: > His work rises well above your level and I suppose you consider
: > yourself an artist.
I don't compare myself to N. Rockwell, no not at all!
: > >And my dear boy, if you don't know the difference allow me to explain
briefly.
: > >A -painting- which is art can only be appreciated in real time. It has to
: > >be SEEN. No image of it will suffice.
: >
: > And you have apparently never seen an original Rockwell and
: > appreciated it in "real time."
I have seen many Rockwells in person...try the Rockwell museum in
Sturbridge Mass. & they are simple objects which have their power and
reflect the true gifts that mr Rockewell had. Not art however, or at least
not very good art if this catagory were correct which I've said it AIN't,
- Rockwell didn't clam to be an "painter".
My dear boy I have traveled widely and have been very surprised to see
works in person after forming an opinion based on reproductions. That is
why I don't think reproduction even come close to what most paintings ARE.
Paintings are OBJECTS first and foremost, and are meant to be such! An
artist is a crafts-person to a very large degree. His or her hand is
visable in the object. The way the paint looks on the surface and that
often faint, almost subliminal information in the original -object- just
isn't present in the photographs. Color fidility is almost never correct
either, although this is not as as big a problem these days. You must
remember that the media of painting is different from photographic
media..even when it is a photograph of a Painting!
: > However a good reproduction of a painting does give an excellent
: > general idea of a work. I would venture to say that most people
: > including you know the large majority of classical art through
: > reproduction.
Not it doesn't...not really if we are after the art. ..and I can't help it
that people can't see the real objects. That still doesn't change the
truth.
: > >On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
: > >appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY- an image.
: >
: > I see, Matisse and Picasso and your work aren't just images. Now tell
: > us what else they are that an original for an illustration isn't.
I've addressed that above, but it actually is more global. I can't imagine
people ever understanding a painting from a photograph. The photo is
simply a diagram of the original which is sometimes very informative but
over all not even close to the complexity of the original, and I might add
complexity to the bad sometimes as well as to the good other times. People
don't buy art based on photographs unless they are buying the -name- and
museums don't curate based on photographs.
: > > I can't very well expain it -all- as I'm a working artist with a garden
: > >and time is not available for a free course in aesthetics.
: > >Good day.
: >
: > But of course. I realize that you charge in order to bring up the next
: > generation of failures and only tend to expostulate to people who are
: > in general agreement with you. Namely those who pay for your garden.
: > Keep busy.
Actually I mean literally a -garden-. I love flowers & such....and I
don't taech anymore I leave that to my lovely and intelligent wife.
: > >
: >
: > --
: > Mani DeLi
: > ...no skill no art
Yes I agree.
Larry Seiler
hahahaha.....<shakng head>
"oh well...oh yeah...well you are a poop poo head!"
"Oh yeah? Well you be a bigga poo poo head!"
"tih..pphhhffff....you have no idea how big a poo poo head your really
are!"
...."c'mon, weez all can see what a dirty low down poo poo head you are, in
fact you define poo poo head!"
..."Right! Like you can even spell poo poo head little lone define it!"
That makes you a bigger poo poo head....."
ad infinitum ad nauseum........
<snip>
>Your just an old conformist fart....
> > but you need to be spoken to slowly......
<snip a rooney>
children....children, puhl-eeeeze!
Larry
J. J. Novotny
Philip Ayers wrote:
> Norman Rockwell is "one of a kind" and interesting in his own way. He
> perfected a certain American sterotypical image to such a degree that
> you
> must consider him important culturally, however he was an illustrator
> and
> his work never rises above that level.
> And my dear boy, if you don't know the difference allow me to explain
> briefly.
> A -painting- which is art can only be appreciated in real time. It has
> to
> be SEEN. No image of it will suffice.
> On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
> appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY- an
> image.
This doesn't necessarily hold. I've seen Barrett Newman's _Voice of
Fire_ in the National Gallery at Ottawa after having seen pictures of
it. It wasn't any better in person. It was bigger. That's all. It was
still just three stripes of colour, and prolly the least interesting
work in the museum.
I don't understand why someone like Rockwell should be demoted to
outsider status and referred to as merely an illustrator (not that
there's anything wrong with illustration). Can't illustrative works also
rise to a high level -- depending on the skill of the illustrator of
course.
What makes these "post-painterly" abstractions so much more important
than a realistic work? How come they are considered so much more
impressive and worthy of attention and examination?
Not trying to flame here or anything. I just literally do _not_
understand your argument.
Cheers;
J. j.
mdeli
Perhaps you should grow up and face reality.
This is the internet not a Sunday prayer meeting. Its a free-for all
and the one place where one can express any opinion.
You might start by taking the rod out of you ass and stop being so
unctious.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
(Philip Ayers) wrote:
>: > >(mdeli) wrote:
>: > He was an illustrator (I mentioned him as a good example) or whatever
>: > you want to label him. However like Leonardo, Picasso, Matisse, de
>: > Kooning and you he produced paintings.
>
>Rockwell -is- an illustrator, yes, but the others are NOT!
>
>
>: > His work rises well above your level and I suppose you consider
>: > yourself an artist.
>
>I don't compare myself to N. Rockwell, no not at all!
I try to compare all art. A painting is a painting, yours and
Rockwells.
>I have seen many Rockwells in person...try the Rockwell museum in
>Sturbridge Mass. & they are simple objects which have their power and
>reflect the true gifts that mr Rockewell had. Not art however, or at least
>not very good art if this catagory were correct which I've said it AIN't,
Yes indeed. Now all you have to do now is tell us WHY his paintings
aren't art
>- Rockwell didn't clam to be an "painter".
He used a brush, canvas and paint. Do you regard him as a plumber?
>My dear boy I have traveled widely and have been very surprised to see
>works in person after forming an opinion based on reproductions.
So have I old man.
> That is
>why I don't think reproduction even come close to what most paintings ARE.
What ARE most painters. Do tell us great sage of Artspeak.
>Paintings are OBJECTS first and foremost, and are meant to be such!
No kidding. Gee how informative.
At last everyone here can now can realize that paintings are objects.
I'm hope you conveyed this astounding piece of information to your
students.
>An
>artist is a crafts-person to a very large degree.
Like Norman Rockwell I presume.
>His or her hand is
>visable in the object. The way the paint looks on the surface and that
>often faint, almost subliminal information in the original -object- just
>isn't present in the photographs. Color fidility is almost never correct
>either, although this is not as as big a problem these days. You must
>remember that the media of painting is different from photographic
>media..even when it is a photograph of a Painting!
A painting is at base information. A reproduction of a painting
conveys less information than the original.
>: > However a good reproduction of a painting does give an excellent
>: > general idea of a work. I would venture to say that most people
>: > including you know the large majority of classical art through
>: > reproduction.
>
>Not it doesn't...not really if we are after the art. ..and I can't help it
>that people can't see the real objects. That still doesn't change the
>truth.
What truth?
>: > >On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
>: > >appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY- an image.
Whatever that means.
>: > I see, Matisse and Picasso and your work aren't just images. Now tell
>: > us what else they are that an original for an illustration isn't.
>
>I've addressed that above,
As usual you addressed no such thing.
Just tell us why an original Rockwell is an illustration and a Picasso
isn't. I bet you can't unless you go off on your usual convoluted
Artspeak, like saying "its only an image." (which means nothing)
> but it actually is more global. I can't imagine
>people ever understanding a painting from a photograph.
People don't "understand" paintings. They may believe things about it
but understanding is something different. If you disagree just tell us
what you understand about Guernica as opposed to Norman Rockwell.
>The photo is
>simply a diagram of the original which is sometimes very informative but
>over all not even close to the complexity of the original, and I might add
>complexity to the bad sometimes as well as to the good other times. People
>don't buy art based on photographs unless they are buying the -name- and
>museums don't curate based on photographs.
