Artspeak
mdeli
-make stupidity seem profound
-make incompetence seem philosophical
-excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new
The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:
--use at least two hundred words where you could have used ten.
---use obscure terms especially when writing esoteric theory.
---when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it is
universally accepted as unquestionable truth.
---drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises that
you are well read.
--humor should sound obscure, even grave. (Later modern Artspeak does
contain a bit of humor.)
---when writing a long statement that means practically nothing, use
your skills to construct it in such a way that it never occurs to
your reader to analyze it.
...no skill no art...
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Todd Strickland
The major rules for writing anti-intellectual art drivel are roughly speaking:
1- always repost at least two hundred times when once would suffice.
2- always call any useful art terms "obscure," even if the average high
school student would have no problem understanding them.
3- when stating your biased opinion make it sound like any person who
disagrees is ignorant, untrained, incapable of independent thought,
a huckster, a joker, a con-man, a criminal, a degenerate, or retarded
(preferably all of the above).
4- attack names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises
that you know so much better.
5- sound very condescending. If someone should make a valid point
against your biased opinions, become more condescending; avoid
reasoned debate at all costs.
6- when you come across differing opinions (no matter how concise, well
reasoned, or well expressed) simply dismiss them as esoteric art-speak;
this advertises that others don't need to think about it for themselves.
Anti-intellectual art drivel aims at three audiences:
1- people with lazy minds who enjoy putting down art which
they've never tried to appreciate or understand.
2- makers of quaint and conservative art who are bitter at their
own lack of fame, and tend to blame others for it.
3- to intimidate freethinking people, who find enjoyment and meaning
in various forms of art, with derisive terms and caustic diatribes
with the intent to make them feel intellectually inadequate and
factually uninformed. It serves to prevent any thoughts that the
object in question might really be worth taking seriously.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim it's NOT art it's probably
written by Mani.
...no effort no understanding
Todd Strickland
P.S. I know it's a repost, but what the heck...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Todd Strickland <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.02061...@posting.google.com...
JSA
of anti-intellecual darkness and barbarism. I, for one, appreciate it.
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp (Todd Strickland) wrote in message news:<910eb03.02061...@posting.google.com>...
Nik Maack
JSA wrote:
>
> Touche!, Todd. You bring the light of wit and reason into a bitter pit
> of anti-intellecual darkness and barbarism. I, for one, appreciate it.
I'm far from anti-intellectual, but I think Mani raises valid points.
Say we have before us a pile of debris, or an all blue canvas, or a lone
cinderblock, and the artist presents some complicated verbiage to
justify it being art.
"It's a dialectic between form and symbol in a postmodern blah blah blah."
I for one think we have the right to say, "This must be some kind of
joke." We can laugh at it, call it stupid, say that the artist's medium
is bullshit and acrylic. That's completely valid. To say such a
response is "anti-intellectual" is dismissive and incorrect. Such a
critic isn't opposed to intellect -- quite the opposite, they see the
art as lacking intellect in the first place. If anything, the critic is pro-intellect.
It's not like I'm going to prevent artists from doing whatever they want
to do. If someone wants to put that lone cinderblock somewhere and call
it art -- fine. But it's perfectly reasonable to question the validity
or sense or even sanity of someone who embraces this art as "profound".
Moo E. Calyentay
>It's not like I'm going to prevent artists from doing whatever they want
>to do. If someone wants to put that lone cinderblock somewhere and call
>it art -- fine. But it's perfectly reasonable to question the validity
>or sense or even sanity of someone who embraces this art as "profound".
The challenge isn't in the presentation
of the ordinary object as art, but rather
in being the FIRST person to have done so.
All subsequent presentations of the same
object then face the challenge of being
"new" or at the very least "different."
No doubt others have displayed urinals in
an art context, or piled up ordinary building
bricks a la Carl Andre, but who will ever
hear their names mentioned???
Nik Maack
"Moo E. Calyentay" wrote:
> The challenge isn't in the presentation
> of the ordinary object as art, but rather
> in being the FIRST person to have done so.
> All subsequent presentations of the same
> object then face the challenge of being
> "new" or at the very least "different."
> No doubt others have displayed urinals in
> an art context, or piled up ordinary building
> bricks a la Carl Andre, but who will ever
> hear their names mentioned???
I agree, to a certain extent. Hanging a urinal on an art gallery wall
and saying, "This is art," was once a clever, semi-insulting, brilliant
comment. But it was also a joke. A funny one, when it originally was
said, and maybe even funny to a modern day audience hearing it the first time.
But some people don't seem to understand that it *is* a joke. They
don't laugh at the urinal -- they're taking it seriously. They're
hanging other "nonsensical" objects next to the urinal and nodding
wisely to themselves. It's deep. It's profound. It's an exploration.
No. Let's go back to the urinal for a second. It's an insult. The
artist is pissing in your face.
"What's art? A urinal is art. Ha, ha, ha! You stupid fuckers. Yes, a
urinal is art too. Why not? Laugh, damn you!"
And a collection of extremely demented people are missing the joke.
They're not laughing at the urinal, they're embracing it, seeing it as a
whole new realm of artistic possibility -- what other toilet fixtures
have gone unrecognized as art? Can we put a bidet in here? A sink? A
bathtub? A shower, maybe?
The nihilistic, hysterical, comical "FUCK YOU!" of the urinal becomes a
bland, accepted truth. Yes. A urinal is art. What dry fun.
To me, the greatest sign that a person is dead inside is an inability to
laugh. If you can't laugh at yourself, at art, at your own art, at a
urinal -- you're damned. A lot of the more ridiculous art in art
galleries takes itself WAY too seriously.
Back to the topic that started this thread: A pile of file folders. A
black and white sketch of an empty shelf. A serious artistic depiction
of bureaucracy. Not a hint of giggle or a snicker or even a grin.
Yet another artist who's too serious to smile. How depressing for him.
mdeli
>
>"Moo E. Calyentay" wrote:
>> The challenge isn't in the presentation
>> of the ordinary object as art, but rather
>> in being the FIRST person to have done so.
The challenge is to do it best. First or last counts for nothing.
Can anyone prove that Mondrian's idiotic stripes were the first ever
painted? I believe stripes existed long before. Even if you try to
confuse the issue by calling them color fields.
> Hanging a urinal on an art gallery wall
>and saying, "This is art," was once a clever, semi-insulting, brilliant
>comment.
I think it was always rather stupid.
> But it was also a joke. A funny one, when it originally was
>said, and maybe even funny to a modern day audience hearing it the first time.
Its a stale joke which still impresses twits like Strickland. In fact
Strickland is little more than a stale joke who constantly worries
whether he is intellectual or not.
Most of what stale jokers like Strickland think is profound is really
a stale act of defiance originally done long ago by the long
forgotten. It says this crap is art and I dare you to contradict me.
It is as old as Russian nihilism at the turn of the century.