>
Perhaps you can tell us why people like to hang reproductions and why
art students look at slides and why art galleries like to see slides
of perspective artists? Or why auction catalogs contain pictures?
Furthermore I find that reproductions of say, de Kooning and some of
the most horrible Matisses, far more interesting and less glaringly
incompetent than the originals.
Iian Neill
> >- Rockwell didn't clam to be an "painter".
>
> He used a brush, canvas and paint. Do you regard him as a plumber?
There are plenty of gentlemen around today who use a brush, pigments and canvases and who I would still not call
'painters'. This is, of course, if we take 'painter' to mean more than a person who applies paint to a given surface - a
'painter' in the artistic sense.
> >An
> >artist is a crafts-person to a very large degree.
>
> Like Norman Rockwell I presume.
Did not Mister Rockwell consider himself primarily an illustrator? Personally, I am a great admirer of his work and find
that it blurs any boundary between illustration and painting; at the least, his illustrations are far superior to some of
the objects being touted as great 'art' today.
The differences between 'illustration' and 'painting' can be clear, or they cna be obscure. For example, that wonderful
19th century artist Gustave Dore was 'accused' of being more of an illustrator than an artist in his canvases. I think
when it comes to such cases as this, the distinctions become less obvious than compared to, for example, a poster by
Alphonse Mucha. Dore used no decorative lines or borders, no inserted text - and no other visual devices that one make one
immediately think "Ah, so it's an illustration!" What the critics of his era seemed to be discerning was a difference in
compositional style - I am gussing that they felt Dore's use of space worked better in a miniature format - which most
illustrations are. Similar things have been remarked of certain Northern Late Gothic painters, who were more familiar
with woodcut-styled compositions than the large-scale format now most often associated with canvases.
If we return to Norman Rockwell, however, the differences are perhaps more marked than those evident in the work of
Gustave Dore. Rockwell approached his job as an illustrator, and one of superlative ability at that. In this day and age
(when there are so many superb illustrators) it becomes less and less viable to speak of that profession in a deprecating
manner - particularly when it has kept alive skill and a real sense of dialogue between artist and public. Tack onto that
the exemplary focus on narrative that illustrations keep alive - but which is lost in non-representational works.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Philip Ayers
In article <6lhfhd$e...@newsops.execpc.com>, "Larry Seiler"
<lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
: > hahahaha.....<shakng head>
: >
: > "oh well...oh yeah...well you are a poop poo head!"
: > "Oh yeah? Well you be a bigga poo poo head!"
: > "tih..pphhhffff....you have no idea how big a poo poo head your really
: > are!"
: > ...."c'mon, weez all can see what a dirty low down poo poo head you are, in
: > fact you define poo poo head!"
: > ..."Right! Like you can even spell poo poo head little lone define it!"
: > That makes you a bigger poo poo head....."
: >
: > ad infinitum ad nauseum........
: >
: > <snip>
: >
: > >Your just an old conformist fart....
: >
: > > > but you need to be spoken to slowly......
: >
: > <snip a rooney>
: >
: > children....children, puhl-eeeeze!
: >
: > Larry
Get a life larry.
Philip Ayers
In article <357ca9e9...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
: > On 8 Jun 1998 19:54:21 GMT, in rec.arts.fine you wrote:
: >
: > >hahahaha.....<shakng head>
: > >
: > >"oh well...oh yeah...well you are a poop poo head!"
: > >"Oh yeah? Well you be a bigga poo poo head!"
: > >"tih..pphhhffff....you have no idea how big a poo poo head your really
: > >are!"
: > >...."c'mon, weez all can see what a dirty low down poo poo head you are, in
: > >fact you define poo poo head!"
: > >..."Right! Like you can even spell poo poo head little lone define it!"
: > >That makes you a bigger poo poo head....."
: > >
: > >ad infinitum ad nauseum........
: > >
: > ><snip>
: > >
: > >>Your just an old conformist fart....
: > >
: > >> > but you need to be spoken to slowly......
: > >
: > ><snip a rooney>
: > >
: > >children....children, puhl-eeeeze!
: >
: > Perhaps you should grow up and face reality.
: >
: > This is the internet not a Sunday prayer meeting. Its a free-for all
: > and the one place where one can express any opinion.
: >
: > You might start by taking the rod out of you ass and stop being so
: > unctious.
: > --
: > Mani DeLi
: > ...no skill no art
Suffering idiots is good for a few laughs mr. mani, ...please
continue,...yer a world class contender.
Philip Ayers
In article <357CB275...@cc.umanitoba.ca>, "J. J. Novotny"
<umno...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
: > Philip Ayers wrote:
: >
: > > Norman Rockwell is "one of a kind" and interesting in his own way. He
: > > perfected a certain American sterotypical image to such a degree that
: > > you
: > > must consider him important culturally, however he was an illustrator
: > > and
: > > his work never rises above that level.
: > > And my dear boy, if you don't know the difference allow me to explain
: > > briefly.
: > > A -painting- which is art can only be appreciated in real time. It has
: > > to
: > > be SEEN. No image of it will suffice.
: > > On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
: > > appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY- an
: > > image.
: >
: > This doesn't necessarily hold. I've seen Barrett Newman's _Voice of
: > Fire_ in the National Gallery at Ottawa after having seen pictures of
: > it. It wasn't any better in person. It was bigger. That's all. It was
: > still just three stripes of colour, and prolly the least interesting
: > work in the museum.
I didn't say it made anything better!......the issue isn't better or worst
but what is and what is not. A photograph of a work of art -ISN'T- a work
of art, it's an -image- of a work of art. A photo of a certain person
isn't the person! ...and while people are more complex than art the
analogy holds true. One must not base an opinion about an art object based
on a phtograph. I guess all those survey 101 art history course stupified
everyone.
: > I don't understand why someone like Rockwell should be demoted to
: > outsider status and referred to as merely an illustrator (not that
: > there's anything wrong with illustration). Can't illustrative works also
: > rise to a high level -- depending on the skill of the illustrator of
: > course.
He's not an outsider.....he's was a professional illustrator who worked
for a magazine -SEPost- and made a bundle.
: > What makes these "post-painterly" abstractions so much more important
: > than a realistic work? How come they are considered so much more
: > impressive and worthy of attention and examination?
Where did you get this from?......i never said anything even remotely like
this, noir do I buy this point of view.
: > Not trying to flame here or anything. I just literally do _not_
: > understand your argument.
Who are you talking to?...If it's me try reading my post more carefully.
: > Cheers;
: > J. j.
mark webber
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, J. J. Novotny wrote:
(snip bulk of argument)
>
> What makes these "post-painterly" abstractions so much more important
> than a realistic work? How come they are considered so much more
> impressive and worthy of attention and examination?
>
> Not trying to flame here or anything. I just literally do _not_
> understand your argument.
>
> Cheers;
> J. j.
>
I'm with you on this, too, J.j. (or is it J.J.?)
Newman, Rothko, Gottlieb, Kelly ... They don't hold my attention, and in a
sense, they too are illustrators - illustrating Greenberg and not much
more.
Please remember I'm not taking an anti-NY school stance, I just question
the durability of some of the more minimamalist guys.
Mark
Larry Seiler
> get a life.....
Thank you....think I will!
Now that was a positive thing to say, and I receive your admonition!
Blessings to you also......
Larry Seiler
Mani.........
Express away....but as a free exchange for ideas, also understand others
possess minds, experience, wisdom, intelligence.....and have opinions as
well that may or may not be as valid as your own. Mine was to find your
response humorous.....