JSA
To you I say "Put up or shut up." Where would your justification that
your painting is art come from? "It must be so, naturally" is somewhat
insufficient from where I stand.
JSA
> I'm far from anti-intellectual, but I think Mani raises valid points.
> Say we have before us a pile of debris, or an all blue canvas, or a lone
> cinderblock, and the artist presents some complicated verbiage to
> justify it being art.
>
> "It's a dialectic between form and symbol in a postmodern blah blah blah."
>
> I for one think we have the right to say, "This must be some kind of
> joke." We can laugh at it, call it stupid, say that the artist's medium
> is bullshit and acrylic. That's completely valid. To say such a
> response is "anti-intellectual" is dismissive and incorrect. Such a
> critic isn't opposed to intellect -- quite the opposite, they see the
> art as lacking intellect in the first place. If anything, the critic is pro-intellect.
>
> It's not like I'm going to prevent artists from doing whatever they want
> to do. If someone wants to put that lone cinderblock somewhere and call
> it art -- fine. But it's perfectly reasonable to question the validity
> or sense or even sanity of someone who embraces this art as "profound".
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
To you I say "Put up or shut up." Where would your justification that
ww Bracken
Your missing the point (hehehe so to speak) In how many restrooms have you
been and all the R. Mutts are the same? As created by man in a industrial
society
Discussion
Each work contains the unique interpretation
of the artist.
What I think you may be saying is, that all art worth anything
must find some new diversion, must challenge the very meaning
of the word "art" and must redefine our conception of all previous art.
For a youth, this must be right on. Rebellion is very close to most
red blooded youth. But what about the rest of us? Are we waste,
and our views and effort to be cast aside?
Not so. From the 20th Century there has been an ever increasing
worship of youth, resulting in increasing attention to it's works and
opinions. The result can be seen in the bulk of middle and late 20 Cent.
works.
Not that I am saying the opposite, that youth must be ignored. No,
I feel that art must draw upon all types and ages, if we are to have
a satisfying world of art.
Ultimately, worthy art has to stand alone, who the artist was, and what
he may have done before and after, and what he may have said about
it are side issues.
N.H
"Moo E. Calyentay" <m...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3d11c...@oracle.zianet.com...
> In article <3D119E7A...@sympatico.ca>, nikm...@sympatico.ca says...
>
<snip>
Moo E. Calyentay
>I agree, to a certain extent. Hanging a urinal on an art gallery wall
>and saying, "This is art," was once a clever, semi-insulting, brilliant
>comment. But it was also a joke.
Duchamp was an intellectual - or thought himself such.
I don't know that he 'did it as a joke.' He wrote a
treatise on 'why he did it' after the urinal was rejected
for the 1917 exhibition, in which he says of "The Fountain"
.....besides which, the only works of art America has
given (us) are her plumbing and her bridges."
I've never had the patience to wade through all that
he wrote on the subjects of his art. I have read volumes
written about him by others. He himself went
on for volumes about his works and their meanings.
And those who bought into the DaDaist movement took
themselves very seriously, for the most part.
One of the easiest reads I found on Duchamp is the
volume devoted to him published by Time/Life books many
years ago, when they put out their series.
Nik Maack
JSA wrote:
> To you I say "Put up or shut up." Where would your justification that
> your painting is art come from? "It must be so, naturally" is somewhat
> insufficient from where I stand.
How I justify that the stuff I make is art:
I paint it and keep painting it because I like the way it looks; I like
how I feel when I create it; I like how I feel when I look at it. Other
people have complimented me on my stuff. They get something from it.
They buy and commission works.
What more need be said? Everything else is marketing and bullshit.
People talk too goddamn much without saying anything.
I don't pretend to understand why I paint what I do. Like many artists,
I feel like the art has little to do with me, but comes through me. I'm
the window the sun shines through. I try not to think about the sun too
much. If I stare at the sun for too long, I go blind. Then how the
hell am I going to paint?
That's today's answer. I reserve the right to give you a different
answer tomorrow.
ww Bracken
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d0f6792...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> It is the job of the modern art critic by means of Artspeak to:
>
> -make stupidity seem profound
Wow your talking your self agaian
> -make incompetence seem philosophical
> -excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new
>
> The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:
>
> --use at least two hundred words where you could have used ten.
> ---use obscure terms especially when writing esoteric theory.
> ---when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it is
> universally accepted as unquestionable truth.
> ---drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises that
> you are well read.
> --humor should sound obscure, even grave. (Later modern Artspeak does
> contain a bit of humor.)
> ---when writing a long statement that means practically nothing, use
> your skills to construct it in such a way that it never occurs to
> your reader to analyze it.
>
> ...no skill no art...
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
>
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Wow you are amzing in your congrats of your self and also your comprehension
of denile with in your own congrats on yourself. You and Sherlock Holmes
must be related. I got to hand it to you for showing so many people the
path of art work and how art work should be.
Frm now on every artist (or wannbe) should listen to your words in a
Warholian sense.
Nik Maack
ww Bracken wrote (To Mani de Li)
> Wow you're talking yourself again
We all talk to ourselves while pretending to talk to others. A
conversation is two soliloquies joined together like siamese twins. We
speak to hear ourselves, and hope the other will listen. They rarely
do. Why should they? We're not actually talking to them.
Lately, I find myself so bored with other people and what they have to
say, that I find myself constantly interrupting others. I can't be
bothered to wait around for them to finish their boring little thoughts.
Almost everyone speaks in cliché and stereotype -- both in the words
they use, and the ideas they're expressing.
The people around me talk about TV shows, movies, their kids, their
cars, their houses. It's not unusually to hear the same bland things
over and over. Little quips stolen from sitcoms and Hallmark cards and
conversations long dead.
"Children are a blessing."
"Thank God it's Friday!"
"God never gives you more than you can handle."
"Did you see the soccer game last night?"
"You have to work at a marriage to keep it real."
"Is it supposed to rain this weekend?"
"Love is what makes life important."
"Have you seen (the latest big movie) yet?"
"Did you read this story in the newspaper?"
About as much information is exchanged as two dogs barking at each other.
When I join in on a conversation -- in real life, mind you -- I
inevitably kill it by saying something people consider weird. This both
pleases and depresses me.
Bracken wrote (To Mani de Li):
> Wow you are amzing in your congrats of your self and also your comprehension
> of denile with in your own congrats on yourself. You and Sherlock Holmes
> must be related. I got to hand it to you for showing so many people the
> path of art work and how art work should be.
I find it sad how much energy people spend beating on Mani. Every
newsgroup has an "outcast" they've chosen, which everyone gathers around
and mocks. It's how you become part of the "in crowd". If you want to
fit in and be accepted, you've got to kick the outcast.