You will find I prefer as an artist the very works often you define as
"skilled" .....but I do not see art as a thing to be worshipped or
idolized, it is not the domain of one tradition, and doesn't exist to
become our "tower of Babel"......it certainly is tragic to defend a style
of art where attacking the dignity of humankind is necessary.
I am here as a realist making peace with those that are not....getting rid
of demons in my past so-to-speak. Just for the record showing not all
realists necessarily have to be embittered and vindictive, nor intimidated.
In fact, some of our work might stand to improve by seeing form, color, or
design from unique perspectives.
Have your opinion..... My disagreement with your opinion, or even my
finding your opinion at times dehumanizing or funny is no suggestion I do
not think you have a right to one.
William Barkin
Philip Ayers wrote:
[major snip]
> I've addressed that above, but it actually is more global. I can't imagine
> people ever understanding a painting from a photograph. The photo is
> simply a diagram of the original which is sometimes very informative but
> over all not even close to the complexity of the original, and I might add
> complexity to the bad sometimes as well as to the good other times. People
> don't buy art based on photographs unless they are buying the -name- and
> museums don't curate based on photographs.
Ok, Phil...why the website then!? Dismantle it right now and let some
other poor slob of a painter use digital images (like you) to show the
world their "talent." Your logic is bullshit...pull some weeds.
-Bill
Philip Ayers
In article <357D59...@bcn.net>, William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote:
I work with images and I'm a painter, I know the difference. Just because
I have stuff up on the web doesn't mean what you think it means. I have my
reasons and it has nothing to do with painting.
&...and I weeded this morning.
Philip Ayers
In article <357ca81b...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
: > (Philip Ayers) wrote:
: >
: > >: > >(mdeli) wrote:
: > >: > He was an illustrator (I mentioned him as a good example) or whatever
: > >: > you want to label him. However like Leonardo, Picasso, Matisse, de
: > >: > Kooning and you he produced paintings.
: > >
: > >Rockwell -is- an illustrator, yes, but the others are NOT!
: > >
: > >
: > >: > His work rises well above your level and I suppose you consider
: > >: > yourself an artist.
: > >
: > >I don't compare myself to N. Rockwell, no not at all!
: >
: > I try to compare all art. A painting is a painting, yours and
: > Rockwells.
: >
: >
: > >I have seen many Rockwells in person...try the Rockwell museum in
: > >Sturbridge Mass. & they are simple objects which have their power and
: > >reflect the true gifts that mr Rockewell had. Not art however, or at least
: > >not very good art if this catagory were correct which I've said it AIN't,
: >
: > Yes indeed. Now all you have to do now is tell us WHY his paintings
: > aren't art
: >
: > >- Rockwell didn't clam to be an "painter".
: >
: > He used a brush, canvas and paint. Do you regard him as a plumber?
Not a plumber but an illustrator.
At the risk of being accused of speaking "artspeak" I'll try to explain.
When an artist starts a painting it may or may not start out with the
intent of telling a story, but if doesn't end up telling the story very
well or not at all it still can succeed as a work of art because the
artist is going to react to the process as it happens and is willing to
forgo the story if need be to save the painting or even advance the
picture to a more immediate level. You might say a painting has a life of
it's own. On the other hand an illustrator like Rockwell was telling a
very specific story which we recognize each time we look. The characters
change but they are part of the whole and the success of the illustration
rest on the believablity of those characters and their ability to advance
the story line. I can imagine him doing something off the wall or changing
the logic....never because he would have been fired.
: > >My dear boy I have traveled widely and have been very surprised to see
: > >works in person after forming an opinion based on reproductions.
: >
: > So have I old man.
: >
: > > That is
: > >why I don't think reproduction even come close to what most paintings ARE.
: >
: > What ARE most painters. Do tell us great sage of Artspeak.
: >
: > >Paintings are OBJECTS first and foremost, and are meant to be such!
: >
: > No kidding. Gee how informative.
: >
: > At last everyone here can now can realize that paintings are objects.
: > I'm hope you conveyed this astounding piece of information to your
: > students.
Well I'm sorry to explain the obvious but I thought you were like the guys
who thought after looking at so many airbrushed PlayBoy pin-ups that women
didn't have pores or other more human attributes. If you look at images
too long you start to believe they are real. Paintings have pores so to
speak and this complexity which is lost in photos is precisely where the
art often resides.
: > >An
: > >artist is a crafts-person to a very large degree.
: >
: > Like Norman Rockwell I presume.
: >
: > >His or her hand is
: > >visable in the object. The way the paint looks on the surface and that
: > >often faint, almost subliminal information in the original -object- just
: > >isn't present in the photographs. Color fidility is almost never correct
: > >either, although this is not as as big a problem these days. You must
: > >remember that the media of painting is different from photographic
: > >media..even when it is a photograph of a Painting!
: >
: > A painting is at base information. A reproduction of a painting
: > conveys less information than the original.
: >
: > >: > However a good reproduction of a painting does give an excellent
: > >: > general idea of a work. I would venture to say that most people
: > >: > including you know the large majority of classical art through
: > >: > reproduction.
: > >
: > >Not it doesn't...not really if we are after the art. ..and I can't help it
: > >that people can't see the real objects. That still doesn't change the
: > >truth.
: >
: > What truth?
: >
: > >: > >On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
: > >: > >appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY-
an image.
: >
: > Whatever that means.
: >
: > >: > I see, Matisse and Picasso and your work aren't just images. Now tell
: > >: > us what else they are that an original for an illustration isn't.
: > >
: > >I've addressed that above,
: >
: > As usual you addressed no such thing.
: >
: > Just tell us why an original Rockwell is an illustration and a Picasso
: > isn't. I bet you can't unless you go off on your usual convoluted
: > Artspeak, like saying "its only an image." (which means nothing)
A pin-up is only an image although some think it's a photo of a woman!
: > > but it actually is more global. I can't imagine
: > >people ever understanding a painting from a photograph.
: >
: > People don't "understand" paintings. They may believe things about it
: > but understanding is something different. If you disagree just tell us
: > what you understand about Guernica as opposed to Norman Rockwell.
I haven't seen Guernica since it moved to Spain and I don't think I prefer
it to other Picassos but I did like the grey scale colors in the picture.
I'm not a real big Picasso fan, although I like the periods preceeding
Cubism. I also think that Cubism persents a certain type of mind with a
difficult choice. Some say Cezanne some say picasso. We have global
warming too. Life moves on.
: > >The photo is
: > >simply a diagram of the original which is sometimes very informative but
: > >over all not even close to the complexity of the original, and I might add
: > >complexity to the bad sometimes as well as to the good other times. People
: > >don't buy art based on photographs unless they are buying the -name- and
: > >museums don't curate based on photographs.
: > >
: > Perhaps you can tell us why people like to hang reproductions and why
: > art students look at slides and why art galleries like to see slides
: > of perspective artists? Or why auction catalogs contain pictures?
No gallery that I know take an artist on based on slides.
Karen Jacobs
J. J. Novotny wrote:
>
> Philip Ayers wrote:
> > A -painting- which is art can only be appreciated in real time. It has
> > to
> > be SEEN. No image of it will suffice.
> > appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY- an
> > image.
>
> Fire_ in the National Gallery at Ottawa after having seen pictures of
> it. It wasn't any better in person. It was bigger. That's all. It was
> still just three stripes of colour, and prolly the least interesting
> work in the museum.
>
> outsider status and referred to as merely an illustrator (not that
> there's anything wrong with illustration). Can't illustrative works also
> rise to a high level -- depending on the skill of the illustrator of
> course.
>
> than a realistic work? How come they are considered so much more
> impressive and worthy of attention and examination?
>
> Not trying to flame here or anything. I just literally do _not_
> understand your argument.