Being a contrary sort of person, I defend him. I appreciate outsiders
and upstarts more than bland little "me-too" folk. Yes, Mani is
obsessive. Yes, he uses obscenity. Yes, he's rude. But at least he's
passionate about something. He isn't another doll-of-dust trying to
pass itself off as a human being by barking out the right noises.
mdeli
>Actually it is not necessary to 'understand' art at all to enjoy it.
Couldn't agree more. But most of what is said about artwork claims
understanding which is really always conjecture.
I point out again a perfect example here. Marilyn claims she
understands Cezanne. When asked what she understands the usual answer
is you wouldn't understand, period.
What counts in terms of merit is a matter of what's on the wall and
the elements relating to quality, not the artists's life, his
intentions or whether or not he is sincere etc.
I don't believe that painting can be understood in any literal sense.
One can describe what he thinks of subject matter, technique, compare
artwork, mention known facts and ultimately say whether he likes it or
not.
Artspeak extends these descriptions with double talk, verbal
inflation, pseudo philosophy and nonsense theory. This impresses many
until they are asked what exactly they undersand. The cop-out is the
usual answer "you wouldn't understand, period."
mdeli
>
>"Moo E. Calyentay" wrote:
>> The challenge isn't in the presentation
>> of the ordinary object as art, but rather
>> in being the FIRST person to have done so.
The challenge is to do it best. First or last counts for nothing.
Can anyone prove that Mondrian's idiotic stripes were the first ever
painted? I believe stripes existed long before. Even if you try to
confuse the issue by calling them color fields.
> Hanging a urinal on an art gallery wall
>and saying, "This is art," was once a clever, semi-insulting, brilliant
>comment.
I think it was always rather stupid.
> But it was also a joke. A funny one, when it originally was
>said, and maybe even funny to a modern day audience hearing it the first time.
Its a stale joke which still impresses twits like Strickland. In fact
Strickland is little more than a stale joke who constantly worries
whether he is intellectual or not.
Most of what stale jokers like Strickland think is profound is really
a stale act of defiance originally done long ago by the long
forgotten. It says this crap is art and I dare you to contradict me.
It is as old as Russian nihilism at the turn of the century.
JSA
> JSA wrote:
> > To you I say "Put up or shut up." Where would your justification that
> > your painting is art come from? "It must be so, naturally" is somewhat
> > insufficient from where I stand.
>
> How I justify that the stuff I make is art:
>
> I paint it and keep painting it because I like the way it looks; I like
> how I feel when I create it; I like how I feel when I look at it. Other
> people have complimented me on my stuff. They get something from it.
> They buy and commission works.
This is more ejaculation than justification. None of it gives you
grounds for rejecting someone else's work; they can always say "I like
the way it looks and I get compliments and it sells like hot cakes"
straight back to you.
> What more need be said?
You should try to answer this question yourself.
Everything else is marketing and bullshit.
> People talk too goddamn much without saying anything.
>
> I don't pretend to understand why I paint what I do. Like many artists,
> I feel like the art has little to do with me, but comes through me. I'm
> the window the sun shines through. I try not to think about the sun too
> much. If I stare at the sun for too long, I go blind. Then how the
> hell am I going to paint?
This is giberish.
ww Bracken
Your giving Mani way to much credit for argument that is with out
consequences. One could almost replace the word mani with diatribe in the
dictionary. And the mere mention of the word mani means that the person
behind that word has become the very antithesis of that argument. One could
compare that person to an Ex Lax commercial or AT&T or Campbell's Soup in
the context of function follows form.
Todd Strickland
> (Dan Fox) wrote:
>
>
> >Actually it is not necessary to 'understand' art at all to enjoy it.
>
> Couldn't agree more. But most of what is said about artwork claims
> understanding which is really always conjecture.
Interpretation is inherently conjectural. Two people can interpret a work
in an entirely contradictory way, and there's no point worrying who's right
BECAUSE it's conjecture. I don't have any problem with the fact that others
interpret a work differently than I. This is not calculus were talking
about, but art.
>
> I point out again a perfect example here. Marilyn claims she
> understands Cezanne. When asked what she understands the usual answer
> is you wouldn't understand, period.
>
> What counts in terms of merit is a matter of what's on the wall and
> the elements relating to quality, not the artists's life, his
> intentions or whether or not he is sincere etc.
>
> I don't believe that painting can be understood in any literal sense.
I believe people can't help but interpret. I'll bet that even you do it.
If you saw a crucifixion where the artist had painted Christ black, you'd
start to conjecture as to why. You'd attempt to interpret. And facts that
you might know about the artist's life, etc. would figure into your
interpretation. If you met the artist at his show, and he was a white,
middle-class, Cal-arts graduate you might start to feel that the painting is
somewhat ironic. If the painter was black you might feel there was a
political meaning to the painting. If the painting was a folk art icon from
Africa, you'd probably refrain from ascribing any political inference.
You wouldn't just say, "Oh, look at the skillful rendition of a human form
in a believable space" and leave it at that. The simple fact that you could
recognize the scene as a CRUCIFIXION shows that interpretation is taking
place on some level.
> One can describe what he thinks of subject matter, technique, compare
> artwork, mention known facts and ultimately say whether he likes it or
> not.
Yes, and one can also interpret.
>
> Artspeak extends these descriptions with double talk, verbal
> inflation, pseudo philosophy and nonsense theory. This impresses many
> until they are asked what exactly they understand. The cop-out is the
> usual answer "you wouldn't understand, period."
I, for one, never use that cop-out. I've written here about various works
which I believe I understand on some level. This inevitably brings the
"Artspeak" criticism from you, but others seem to understand what I'm saying
(even if they disagree with me). They likewise answer me in words that I
can understand, so it seems that we are conversing about something.
Todd Strickland
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> I believe people can't help but interpret. I'll bet that even you do it.
> If you saw a crucifixion where the artist had painted Christ black, you'd
> start to conjecture as to why. You'd attempt to interpret. And facts
that
> you might know about the artist's life, etc. would figure into your
> interpretation. If you met the artist at his show, and he was a white,
> middle-class, Cal-arts graduate you might start to feel that the painting
is
> somewhat ironic. If the painter was black you might feel there was a
> political meaning to the painting. If the painting was a folk art icon
from
> Africa, you'd probably refrain from ascribing any political inference.
>
> You wouldn't just say, "Oh, look at the skillful rendition of a human form
> in a believable space" and leave it at that. The simple fact that you
could
> recognize the scene as a CRUCIFIXION shows that interpretation is taking
> place on some level.
>
calculus, there have been two quite different interpretations of
infinitesimals - one holds that they exist as particular values, the other
that they only tend towards those values.
Since art is a form of communication it needs to be interpreted, that is a
given. There may be intentional ambiguity communicated by the artist,
inviting multiple views - it may even be a commuication hoping that some
people will understand both as a form of gestalt, like the famous vase made
up of two faces.
This is not, however, to say that all 'interpretation' is legitimate. To say
that the Mona Lisa is actually a portrait of a break dancer waiting to be
handed a spliff during a break and that the smile is because the model is on
ecstacy is plainly tosh.
Not only that, but knowing the sex, race and taste in crossword puzzles of
the artist is not guarenteed to improve your success in interpreting their
paintings (or understanding them, which is a better way to consider what the
receiver of communication does).
If you extend art to include poetry, which, at one level it does, then it is
well known that some poetry cannot be understood by somebody who is not a
native speaker of the language. No translation can do justice to the
original. An excellent example of this is 'The River Merchant's wife',
translated from the Chinese by Ezra Pound. A fairly recent edition of the
TLS printed another translation by a noted sinologist and scholar in
Chinese - though you could see it was a perfectly good translation it failed
to capture the poem so much more than Pounds brilliant translation that it
was a brilliant exposition of what it means to interpret art.
--
The square and square square curves osculate at nothing, just like the
French.
Nik Maack
JSA wrote:
> > What more need be said?
>
> You should try to answer this question yourself.
There's only one proper response to this sort of comment: Go fuck your
mother's butthole until the blood stains the silk lining of her coffin.
> > I don't pretend to understand why I paint what I do. Like many artists,
> > I feel like the art has little to do with me, but comes through me. I'm
> > the window the sun shines through. I try not to think about the sun too
> > much. If I stare at the sun for too long, I go blind. Then how the
> > hell am I going to paint?
>
> This is giberish.
Actually, it's poetry. Do you want me to explain it to you, or would
you prefer to believe it's gibberish? I'm guessing the latter.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Actually, it's poetry. Do you want me to explain it to you, or would
> you prefer to believe it's gibberish? I'm guessing the latter.
>
sense, so, no, it isn't poetry.
Nik Maack
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
> I am afraid that it doesn't rhyme, it doesn't scan, and it doesn't make
> sense, so, no, it isn't poetry.
With a point of view as narrow as this, I can understand why you're
afraid. You must be terrified of a lot of things.
Nik
Todd Strickland
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:af3t3t$pf4$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
I'm having flashbacks to a nasty debate about Zeno a few years back in
another newsgroup!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl698335618d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=
UTF8&selm=34A2BC65.95AD245B%40bb.mbn.or.jp&rnum=160
>
> Since art is a form of communication it needs to be interpreted, that is a
> given. There may be intentional ambiguity communicated by the artist,
> inviting multiple views - it may even be a commuication hoping that some
> people will understand both as a form of gestalt, like the famous vase
made
> up of two faces.
>
> This is not, however, to say that all 'interpretation' is legitimate. To
say
> that the Mona Lisa is actually a portrait of a break dancer waiting to be
> handed a spliff during a break and that the smile is because the model is
on
> ecstacy is plainly tosh.
I agree.
>
> Not only that, but knowing the sex, race and taste in crossword puzzles of
> the artist is not guarenteed to improve your success in interpreting their
> paintings (or understanding them, which is a better way to consider what
the
> receiver of communication does).
I know there is a vein of criticism which says one shouldn't consider these
things, but I disagree. Of course, we should be careful not to jump to
conclusions too easily just because we know some personal information about
the artist. But within reason, it's absolutely necessary to consider these
things.
A few months back there was a thread about Bosch, in which I said that many
of the hellish images had Christian allegorical meanings. Erik Matilla
pointed out that I was overlooking the satirical side of Bosch, that many of
these images were attacks on the church. I think Erik is right, and that
interpretation is bolstered by the facts that Bosch was from the north,
painting on the eve of the Reformation and the Peasant Revolt. Erik is
right to consider those historical facts when viewing Bosch.
>
> If you extend art to include poetry, which, at one level it does, then it
is
> well known that some poetry cannot be understood by somebody who is not a
> native speaker of the language. No translation can do justice to the
> original. An excellent example of this is 'The River Merchant's wife',
> translated from the Chinese by Ezra Pound. A fairly recent edition of the
> TLS printed another translation by a noted sinologist and scholar in
> Chinese - though you could see it was a perfectly good translation it
failed
> to capture the poem so much more than Pounds brilliant translation that it
> was a brilliant exposition of what it means to interpret art.
That's interesting, drawing a comparison between "translating" and
"interpreting." It's a nice metaphor, but it shouldn't be stretched too
far. As you know, interpreting isn't translating the visual into words; in
a previous discussion on Cezanne you raised the point that in talking about
a painting we can lose sight of the experience of actually viewing it.
Todd Strickland
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D15F421...@sympatico.ca...
Poor chap. Fear has nothing to do with understanding poetry - it can have
something to do with lacking a proper education and being chippy as a
result. Maybe that is what you fear.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > This is true of all communication, even the calculus. In fact, in the
> > calculus, there have been two quite different interpretations of
> > infinitesimals - one holds that they exist as particular values, the
other
> > that they only tend towards those values.
>
> I'm having flashbacks to a nasty debate about Zeno a few years back in
> another newsgroup!
>
Sorry, I had no desire to cause flash backs. Zeno was quite an early starter
in this regard, certainly, and, in a way, the famous race between Achilles
and the tortoise was a question about infinitesimals.
>
> >
> > Not only that, but knowing the sex, race and taste in crossword puzzles
of
> > the artist is not guarenteed to improve your success in interpreting
their
> > paintings (or understanding them, which is a better way to consider what
> the
> > receiver of communication does).
>
> I know there is a vein of criticism which says one shouldn't consider
these
> things, but I disagree. Of course, we should be careful not to jump to
> conclusions too easily just because we know some personal information
about
> the artist. But within reason, it's absolutely necessary to consider
these
> things.
>
I think that it rather depends. I have enjoyed reading, for example, a
biography of Matisse, and it did affect my thinking about him and his
paintings as an ouvre, but it didn't affect my reaction to and understanding
of particular paintings of his.
>
> A few months back there was a thread about Bosch, in which I said that
many
> of the hellish images had Christian allegorical meanings. Erik Matilla
> pointed out that I was overlooking the satirical side of Bosch, that many
of
> these images were attacks on the church. I think Erik is right, and that
> interpretation is bolstered by the facts that Bosch was from the north,
> painting on the eve of the Reformation and the Peasant Revolt. Erik is
> right to consider those historical facts when viewing Bosch.
>
He is sufficiently far from our time for that to be necessary - if you don't
share the general judaeo-christian European background that he had.
As art qua art is concerned, though Bosch creates vivid and understandable
images, as does Fra Angelico's brilliant fresco of Hell in Orvietto. It is
only after that has been absorbed and understood that the allegory comes
into play.
>
> >
> > If you extend art to include poetry, which, at one level it does, then
it
> is
> > well known that some poetry cannot be understood by somebody who is not
a
> > native speaker of the language. No translation can do justice to the
> > original. An excellent example of this is 'The River Merchant's wife',
> > translated from the Chinese by Ezra Pound. A fairly recent edition of
the
> > TLS printed another translation by a noted sinologist and scholar in
> > Chinese - though you could see it was a perfectly good translation it
> failed
> > to capture the poem so much more than Pounds brilliant translation that
it
> > was a brilliant exposition of what it means to interpret art.