>
The argument is not new to this group... it's been 'round and 'round and 'round
and will go 'round again, apparently. And it's the same argument I first heard
in the first art class I ever took of any caliber. The simple answer is:
because we don't all respond to the same thing, whether it be objects d'art or
objects d'amour... otherwise we'd all be chasing the same thing and wouldn't
that be a bore... not to mention a bit of traffic congestion.
The need to proclaim MY FAVORITE STYLE is better than YOUR FAVORITE STYLE seems
to have no more depth than a couple of university football teams debating the
quality of their programs. Shame, too... there's so much to talk about and some
good, if not redundant, minds on board.
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Bob C
J. J. Novotny wrote:
>
> Philip Ayers wrote:
>
> > No image of it will suffice.
> > On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
> > appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY- an
> > image.
>
> This doesn't necessarily hold. I've seen Barrett Newman's _Voice of
> Fire_ in the National Gallery at Ottawa after having seen pictures of
> it. It wasn't any better in person. It was bigger. That's all. It was
> still just three stripes of colour, and prolly the least interesting
> work in the museum.
>
It sounds like you went there expecting not to like it. Try to put
yourself in the mindset of someone who *does* like the work. Do you
really believe that the the physical presence is meaningless, that the
small reproduction has just as powerful a presence?
If so, then I don't think you have any understanding whatsoever of why
people would like that type of work.
- Bob C.
Larry Seiler
Karen-
> The argument is not new to this group... it's been 'round and 'round and
'round
> and will go 'round again, apparently.
It took me nearly 20 years as an artist to see the roots of my own
rejections and bitterness toward contemporary work versus the only "real"
art of realism. Perhaps this "round and round" tendency helps in the
accumulative longer-run by finding cracks in our walls and eroding at them
until the pressure builds and the "pent-in" water on the other side is
released.
> otherwise we'd all be chasing the same thing and wouldn't
> that be a bore... not to mention a bit of traffic congestion.
quite......
>
> The need to proclaim MY FAVORITE STYLE is better than YOUR FAVORITE STYLE
seems
> to have no more depth ......
If we could mature enough to hold favoritism to a style, know why, yet
respect the free exploration of meaning and purpose and art direction to
others- such statements as this may be useful once one can with a "truce"
pull out the word "better." If we could encourage each other to pursue
with integrity our preferences and applaud efforts of such.
I think something else is at the core of it and perhaps an idea I wouldn't
mind mulling over. What do you think about the idea that a style may
require such a huge cost of personal and intense study/focus in order for
it to develop that the surrounding culture's habit of seeking immediate
gratification almost nearly needs to be utterly deplored such that the
focus works without hindrance? Without yielding to temptation to abdicate
before the goals are reached? A philosophic fueling of resentment and
contempt to guard one's energies and focus.....?
That kind of goes in line with some thinking that others have had on social
engineering. I mean, first of all (so I'm not misunderstood), I think it
great we become aware of the unique contributions of other cultures....but,
does the drive of tolerance or even the invitation to "try" the preferences
of other cultures lead not to the possibility of one dissolving the lines
of demarcation of their own culture? Thus do we not rish when we applaud
the arrival of new cultures and merge the losing one's own identity?
Does the idea of being cordial with other artists and their styles
unconsciously threaten that one's artistic preference might sizzle out? I
mean, admittedly though I am yet a realist painter I am painting
looser...less to say more and enjoying a great deal of the works of others
that at one time I would have scorned. Needless to say, I don't want to go
back to the time I put 200 hours or more in a single painting. Doesn't
this admission of mine serve as "evidence" to some of what could happen if
the "us and no more" crowd condescend to terms of peace?
thinkin' out loud....
Karen Jacobs
Larry Seiler wrote:
>
> Karen-
>
> > The argument is not new to this group... it's been 'round and 'round and
> 'round
> > and will go 'round again, apparently.
>
> It took me nearly 20 years as an artist to see the roots of my own
> rejections and bitterness toward contemporary work versus the only "real"
> art of realism. Perhaps this "round and round" tendency helps in the
> accumulative longer-run by finding cracks in our walls and eroding at them
> until the pressure builds and the "pent-in" water on the other side is
> released.
'Twas merely an observation on the sameness of r.a.f to which a proper response
might have been: so if you don't like it here, leave. There is obviously a need
to regurgitate Bouguereau and Rockwell's worth vs. Matisse, Picasso and ...
ummmm... Twombley hasn't come to the fore since my return... but then, I don't
read Mani so maybe I didn't notice.
> What do you think about the idea that a style may
> require such a huge cost of personal and intense study/focus in order for
> it to develop that the surrounding culture's habit of seeking immediate
> gratification almost nearly needs to be utterly deplored such that the
> focus works without hindrance? Without yielding to temptation to abdicate
> before the goals are reached? A philosophic fueling of resentment and
> contempt to guard one's energies and focus.....?
I don't think the idea holds water. That's the same reasoning used for civil and
non civil wars, not to mention unmentionable inhumanity to one's brothers and
sisters. Lighten up guys... someone else's style is no threat to your own...
unless you have no style and are so insipid that you fear threatened by what you
don't like, know or understand.
> That kind of goes in line with some thinking that others have had on social
> engineering. I mean, first of all (so I'm not misunderstood), I think it
> great we become aware of the unique contributions of other cultures....but,
> does the drive of tolerance or even the invitation to "try" the preferences
> of other cultures lead not to the possibility of one dissolving the lines
> of demarcation of their own culture? Thus do we not rish when we applaud
> the arrival of new cultures and merge the losing one's own identity?
Boy, are we talking "head in the sand" or what??? Isn't that what growth is all
about? We've been losing our identities all through history and not likely to
cease doing so any time soon. I anxiously await the work I will be doing ten or
twenty years from now... and I know for certain that although it will be based
on what I do now, it will be much richer for what I have seen and been exposed
to. Why? because I am open to what others are doing and I care not to be a
repetitive machine, cranking out the same thought in the same way to the same
audience for time ad nauseum. This is creativity?
> Does the idea of being cordial with other artists and their styles
> unconsciously threaten that one's artistic preference might sizzle out?
If it does... there wasn't much fire there to begin with.
I'm just about on my way out the door to visit a culture so foreign from what
I've known all my life that you could rightly describe it as being on the other
side of the world. If I held views as closed minded as some I've seen in this
group, I would never venture to China for fear of becoming "like them"... now
that would be a shame, not to mention stupid. And conversely... maybe I will
pick up some little insight that will change my life and the way I view art,
relationships, who knows what... ummmm.... think I ought to stay home? Not on
your life!
(Nothing personal, Larry... appreciated the opportunity to banter...)
Later...
--
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Iian Neill
> I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
> However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
> in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
> side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
> artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
> will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
> debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
> happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
This is a nice idea, but I find it very hard to believe that any museum would take it on board seriously. First of all,
why add a new staff member when previously they were happy with just the one critic? Secondly, hiring a critic with
diametrically opposed views is most likely going to make their 'in-house' man disgruntled - he'll probably complain, "Why
do we need someone else? Are you saying that my reviews are not good enough? So you need to get somebody else in to fix
them, is that it?" I also find it very hard to believe that the same museums who hire the loony critics are going to
start hiring those antithetical to them. The reason some of these critics must keep their jobs is surely because the
museum approves of what they write - and if they APPROVE of what they are writing, they are not going to want to undermine
their own prestige by bringing in an outsider who considers their art to be fraudulent at best and insane at worst.
Thirdly, why do we need two people? What we really need is ONE person who is objective. Do we need a Jeckyll and Hyde
scenario just to see whether a work of art is (a) good, and (b) a work of art at all? Instead of going to the expense of
hiring two diametrically opposed critics we ought to look into reforming the educational system so that future critics are
given as broad and fair-minded a training in art-historical analysis currently possible. Hiring two critics only risks
setting the art-critical world at its own throat, and would probably merely succeed in bamboozling the public even
further. We would be assured by two equally well spoken camps that (a) Non-representationalism is the way to go, and (b)
Non-representationalism is NOT the way to go. How would we expect the public to choose?
> Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which are
> popular with a large facet of the public. What critics dismiss as
> illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in museums.
That won't happen because any museum that even tends that way would most likely find itself blasted by its peers. Does
anyone remember the scorn heaped upon certain academic exhibitions in the past? The only reason that the academics are
being hauled out of the basements today (which is where they had been stored, gathering dust, for 90 years or so) is
because the withering critical fire has slackened off a bit. By no means has it evaporated - which is why our
'contemporary' museums are still clogged with the detritus of our century. For 'illustration, kitsch and commercial' art
to re-appear one would need to see a fundamental re-think in how people view these things. At the moment the
aforementioned labels are used as nice dogmatic hate-stickers to be pasted onto whatever artist or movement you don't
like. Granted, this wholesale condemnation of anything remotely anti-'modern' has been challenged and may one day be
overthrown. But the fact remains that universities are slow to follow - the ones I went to, for example, did not deign to
mention the 'academics' (again, a broad and sometimes mis-leading label). Each university will be different, of course,
depending on the policies entrenched there, and the fair-mindedness of particular lecturers.
Perhaps even more important than reviving the reputation of those unjustly slaughtered on the sacrificial altar of
Modernism is the need to establish a really effective system for the teaching of the principles of art. It takes a lot
more to become a fine artist than just scratching away with charcoal in life-drawing classes, led by teachers who in many
cases are barely more competent than the students they teach. University policy-makers must also shoulder some of the
blame. I recall that at the University of Tasmania there was a drawing teacher who apparently used to teach the
fundamentals of technique (or so I was informed) - he was forced to stop when his superiors said 'drop it, or get out'.
Certainly, that's a crude generalization of what happened, but he must have been teaching something more substantial than
blind contour 'drawing' and three-minute warm ups to merit such a slap on the wrist. My guess is that he received at least
a sound education (by today's standards - which are still far below those of preceding centuries) and met the unhappy fate
of becoming a teacher in an age where his skills were deemed worse than unnecessary - they were deemed HARMFUL.
This, perhaps, is the crux behind modern 'art' education. It is the paradox which underlies the whole concept. How can
an institution teach anything when at the same time they declare there are no 'rules'? How can we go about acquiring a
sound technique when we do not admit there to be an objective reality to measure what we draw, up against? What use, in
fact, is there in teaching students how to draw from life when they'll spend their future careers running away from visual
reality? There are some lecturers, I am sure, who must have already asked this question and answered it by chopping the
representational content of their course even more.
Then there are the hard facts. How many of today's so-called 'art teachers' are really qualified to teach a
non-[Post-]Modernist conception of art? How many of these teachers run more on hot air than real competence? Imagine
yourself in such a position - frighteningly cognizant of how badly you can draw and yet in a position where you have to
teach thirty or so students. What does one do? The sensible thing would be to learn HOW to draw, and then go and do your
job well (easier said than done). The EASY thing to do is not go through the back-breaking effort of acquiring competence
- the EASY thing to do is to question the very validity of competence at all. So, we have a whole obscurantist dogma
coming into existence - we hear that 'technique is stifling' - we hear that modern students are now 'free from the tyranny
of representation'. How can any fresh student, new to this thing called art, possibly fail to be seduced by such positive
and uplifting credos?
Soon enough, our new students start tramping around the place muttering their dogmas like a mantra. 'Who needs to draw
in that old fashioned way? It may be good enough for the amateur, but I want to be an artist - I want to express myself.
You can't express yourself if you are confined to representing reality. You have to free yourself up - start PLAYING with
the paint. Let go of your inhibitions. So what if others think your work is ugly or meaningless? It just proves that they
don't know the secret: Ugliness is actually a sign of profundity - and the so-called meaninglessness is meaningful to the
elite.'
> I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
> who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
> interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
> any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
You live in an optimistic world. The reason these biased critics get the job in the first place is because they work for
jaded editors. I can't see them wanting to compromise their own aesthetic integrity by bringing in 'the bad guy'. Sure,
there must be some magazines out there who'll want to do that. If they do, I think they should go for it. There's nothing
wrong in having two sides to every story. Call me cynical, though, if you like - but I have a feeling less than a
thousandth of art journals around the world would even consider the idea.
> If you wish to see something other than Modern Academic Art in our
> major museums, speak out and don't support these institutions.
Our tax dollars support them. To change that, someone's going to have to go political and find out who exactly is spending
the money and on what activities. I think it is the NEA who makes these decisions in America - please correct me if I am
wrong. But consider this - if the NEA has spent the past few decades bolstering up non-representational art; if it has
spent its energies dumping money into the ravenous Black Hole of installation sculpture, performance art, abstract
expressionist painting, body piercing, garbage collecting or whatever else you wish to call it, can you really see them
suddenly throwing down their guns and supplicating themselves at the feet of Classical Realism? I think not. The guys who
want such movements as Classical Realism stamped out of existence are the Elsworth Tooheys of our world - and they're not
going to be swayed by requests to be fair-minded. They've heard all of that before. I assure you, there must be a large
number of people in the States who are disgruntled with the NEA (or whatever it's called) - people in and outside of the
government. They hold such sway because certain doctrines allow them to be taken seriously by others who should know
better.
I can see only three options, therefore: (1) To start making meaningful representational art ourselves; (2) To speak
in public forums about the value of art and the appalling state it is in at present; and (3) To get together with
like-minded citizens and start making a fuss about where all the Arts money is going in our respective countries. I cannot
see that anything less than this will have any impact.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
_______________________________________________________________
Iian Neill - s36...@student.uq.edu.au, jl_g...@hotmail.com
Come & visit my homepage, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ at -
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
"The age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists and
calculators has succeeded: and the glory of Europe is extinguished
for ever."
-- Edmund Burke
J-Bird
In article <6lm3s6$i...@newsops.execpc.com>, lse...@execpc.com says...
>It took me nearly 20 years as an artist to see the roots of my own
>rejections and bitterness toward contemporary work versus the only "real"
>art of realism.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this but I think, after reading
most of your recent posts, I know where you come from. I too
thought at one time, when I just wanted to 'paint' as a new-found
hobby, that realistic rendering was the do-all and end-all of
'painting.' I had no real knowledge of art other than what I had
been exposed to as I grew up in the remoteness of West Texas,
far from the latest fads and fetishes.
I had no idea what a 'style' was or the remotest understanding
of most art terms related to the various 'isms.' But this was
in the late 1960's so that many of the 'isms' hadn't even been
'discovered.' My 'style' was to simply paint reality as best I
could, mixing my colors by instinct and re-creating form and
chiaroscuro instinctively as well. Of course, I began reading
all those 'how to' books available to me at the time too. And
gradually I developed an interest in visiting art museums
and further educating myself. But my 'style' took its own time
to develop and has never in the intervening years changed
all that much.
What has changed is my overall knowledge of art. I have
had the very good fortune of traveling a large part of the world
since my interest began in educating myself in the arts and have
seen many of the works of art that are generally accepted as
the 'masterpieces' in a historical sense. And I've lived through
the emergence of many of the contemporary 'isms' of the
70's and 80's. I've learned to 'appreciate' what these various
art 'isms' are about and learned to understand why the artists
who were at the forefront are considered the front-runners.
In all that time, my own style has not been influenced. I have
never once (well, once when it was a lesson requirement in
art school) consciously tried to emulate someone else. In
other words, in my painting experiences I have never tried
to paint 'in the style of _____.' And yet I have explored
various avenues in my own representations, whether as
sculptural forms, in printmaking, or other mediums.