>
> That's interesting, drawing a comparison between "translating" and
> "interpreting." It's a nice metaphor, but it shouldn't be stretched too
> far. As you know, interpreting isn't translating the visual into words;
in
> a previous discussion on Cezanne you raised the point that in talking
about
> a painting we can lose sight of the experience of actually viewing it.
>
I would still agree with that point. I also agree that you can take the
metaphor too far.
I would think that when you look at a painting the translation is not into
words.
Rather the painting is a window through which you look and what you see is a
transformation, or translation, of the image that existed in the painter's
mind as he tried to communicate with you. So a mental visual image is
translated to a physical representation that is translated back into a
mental visual image. There are, of course, as with translations of poetry,
conventions to be taken into account. The balance of compositional items in
space as used in a Chinese painting needs to be understood before you can
see the original image - just as the different perspectives of Escher and
the unnamed Egyptian painters of the frescos in the pyramids have to be
understood as conventions.
I mention Escher as he, along with a good many other artists, has enjoyed
playing with the conventions to communicate a more cerebral meta-artistic,
though still visual, point. So, as with the allegory of Bosch, once you have
seen the Escher drawing of the impossible waterfall as a visual
communication, you then have to untangle the joke of certain two dimensional
figures, when interpreted through the convention of point perspective,
giving the illusion of an impossible three dimensional object. Of course,
you then have to consider what Escher, like Bosch, is meaning to communicate
by this - even if it is only playfulness. At that stage, and only at that
fairly late stage, in appreciating the painting or drawing would a better
understanding of the Artist's background be important.
mdeli
>"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> I don't believe that painting can be understood in any literal sense.
>
>I believe people can't help but interpret. I'll bet that even you do it.
I certainly do. interpreting is not understanding. The accusation I
constantly get is I just don't "understand" Modern Art.
The very basis of surrealism is that the artist juxtaposes images
which if the painting is successful, interest the viewer enough to
formulate some sort of personal interpretation. That is not
understanding in any literal sense.
From here on you speak of interpretation not understanding.
>If you saw a crucifixion where the artist had painted Christ black, you'd
>start to conjecture as to why. You'd attempt to interpret. And facts that
>you might know about the artist's life, etc. would figure into your
>interpretation. If you met the artist at his show, and he was a white,
>middle-class, Cal-arts graduate you might start to feel that the painting is
>somewhat ironic. If the painter was black you might feel there was a
>political meaning to the painting. If the painting was a folk art icon from
>Africa, you'd probably refrain from ascribing any political inference.
>
>You wouldn't just say, "Oh, look at the skillful rendition of a human form
>in a believable space" and leave it at that. The simple fact that you could
>recognize the scene as a CRUCIFIXION shows that interpretation is taking
>place on some level.
>
>> One can describe what he thinks of subject matter, technique, compare
>> artwork, mention known facts and ultimately say whether he likes it or
>> not.
>
>Yes, and one can also interpret.
>
Now you switch to "understanding."
>> Artspeak extends these descriptions with double talk, verbal
>> inflation, pseudo philosophy and nonsense theory. This impresses many
>> until they are asked what exactly they understand. The cop-out is the
>> usual answer "you wouldn't understand, period."
>
>I, for one, never use that cop-out. I've written here about various works
>which I believe I understand on some level.
>This inevitably brings the
>"Artspeak" criticism from you, but others seem to understand what I'm saying
>(even if they disagree with me). They likewise answer me in words that I
>can understand, so it seems that we are conversing about something.
Here is a quote I consider Artspeak and my comments
>Pollock's paintings lack the narrative content of Raphael or Goya, but
>still express content (spectacularly, I would say)
great! Name one content besides paint and canvas.
>through their formal elements. Just as Raphael's painting expresses balance (as an
>artistic and philosophical ideal) through the painting's balance,
>Pollock expresses dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity,
>"nature," and a host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're
>talking about.
Pure Artspeak
>Finally, it's useful to know a little about the artistic and
>philosophical trends of the time which may have influenced the
artist.
> For example, Pollock's "dripping" of paint grows out of Surrealistic
>"automatic" writing and drawing, as practiced by Miro and Arp, among
>others.
They grew out of drunkenness and a look at his dirty shoes.
>This just scratches the surface; I didn't even touch on areas like
>adherence to (or rejection of) artistic convention, color theory, and
>"subconscious" or unintentional meanings.
We can be glad of that!
Any critical forgiveness for a lack of skill and craftsmanship is due to a temporary surrender to fashion.
...no skill no art..
Peter H.M. Brooks
balance (as an
> >artistic and philosophical ideal) through the painting's balance,
> >Pollock expresses dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity,
> >"nature," and a host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're
> >talking about.
>
> Pure Artspeak
>
society might be interested in publishing some of it...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
and the application of scientific perspective.
On one of my weekly trips to our national gallery I discovered that walking
parallel to and from one side to the other of a very large painting, the
back chair legs which had been drawn and painted in perspective seemed to
follow me as I looked side ways at the painting while walking.
Naturally I began to perform this exercise with many paintings and found the
illusion was a standard occurrence with a rectangular object, or objects
that could be interpreted as forming a receding rectangle, was placed in
the foreground below the painting's horizon .
I have found this effect in many paintings and it continues to fascinate me,
raising in my mind the idea that we live in a relative universe consisting
of a variety of truths. Much like the story of the blind men, each trying
to define the elephant by touching a different part of its' body, but never
being able to determine the whole.
keith
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:af52fr$s42$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Todd Strickland
> "Todd Strickland" wrote:
>
> >"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> I don't believe that painting can be understood in any literal sense.
> >
> >I believe people can't help but interpret. I'll bet that even you do it.
>
> I certainly do. interpreting is not understanding. The accusation I
> constantly get is I just don't "understand" Modern Art.
>
> The very basis of surrealism is that the artist juxtaposes images
> which if the painting is successful, interest the viewer enough to
> formulate some sort of personal interpretation. That is not
> understanding in any literal sense.
>
> From here on you speak of interpretation not understanding.
I can't quite follow the way your using these words here. Frankly, it looks
a bit like verbal obfuscation to me, which is ironic coming from one so
hyper-sensitive to "Artspeak."
Interpretation is the tool by which we understand a work, or at least,
attempt to. That seems like basic standard English usage of the word to me.
If someone views a surrealist painting and formulates a personal
interpretation, why is that not understanding (or at least a step toward
understanding) in a literal sense? Is there some other form of
"understanding?"
If your trying to say that the "literal" interpretation one comes up with
can never encapsulate the entire experience of viewing a work, or that one's
interpretation can never perfectly match the painters intended meanings,
then I agree with you. But as I said before, I have no problem with these
given "limitations" to interpretation.