The funniest thing that has happened in my art years is
that the minimalist Donald Judd chose one of the remotest
areas of West Texas in which to build a Museum to
Minimalism. And long before Judd chose Marfa as his
'home' I learned to appreciate his forms for what they
are. And once when living in London I was there when
Carl Andre installed a pile of bricks and it raised such
a furor because the British museum in which it was
installed purchased it for 30,000 pounds at a time when
the British economy was on the skids. 'A pile of BRICKS?'
everyone was asking. And yet when I saw the installation
it wasn't something that seemed to me out of place. It
made me 'think.' And that is the crux of it I think for me.
Art isn't just about visual acuity. All art should make us
stop and think -- whether the thinking is 'deep' or 'shallow'
isn't the point. We should be compelled to simply stop
and let our mental processes take us where they will
as we contemplate the work of art. If the work doesn't
do this, then I feel it's that which marks it as a failure,
or as mediocre. If it stops someone in their tracks, then
it's worthwhile -- at least in terms of what that person's
reaction is.
Recently I was in the Philbrook Museum in Tulsa, OK
and in one room of contemporary art there is a glass
case inside of which was a tattered leather suitcase.
It was a busy time at the museum with a JMW Turner
show in progress and there were many people in the
gallery where the suitcase resided. NO ONE paid it
the least attention -- UNTIL they heard me remark to
my companion that it was CERAMIC. And suddenly
EVERYONE was gathered around ooohing and aaaahing.
What's the point of this recalling? Only that it's not
until we are made to stop and 'think' about a work that
it becomes to us memorable. I'll bet you a dollar to
a donut that those people who were ooohing and aaahing
over a ceramic suitcase probably had a lot less to
say about the JMW Turner show when they left. As
long as it was just a leather suitcase to them they
had nothing to think about. No one seemed the least
interested in questioning why a battered suitcase
should be encased in glass. They weren't thinking.
And so it is with all art. Stop and think about it next
time you are faced with the uninteresting. J'Bird.
Larry Seiler
> 'Twas merely an observation on the sameness of r.a.f to which a proper
response
> might have been: so if you don't like it here, leave.
Sorry if you were offended. I was simply trying to think out loud if the
rehashing of arguments does not help someone eventually see something in a
light they did not before. I was trying to look for something possibly
positive in it.
> > A philosophic fueling of resentment and
> > contempt to guard one's energies and focus.....?
>
> I don't think the idea holds water.
Well...the issue though I think, is how the artist perceives him/herself
and his/her variances with others. If the individual has a healthy
appreciation or respect of themselves, then no differing style should
matter.
> That's the same reasoning used for civil and
> non civil wars, not to mention unmentionable inhumanity to one's brothers
and
> sisters.
Yup.....but I'm just contemplating here on why the "need" for the reasoning
such exists in the first place...for the hostility is apparently very real.
> Lighten up guys... someone else's style is no threat to your own...
> unless you have no style and are so insipid that you fear threatened by
what you
> don't like, know or understand.
This is exactly what I was getting at....a "fear" that might impede one's
work or focus, with the hostility thereafter as a means of creating a
perceived safe harbour to surround themselves with.
>
>
> Boy, are we talking "head in the sand" or what???
Again.....I'm playing a role of trying to stand in other shoes and
wondering how such persons might think.
> Isn't that what growth is all
> about?
Yes.....but growth doesn't come without challenges and change, and it is
these positions of fear and perceived "enemies" that creates the resistence
that time and challenge face, don't you think?
> I anxiously await the work I will be doing ten or
> twenty years from now...
I know what you mean!
> and I know for certain that although it will be based
> on what I do now, it will be much richer for what I have seen and been
exposed
> to. Why? because I am open to what others are doing and I care not to be
a
> repetitive machine, cranking out the same thought in the same way to the
same
> audience for time ad nauseum. This is creativity?
...and, it has taken nearly 20 years for this weariness of the same and the
openness of that different to now see and come to be able to agree with
you. To now risk a new season of growth. Not just polishing and
refinement of old skills.
>
> > Does the idea of being cordial with other artists and their styles
> > unconsciously threaten that one's artistic preference might sizzle out?
>
> If it does... there wasn't much fire there to begin with.
So...it is sad that there cannot be more respect for each other. I am
learning....and a certain brokenness in my person has removed the need I
guess I must have sensed to be the "best" or whatever that even meant.
Winning some awards rang shallow after a time, but it removed some of the
idealism of being "best"....to now entertain that art can be about
celebration and appreciation of life itself. With that in mind...how we
celebrate seems to need less rigidity or restriction.
>
> I'm just about on my way out the door to visit a culture so foreign from
what
> I've known all my life that you could rightly describe it as being on the
other
> side of the world. If I held views as closed minded as some I've seen in
this
> group, I would never venture to China for fear of becoming "like them"...
now
> that would be a shame, not to mention stupid.
Yes...exactly.....and what an awesome opportunity indeed for you. I'm
excited and happy for you!
> And conversely... maybe I will
> pick up some little insight that will change my life and the way I view
art,
> relationships, who knows what... ummmm.... think I ought to stay home?
Not on
> your life!
>
> (Nothing personal, Larry... appreciated the opportunity to banter...)
No problem! Wow !!!....what an enrichening experience opportunity. Enjoy!
I would imagine myself so aware of the uniqueness of such a trip....that
my eyes would frantically move about trying to take it all in!
peace....
Larry
Iian Neill
> The need to proclaim MY FAVORITE STYLE is better than YOUR FAVORITE STYLE seems
> quality of their programs. Shame, too... there's so much to talk about and some
> good, if not redundant, minds on board.
The situation that exists at present is more than just a conflict of aesthetic taste
- it relates to the teaching of art in the present, which has bearing on the art of
the future. To put it very simply, I think that universities and art colleges threw
the baby out with the bath water when they abandoned representationalism as the
foundation of art-teaching. There is today a mere ghost of the technical tradition
that once existed. We wouldn't dream of asking concert pianists to teach themselves
or to stop practising - then why do we ask our potential artists to abandon similar
fundamental methods of sharpening their perceptions and developing their innate
abilities.
Whether the art-student ends up painting abstract (ie., non-representational)
works is entirely up to them - but at present the student does not even have any
other option unless he cares to try and teach himself the entire European tradition
spanning four (or even more) centuries. Even this would not impossible were they to
be readily supplied with all the books they could possibly need to effect this. That
is not the case, however. Instead, their education most often remains incomplete.
They might, through sheer dint of talent and perserverance one day attain the goals
they have set themselves - but without that backbone of teaching, the likelihood is
that they won't. After all, this is why teaching is so important to all disciplines.
Why bother having it if it does not improve the skills of the student?
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mdeli
>In article <357ca81b...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
>(mdeli) wrote:
>
>: > (Philip Ayers) wrote:
>: >
>: > >: > >(mdeli) wrote:
>: > >- Rockwell didn't clam to be an "painter".
>: >
>: > He used a brush, canvas and paint. Do you regard him as a plumber?
>
>Not a plumber but an illustrator.
>At the risk of being accused of speaking "artspeak" I'll try to explain.
>When an artist starts a painting it may or may not start out with the
>intent of telling a story, but if doesn't end up telling the story very
>well or not at all it still can succeed as a work of art because the
>artist is going to react to the process as it happens and is willing to
>forgo the story if need be to save the painting or even advance the
>picture to a more immediate level.
Please translate this piece of verbal diarrhea.
>You might say a painting has a life of
>it's own.
Statement doesn't mean a damned thing. Its art school prattle.
> On the other hand an illustrator like Rockwell was telling a
>very specific story which we recognize each time we look.
So was Leonardo's "last Supper" and Memling's "Saint Ursela." and
Picasso's "Massacre in Korea."
SO WHAT'S the difference?
>The characters
>change but they are part of the whole and the success of the illustration
>rest on the believablity of those characters and their ability to advance
>the story line. I can imagine him doing something off the wall or changing
>the logic....never because he would have been fired.
?
>: > >My dear boy I have traveled widely and have been very surprised to see
>: > >works in person after forming an opinion based on reproductions.
>: >
>: > So have I old man.
>: > >Paintings are OBJECTS first and foremost, and are meant to be such!
>: >
>: > No kidding. Gee how informative.
>: >
>: > At last everyone here can now can realize that paintings are objects.
>: > I'm hope you conveyed this astounding piece of information to your
>: > students.
>
>Well I'm sorry to explain the obvious but I thought you were like the guys
>who thought after looking at so many airbrushed PlayBoy pin-ups that women
>didn't have pores or other more human attributes.
You mean like Ingres' portraits or Picasso's neo classical nudes made
of colored cement? I love Vargas. His deco portraits are better than
anything Picasso ever imagined. As to plastic nudes they destroy all
modern artzy-fartzy theories about how photography has replaced any
need for a solid image.
>If you look at images
>too long you start to believe they are real.
Do you believe mickey mouse is real?
> Paintings have pores so to
>speak and this complexity which is lost in photos is precisely where the
>art often resides.
Name ten renaissance portraits that show pores. I can name some
so-called illustrators that do if that will make you feel better.
>: > >An
>: > >artist is a crafts-person to a very large degree.
>: >
>: > Like Norman Rockwell I presume.
>: > >Not it doesn't...not really if we are after the art. ..and I can't help it
>: > >that people can't see the real objects. That still doesn't change the
>: > >truth.
>: >
>: > What truth?
>: >
>: > >: > >On the other hand a painting which is an -illustration- will not get
>: > >: > >appreciable better with an actual viewing because it -IS ONLY-
>an image.
>: >
>: > Whatever that means.
>: >
>: > >: > I see, Matisse and Picasso and your work aren't just images. Now tell
>: > >: > us what else they are that an original for an illustration isn't.
>: > >
>: > >I've addressed that above,
>: >
>: > As usual you addressed no such thing.
>: >
>: > Just tell us why an original Rockwell is an illustration and a Picasso
>: > isn't. I bet you can't unless you go off on your usual convoluted
>: > Artspeak, like saying "its only an image." (which means nothing)
>
>A pin-up is only an image although some think it's a photo of a woman!
I suppose that answers the question in your muddled mind.
>: > Perhaps you can tell us why people like to hang reproductions and why
>: > art students look at slides and why art galleries like to see slides
>: > of perspective artists? Or why auction catalogs contain pictures?
>
>No gallery that I know take an artist on based on slides.
So why do they ask for slides?
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
>> I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
>> However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
>> in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
>> side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
>> artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
>> will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
>> debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
>> happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
>
>This is a nice idea, but I find it very hard to believe that any museum would take it on board seriously.
I don't expect anything from a museum board except collusion.
What I do expect is that eventually the public will hear a voice from
the other side.
If you listen to the news on public stations you get a dialog of
opinions on the news. This format seems to be a no-no on subjects like
art and religion. To hear anything but one side on these matters is
unusual.
Imagine a landscape by Maxfield Parrish hanging in a great art museum
next to a Derain or a Vlamnk of the same period. Or a nude by Vargas
next to a Picasso done in the 1930's or a cell from the drunken scene
in Dumbo next to a Kandinski or a 1920's beaded bag or japanisse
textile design next to a Mondrian in order to let the viewer compare.
I'd love to see the viewer reaction and read the outrage of the artzy
fartzy critics as they shit in their pants.
Philip Ayers
In article <35808621...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
: > So why do they ask for slides?
: >
As a reference, to see what the -general- ideas are.
I've been represented by five different galleries in the past 12 years and
none took me on, based soley on slides. My first gallery representation
came after submitting slides -then the dealer came to a space I rented in
Manhattan, because they wouldn't come to New Haven Ct. where I lived
-based on slides-. In fact I have five or six dealers come in to see
actual work after seeing slides. From that I was ask by two to let them
have works on consignment to -"see what happens" As it turned out nothing
happened, but three years later one of the dealers that came to see work
then, asked me to join the his gallery because "my images (ha ha) had
stuck in his head". After that for various reasons as I switched galleries
or had joint representation, it was all based on the dealers having seen
paintings in an exhibition/s -and-in a magazine or book. Dealers are shop
keepers and if you're lucky they have an eye., but no dealer worth a even
a dime would take an artists on, soley based on the -images- of a given
artist's work.
Now in contridiction to this most grants -are- given to artists based
soley on slides -and- a few also require references. I beleive that the
NEA's slide only review system put them into the -image camp- which -I-
benefited from but, I still think that process favors artist's work that
is heavy on content. An artist like John Lee who is a wonderful painter of
very vaguely defines objects, seemly monochromatic from slides, would not
fair as well as an artist like Red Grooms, or even Chuck Close who got one
of the first NEAs. Of course any artist with name recognition is either in
a better positon or a worst position depending on the reviewers. The NEA
had a problem with numbers and they found the most efficeint way of
reviewing 3000 artists and looking at 30,000 works was through slides, but
at a cost.
Just some information.
N
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9806090...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> I'm with you on this, too, J.j. (or is it J.J.?)
>
> Newman, Rothko, Gottlieb, Kelly ... They don't hold my attention, and in a
> sense, they too are illustrators - illustrating Greenberg and not much
> more.
>
> Please remember I'm not taking an anti-NY school stance, I just question
> the durability of some of the more minimamalist guys.
There is a Rothko retro in Washington, traveling to NYC. This will provide
an oppurtunity to experience his work )for those thst have not seen all
that much of him) and to rethink him for those familiar with certain of
his works.
-N
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
mark webber
N,
I'll be sure to check it out.
By the way, N, I thought I might hear back from you about the criteria
question - do you recall?
On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, N wrote:
> In article mark webber did indeed write:
> > I'm a little suspicious of art for which there is no criteria.
>
> I'm even more curious as to what such an art could be (if it could be?).
>
> Cheers,
> -N.
I replied with a brief anecdote about Dekooning and an explanatio of my
suspicions. If you didn't see it, let me know and I'll forward it to you.
Mark
Bob C
N wrote:
>
> There is a Rothko retro in Washington, traveling to NYC. This will provide
> an oppurtunity to experience his work )for those thst have not seen all
> that much of him) and to rethink him for those familiar with certain of
> his works.
> -N
>
I saw it and it did prompt much rethinking on my part!
For some reason, the two galleries here in DC with regularly display
Rothko like to show work from the later part of his career. At this
point, the colors are drab, the layout formula has been simplified with
little variation, and the works themselves have a very deliberate,
static feeling which I don't particularly like.
So it was interesting to see the works from the earlier part of his
mid-career. He's already hit upon the basic formula and style of
rectangular color fields which he will use for the rest of his life, but
there is greater variation in the the number of fields and their
relationship to one another. The colors are much more vibrant and
luminous. These are the paintings which you can't possibly appreciate by
seeing a reproduction of them. The luminescent power of the large fields
of paint is just to integral to the work.
More importantly for me, however, is that these works seem much more
alive. It's as if Rothko starts the painting but the painting finishes
itself; as if there was only one possible way in which the painting
could be completed and some external omnipotent hand is guiding the
painter towards that goal. Furthermore, this journey towards perfect
completion reveals itself in the painting, thus providing the narrative
content usually missing in such an abstract work.