But if your saying that the viewing experience itself, shorn of any attempt
at interpretation, equals some sort of "understanding" then I disagree.
Viewing is viewing, and can lead to aesthetic enjoyment, but that doesn't
seem to invlove any sense of understanding. Understanding comes from
interpreting what one sees.
>
> >If you saw a crucifixion where the artist had painted Christ black, you'd
> >start to conjecture as to why. You'd attempt to interpret. And facts
that
> >you might know about the artist's life, etc. would figure into your
> >interpretation. If you met the artist at his show, and he was a white,
> >middle-class, Cal-arts graduate you might start to feel that the painting
is
> >somewhat ironic. If the painter was black you might feel there was a
> >political meaning to the painting. If the painting was a folk art icon
from
> >Africa, you'd probably refrain from ascribing any political inference.
> >
> >You wouldn't just say, "Oh, look at the skillful rendition of a human
form
> >in a believable space" and leave it at that. The simple fact that you
could
> >recognize the scene as a CRUCIFIXION shows that interpretation is taking
> >place on some level.
> >
> >> One can describe what he thinks of subject matter, technique, compare
> >> artwork, mention known facts and ultimately say whether he likes it or
> >> not.
> >
> >Yes, and one can also interpret.
> >
> Now you switch to "understanding."
Where? I gave examples of possible interpretations. I pointed out that any
one who looks at a crucifixion and recognizes it as such is interpreting.
>
> >> Artspeak extends these descriptions with double talk, verbal
> >> inflation, pseudo philosophy and nonsense theory. This impresses many
> >> until they are asked what exactly they understand. The cop-out is the
> >> usual answer "you wouldn't understand, period."
> >
> >I, for one, never use that cop-out. I've written here about various
works
> >which I believe I understand on some level. This inevitably brings the
> >"Artspeak" criticism from you, but others seem to understand what I'm
saying
> >(even if they disagree with me). They likewise answer me in words that I
> >can understand, so it seems that we are conversing about something.
>
> Here is a quote I consider Artspeak and my comments
>
> >Pollock's paintings lack the narrative content of Raphael or Goya, but
> >still express content (spectacularly, I would say)
>
> great! Name one content besides paint and canvas.
See below.
>
> >through their formal elements. Just as Raphael's painting expresses
balance (as an
> >artistic and philosophical ideal) through the painting's balance,
> >Pollock expresses dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity,
> >"nature," and a host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're
> >talking about.
>
> Pure Artspeak
Well, at least I do it purely! Maybe I'll apply with Artforum...
>
> >Finally, it's useful to know a little about the artistic and
> >philosophical trends of the time which may have influenced the
> >artist. For example, Pollock's "dripping" of paint grows out of
Surrealistic
> >"automatic" writing and drawing, as practiced by Miro and Arp, among
> >others.
>
> They grew out of drunkenness and a look at his dirty shoes.
Could you cite some sources to support that conjecture, please? Your
"interpretation" seems more pathetic than mine, IMO.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
>"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:3d1616a1...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> "Todd Strickland" wrote:
>>
>> >"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> I don't believe that painting can be understood in any literal sense.
>> >
>> >I believe people can't help but interpret. I'll bet that even you do it.
>>
>> I certainly do. interpreting is not understanding. The accusation I
>> constantly get is I just don't "understand" Modern Art.
>>
>> The very basis of surrealism is that the artist juxtaposes images
>> which if the painting is successful, interest the viewer enough to
>> formulate some sort of personal interpretation. That is not
>> understanding in any literal sense.
>>
>> From here on you speak of interpretation not understanding.
>
>I can't quite follow the way your using these words here. Frankly, it looks
>a bit like verbal obfuscation to me, which is ironic coming from one so
>hyper-sensitive to "Artspeak."
I repeat, "I don't believe that painting can be understood in any
literal sense." Math and science can be understood. The so called
language of modern art can not, if it even exists.
>
>Interpretation is the tool by which we understand a work, or at least,
>attempt to.
We don't interpret Math in order to understand it. I'm not saying that
there are matters about math that may require interpretation.
> That seems like basic standard English usage of the word to me.
>If someone views a surrealist painting and formulates a personal
>interpretation, why is that not understanding (or at least a step toward
>understanding) in a literal sense? Is there some other form of
>"understanding?"
Because interpretation isn't understanding.
>If your trying to say that the "literal" interpretation one comes up with
>can never encapsulate the entire experience of viewing a work, or that one's
>interpretation can never perfectly match the painters intended meanings,
>then I agree with you.
Fine.
>> Here is a quote I consider Artspeak and my comments
>>
>> >through their formal elements. Just as Raphael's painting expresses
>balance (as an
>> >artistic and philosophical ideal) through the painting's balance,
>> >Pollock expresses dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity,
>> >"nature," and a host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're
>> >talking about.
>>
>> Pure Artspeak
>
>Well, at least I do it purely! Maybe I'll apply with Artforum...
You won't make it because most of what you say doesn't conform to the
Baroque versions of Artspeak which Artforum requires. Most of what you
write is clearly written if ponderous and that won't do in Artzy
Fartzy circles.
>>
>> >Finally, it's useful to know a little about the artistic and
>> >philosophical trends of the time which may have influenced the
>> >artist. For example, Pollock's "dripping" of paint grows out of
>Surrealistic
>> >"automatic" writing and drawing, as practiced by Miro and Arp, among
>> >others.
>>
>> They grew out of drunkenness and a look at his dirty shoes.
>
>Could you cite some sources to support that conjecture, please? Your
>"interpretation" seems more pathetic than mine, IMO.
Yes, take a look at the Photos of Pollock's shoes. Pollock was a
mega-slob deeply inspired by his surrounding filth.
Andrew D
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp (Todd Strickland) wrote:
[snip]
+The major rules for writing anti-intellectual art drivel are roughly speaking:
[snip]
It hardly takes intellect to read a critic's description of an abstract
work and simply accept it at face value. It would indeed be an
intellectual exercise if a dozen or so different critics independently
viewed a new work and came to very similar conclusions about its merits,
purpose, intent, technique and its meaning. Since this never seems to
happen, the act of critiquing art - or of believing a critique - can
hardly be described as an intellectual exercise. It is more an act of
faith.
[snip]
British comedian Ben Elton got it right when he said the problem with
critics is that in order to justify their own existence, they must dismiss
public support as ignorance because if the public know best, the critics
become obsolete.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
>
> British comedian Ben Elton got it right when he said the problem with
> critics is that in order to justify their own existence, they must dismiss
> public support as ignorance because if the public know best, the critics
> become obsolete.
>
again, there would be no need for critics.
They are rather like the builder/barber/car mechanic, who will look at what
his fellow tradesman has done and remark 'that looks like a botched job, you
just can't get quality work done these days' - implying that he has the gift
lesser workmen lack.