It is still Rothko's vision and feelings we are seeing expressed, but
the painting has a life of its own in expressing them. This is missing
in his later works in which it appears as if he has completely stifled
the life of the painting in order to gain complete control over it. That
may very well have been his goal, but it is the earlier paintings which
stay in my mind and which I'd go back to see.
- Bob
N
> N,
>
> I'll be sure to check it out.
>
> By the way, N, I thought I might hear back from you about the criteria
> question - do you recall?
>
> On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, N wrote:
>
> > In article mark webber did indeed write:
>
> > > I'm a little suspicious of art for which there is no criteria.
> >
> > I'm even more curious as to what such an art could be (if it could be?).
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -N.
>
>
> I replied with a brief anecdote about Dekooning and an explanatio of my
> suspicions. If you didn't see it, let me know and I'll forward it to you.
Hey Ya Mark,
Sorry, I do not have the post (I have any number of half articulated
replies unposted to various threads...time is running down for writing as
I leave town on Monday for 6 weeks...perhaps in ther future...?).
A stab.
All art has criteria, as at the most fundamental, in order to be perceived
as art, an art discource must exist in the culture. Some cultures do not
have art. Often times an object is presented in an art context by a
curator and it is experienced as art by the viewing public despite the
fact that the originating culture did not have a practice designated as
'art'. Artifacts often are later treated as art, as if they shared in an
artistic life in the originating culture. Duchamp's 'Fountain' can
function as a roundabout commentary on this process.
So, in order to perceive an object as Art, a disource must be established
as to what art is (various possibilities here) in order for the object to
share in that discourse. Of course, partisan interests make efforts to
police art's borders, allowing certain objects/activities the status of
art while excluding others.
In addressing your statement of "I'm a little suspicious of art for which
there is no criteria",I am not refering to an 'evaluative' or qualitative
criterion with respect to art (good or bad, and to what degree), but
rather to fundamental cultural ideologies without which art would not
exist for us at all.
Once we have a cultural practice located as 'art', objects/actions
participate in the discource and by so doing become art.
One simple definition is the nominal one.
In the nominal sense, naming something as art makes it art. Likewise
something made by an artist and declared art is art (...mind you no
evaluatative criterion needs come into play here nor does it alter the
nominal mechanism, good and bad are irrelavent).
The simple fact (sticking to the nominal example for a moment) is that
many cultures have never had any activity known as art. Likewise, many
cultures do have something called art, but it has changed over time,
variously including or excluding realms of experience, objects, or
actions.
Additionally (moving away from a nominal tack) not all ways of
experiencing art are based upon an evaluative (good/bad) criterion. For
example, much structuralist thinking and experience of art is dependent
upon analysis of the structural mechanism of the art. Good or bad are
irrelavant terms.
Some artists work with chance to overcome their tastes and will.
For other artists, self expression or 'expressivity' are not an issue and
they do not wish to express 'anything'...they instead make works (John
Cage comes to mind).
-N.
mark webber
N,
This was a really enjoyable post - some nice summaries of points of view.
I snip a bit, but I don't think I harm the meaning....
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, N wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Jun 1998, N wrote:
> >
> > > In article mark webber did indeed write:
> >
> > > > I'm a little suspicious of art for which there is no criteria.
> > >
> > > I'm even more curious as to what such an art could be (if it could be?).
> >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -N.
> >
> >
> > I replied with a brief anecdote about Dekooning and an explanatio of my
> > suspicions. If you didn't see it, let me know and I'll forward it to you.
>
> Hey Ya Mark,
> Sorry, I do not have the post (I have any number of half articulated
> replies unposted to various threads...time is running down for writing as
> I leave town on Monday for 6 weeks...perhaps in ther future...?).
>
> A stab.
> All art has criteria, as at the most fundamental, in order to be perceived
> as art, an art discource must exist in the culture.
I don't really understand this first sentence in light of what follows.
I mean isn't criteria always a basis of judgement; a standard? As opposed
to simple "identification".
In other words, one can identify all art as art, but one can not evaluate
all art, because some of it eludes judgement.
> Some cultures do not
> have art. Often times an object is presented in an art context by a
> curator and it is experienced as art by the viewing public despite the
> fact that the originating culture did not have a practice designated as
> 'art'. Artifacts often are later treated as art, as if they shared in an
> artistic life in the originating culture. Duchamp's 'Fountain' can
> function as a roundabout commentary on this process.
> So, in order to perceive an object as Art, a disource must be established
> as to what art is (various possibilities here) in order for the object to
> share in that discourse. Of course, partisan interests make efforts to
> police art's borders, allowing certain objects/activities the status of
> art while excluding others.
>
> In addressing your statement of "I'm a little suspicious of art for which
> there is no criteria",I am not refering to an 'evaluative' or qualitative
> criterion with respect to art (good or bad, and to what degree), but
> rather to fundamental cultural ideologies without which art would not
> exist for us at all.
Yes, but I *was* refering to an evaluative process. I'm not saying that
"Fountain" isn't art, or even wanting to evaluate it - but isn't it a bit
tricky that we can evaluate some art and not other art?
> Once we have a cultural practice located as 'art', objects/actions
> participate in the discource and by so doing become art.
>
> One simple definition is the nominal one.
> In the nominal sense, naming something as art makes it art. Likewise
> something made by an artist and declared art is art (...mind you no
> evaluatative criterion needs come into play here nor does it alter the
> nominal mechanism, good and bad are irrelavent).
>
> The simple fact (sticking to the nominal example for a moment) is that
> many cultures have never had any activity known as art. Likewise, many
> cultures do have something called art, but it has changed over time,
> variously including or excluding realms of experience, objects, or
> actions.
>
> Additionally (moving away from a nominal tack) not all ways of
> experiencing art are based upon an evaluative (good/bad) criterion. For
> example, much structuralist thinking and experience of art is dependent
> upon analysis of the structural mechanism of the art. Good or bad are
> irrelavant terms.
>
This does interest me, and I'm sorry you may be away for awhile because it
would be nice to continue about it.
I'm very much behind in my structuralist thinking - I was hoping for an
example, say, a structuralist analysis of a Bonnard. The notion of a
structural mechanism in a painting is a really intriguing one to me. I
mean other than that of the form..
If you want to, when you come back, I hope you'll pick up this thread
again, because I find it pretty interesting.
Mark
mdeli
, Bob C wrote:
>N wrote:
>>
>> There is a Rothko retro in Washington, traveling to NYC. This will provide
>> an oppurtunity to experience his work )for those thst have not seen all
>> that much of him) and to rethink him for those familiar with certain of
>> his works.
>> -N
> The luminescent power of the large fields
>of paint is just to integral to the work.
For someone who never studied a large bed sheet.
>More importantly for me, however, is that these works seem much more
>alive. It's as if Rothko starts the painting but the painting finishes
>itself; as if there was only one possible way in which the painting
>could be completed and some external omnipotent hand is guiding the
>painter towards that goal. Furthermore, this journey towards perfect
>completion reveals itself in the painting, thus providing the narrative
>content usually missing in such an abstract work.
>
The usual Artspeak!
>It is still Rothko's vision and feelings we are seeing expressed,
Which are what Bob?
> but
>the painting has a life of its own in expressing them. This is missing
>in his later works in which it appears as if he has completely stifled
>the life of the painting in order to gain complete control over it. That
>may very well have been his goal, but it is the earlier paintings which
>stay in my mind and which I'd go back to see.
The painting "has a life of its own." Informative? Please explain Bob?
NOTE:
If someone here doesn't like Picasso, likes Bouguereau and says not
nice things about Matisse and Mondrian, in the eyes of artzy fartzies
here he is ranting.
Well I believe the above sentimental loving gush of Artspeak about
Rothko is also a rant. That is why I called this thread Cantor's rant.