Andrew D
+JSA wrote:
+>
+> Touche!, Todd. You bring the light of wit and reason into a bitter pit
+> of anti-intellecual darkness and barbarism. I, for one, appreciate it.
+
+I'm far from anti-intellectual, but I think Mani raises valid points.
+Say we have before us a pile of debris, or an all blue canvas, or a lone
+cinderblock, and the artist presents some complicated verbiage to
+justify it being art.
+
+"It's a dialectic between form and symbol in a postmodern blah blah blah."
+I for one think we have the right to say, "This must be some kind of
+joke." We can laugh at it, call it stupid, say that the artist's medium
+is bullshit and acrylic. That's completely valid. To say such a
+response is "anti-intellectual" is dismissive and incorrect. Such a
+critic isn't opposed to intellect -- quite the opposite, they see the
+art as lacking intellect in the first place. If anything, the critic is
pro-intellect.
Absolutely spot on. Anti-intellectual is believing a couple of weekend
scientists who claim to have harnessed nuclear power by stapling a lemon
to a mashed potato. An intellectual would look at the unit in question and
say, "okay, I've read your thesis but I don't see the nuclear reaction,
therefore I doubt your claims have any credibility." People who believe
that verbose descriptions of art art oddities validate those works as
"real art" would presumably believe that nuclear fission is just one
pantry away from solving the world's energy problems - hardly an
intellectual conclusion.
+It's not like I'm going to prevent artists from doing whatever they want
+to do. If someone wants to put that lone cinderblock somewhere and call
+it art -- fine. But it's perfectly reasonable to question the validity
+or sense or even sanity of someone who embraces this art as "profound".
The problem is that the critics use opposition as a form of validation.
The more controversial a piece is, the more it is proclaimed to be "great
art". If it is publicly reviled then this revulsion is proof of the work's
emotional authority. It's like Monty Python's Brian trying to deny he's
the messiah - he can't win because his denial is proof of his divinity -
as is his agreement.
Andrew D
jsa_...@yahoo.com (JSA) wrote:
+Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<3D119E7A...@sympatico.ca>...
[snip]
+> It's not like I'm going to prevent artists from doing whatever they want
+> to do. If someone wants to put that lone cinderblock somewhere and call
+> it art -- fine. But it's perfectly reasonable to question the validity
+> or sense or even sanity of someone who embraces this art as "profound".
+To you I say "Put up or shut up." Where would your justification that
+your painting is art come from? "It must be so, naturally" is somewhat
+insufficient from where I stand.
Should it come from self-proclaimed experts - many of whom have never
lifted a brush? Should we just believe them because others do? Isn't that
just blind faith?
Just because it's taught at uni, does that make it true? There are many
people who have done "women's studies" who can attest that "facts" are
sometimes fundamentally wrong and require a blind leap of faith to accept
and work with. Yet these facts continue being taught because those who
teach them claim to be the repository of truth and all those who disagree
are misogynists (in the case of women's studies). Why is it that those
who expose the fallability of the art elite are immediately labelled
"anti-intellectual"? Why should we believe that lecturers know all there
is to know about what makes something "art"? Who told them? How is their
experience tested? Who decides who's an expert and who's ignorant?
The problem for us is that expertise in art is not qualifiable. Two
supposed experts independently looking at a brand new piece from an
unknown "artist" will likely draw very different conclusions from it yet
we are supposed to believe each of them is an "expert" because they both
hold senior positions at major universities or galleries. If this was
science, it would be easier to know who's the expert because scientific
testing ultimately exposes truth. (You might claim to have harnessed
nuclear fission but if you can't prove it then your claims are worthless).
But this isn't science so while no two people can independently draw
identical conclusions from one artwork, no one can really claim to be an
art expert.
At a personal level it's easy to understand what is and isn't art - you
just know. Problems arise when taxpayer's money starts being spent in one
area of art, despite the loud protestations of the taxpayers themselves,
becasue the so-called experts dictate what should be recognised as real
art and they rarely agree with the general public because to do so would
involve them stepping out of their ivory tower and accepting that maybe,
just maybe, the public do know what great art is - and that would render
the "expert" obsolete.
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Because interpretation isn't understanding.
Here lies the key, I believe. As Mani seems to be saying, many people
confuse interpretation with understanding. This usually looks likes, "I
interpret this painting in my own way, and that is THE way of
understanding the work." Personal opinion and bias become "fact".
I can interpret a painting, but that doesn't mean I understand it. In
fact, I'd go so far as to say that you can't "understand" a painting --
you can't KNOW what it means "for certain" no matter how simple the work
is. Understanding implies complete, for certain knowledge of what a
work entails. But there is no "for certain". There is only
interpreting. And while some interpretations of a particular painting
may be more fashionable than others, that doesn't make the
interpretation correct.
It's like when people try to figure out what an artist intended to say,
assuming they intended to say anything. It's a game you can play, but
it's a futile one. Even if you have the artist there, in your room,
tied to a chair. Torture the painter day and night, and he might give
you an explanation of their work. But who's to say the artist has a
clearer perspective on the painting than anyone else?
Once a work is complete and "let loose", it takes on its own life. It
no longer "belongs" to the artist. What the work means is open to
interpretation -- and your opinion of what the work means might make
more sense than the artist's own opinion.
Andrew D
+(Dan Fox) wrote:
+
+
+>Actually it is not necessary to 'understand' art at all to enjoy it.
+
+Couldn't agree more. But most of what is said about artwork claims
+understanding which is really always conjecture.
+
+I point out again a perfect example here. Marilyn claims she
+understands Cezanne. When asked what she understands the usual answer
+is you wouldn't understand, period.
+What counts in terms of merit is a matter of what's on the wall and
+the elements relating to quality, not the artists's life, his
+intentions or whether or not he is sincere etc.
+I don't believe that painting can be understood in any literal sense.
+One can describe what he thinks of subject matter, technique, compare
+artwork, mention known facts and ultimately say whether he likes it or
+not.
+Artspeak extends these descriptions with double talk, verbal
+inflation, pseudo philosophy and nonsense theory. This impresses many
+until they are asked what exactly they undersand. The cop-out is the
+usual answer "you wouldn't understand, period."
Here's one from a recent newspaper:
First the reviewer tells us that the exhibition in question is "an
absolute cornucopia of unstoppable abstract paintings". Then goes on;
"He pours and dribbles his paint with great energy and control, making, in
effect, grand gestural musings, which are decorative but also very much
images of the actual act of creation"
What the...?
"unstoppable abstract paintings" - Perhaps the wires and hooks should be
attached more firmly? ;)
"Great energy".... "and control" : I guess this means the artist goes mad
for a while then carefully pours a few final dribbles of paint in almost
defined shapes. So what? Would it matter if he produced the work reclining
in his hammock whilst sipping gin and tonic and drawing on his fourth
joint for the morning. Does anyone care?
"grand gestural musings" : what does the reviewer mean? The paintings are
big and not tightly controlled, therefore they must be "grand and
gestural", not "big and loose" and presumably this reviewer has no idea
what the paintings are about, so therefore they must be "musings"
"images of the actual act of creation" : The paintings in question are
exactly what you might expect - poured and dribbled paint, sometimes in
vague geometric shapes and sometimes "oops I knocked the can over". But
are they "images of the actual act of creation"????? No more so than ANY
other painting, drawing, sculpture.... in fact, anything which has been
created. A McDonalds burger depicts the act of creation as does a rubbish
tip or a dog collar - or a used tissue.
It all depicts creation because without its creation, it wouldn't exist.
But is it necessarily art simply because it exists? Does nothing else
matter? Are we supposed to elevate these paintings because, by their vary
existence, they demonstrate the act of creration? That would be patently
stupid because it would require that everything else man has ever had a
hand in be similarly elevated - and therefore, nothing would be elevated.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> I have always been interested in the conflict between 'Impossible Objects'
> and the application of scientific perspective.
>
> On one of my weekly trips to our national gallery I discovered that walking
> parallel to and from one side to the other of a very large painting, the
> back chair legs which had been drawn and painted in perspective seemed to
> follow me as I looked side ways at the painting while walking.
>
> Naturally I began to perform this exercise with many paintings and found the
> illusion was a standard occurrence with a rectangular object, or objects
> that could be interpreted as forming a receding rectangle, was placed in
> the foreground below the painting's horizon .
>
follow you around the room are a natural effect when they are painted
facing straight out o the canvas.
>
> I have found this effect in many paintings and it continues to fascinate me,
> raising in my mind the idea that we live in a relative universe consisting
> of a variety of truths. Much like the story of the blind men, each trying
> to define the elephant by touching a different part of its' body, but never
> being able to determine the whole.
>
important point is that there is a real elephant. Just as there are
real chairs.
Relativism is a dangerous doctrine that leads to nonsense.
--
If moral relativism is true, then there can be no evil. That is the
doctrine of Caligula, Pol Pot and Stalin.
Andrew D
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
+I have always been interested in the conflict between 'Impossible Objects'
+and the application of scientific perspective.
+
+On one of my weekly trips to our national gallery I discovered that walking
+parallel to and from one side to the other of a very large painting, the
+back chair legs which had been drawn and painted in perspective seemed to
+follow me as I looked side ways at the painting while walking.
Of course something painted on a two-dimensional surface follws you
everywhere if it follows you at all. People often remark how the eyes in a
portrait "seem to follow you around the room", but since the painting is
flat the eyes have little choice. There is no weirdness at work. No matter
where you stand you are still looking at "the face" straight-on if that's
how it was painted. If the eyes are looking straight out of the face, then
they must look at you, no matter where you stand. If the eyes look to your
left when you stand in front, then they'll still look to your left even
when you move to the left. Stick up any number of magazine pictures to
test this out.
All that really changes is the apparent width of the facial features as
you move to either side. Ultimately, you see a very thin face - still
staring at you - before you move so far to the side that the whole face
vanishes.... and it isn't the result of any warping of the space-time
continuum.
+Naturally I began to perform this exercise with many paintings and found the
+illusion was a standard occurrence with a rectangular object, or objects
+that could be interpreted as forming a receding rectangle, was placed in
+the foreground below the painting's horizon .
Chair legs, breasts and cows backsides display similar tendencies - and
why wouldn't they? It's just paint on canvas.
But if you want to believe it's something to do with a parallel universe
then go right ahead. Some people think Jackson Pollock could paint.
Andrew D
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
+news:3d1616a1...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
+> "Todd Strickland" wrote:
+>
+> >"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
+>
+> >> I don't believe that painting can be understood in any literal sense.
+> >
+> >I believe people can't help but interpret. I'll bet that even you do it.
+>
+> I certainly do. interpreting is not understanding. The accusation I
+> constantly get is I just don't "understand" Modern Art.
+>
+> The very basis of surrealism is that the artist juxtaposes images
+> which if the painting is successful, interest the viewer enough to
+> formulate some sort of personal interpretation. That is not
+> understanding in any literal sense.
+>
+> From here on you speak of interpretation not understanding.
+
+I can't quite follow the way your using these words here. Frankly, it looks
+a bit like verbal obfuscation to me, which is ironic coming from one so
+hyper-sensitive to "Artspeak."
+Interpretation is the tool by which we understand a work, or at least,
+attempt to.
The latter part is closer to the truth. Attempting to understand, and
understanding, are two very different things. I can attempt to understand
how light travels through space, I might even form an opinion, but it
doesn't mean I can claim to understand. This I believe is where mani
rightly challenges those who claim to understand something when it's more
likely they've either just formed a personal opinion or accepted the
conclusions of someone else who claims to understand. That's fine unless
they have control of the taxpayer's cheque book and start to buy all sorts
of tripe on the basis that they know real art and label everyone else a
Phillistine. When they lecture at universities insisting that others
accept their opinion as fact, we have a problem.
Discussion
"Matisse, unlike Picasso, is exploring the space
between the picture and viewer". Germaine Greer.
She get's paid for this, too.
N.H
Another is the case of Gwen and Augustus John.
In my well thumbed book on art, Gwen John is now said to
be the better painter. But when the two were painting their stuff,
her brother Augustus received all the plaudits, publicity etc.
What has happened to their paintings since, have they been retouched?
It now seems to be the fashion to overturn previous thought- even
that supplied by critics, and also, as my book says, she seems to have
been the model & lover of Rodin, so that's ok, right on, she must have
been the better painter.
N.H
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-25060...@i160-104.nv.iinet.net.au...
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-25060...@i160-104.nv.iinet.net.au...
> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> +Interpretation is the tool by which we understand a work, or at least,
> +attempt to.
>
> The latter part is closer to the truth. Attempting to understand, and
> understanding, are two very different things. I can attempt to understand
> how light travels through space, I might even form an opinion, but it
> doesn't mean I can claim to understand.
So, in other words, it's OK to make the effort, but one can never claim to
actually understand anything? Under no circumstances? Well, if you want to
get into a "theory of mind" kind of discussion, you may have a point. But
I'll bet that you believe strongly that you do understand a great many
things, as do I.
> This I believe is where mani
> rightly challenges those who claim to understand something when it's more
> likely they've either just formed a personal opinion or accepted the
> conclusions of someone else who claims to understand.
Hold on, let me get this straight. Other's ideas are nothing more than
meaningless personal opinion, but when Mani states HIS opinion he "rightly
challenges?" Your logic seems a bit hypocritical; Mani is the most
opinionated person I've ever come across on usenet. The truth is simply
that you agree with his opinion more that that of others, not that there is
necessarily anything wrong with personal opinion in general.
And again, personal opinions and the conclusions of others are prima facie
inaccurate? Well, then I might as well completely discount everything you
say, since it's nothing more than your personal opinion, and therefore
incapable of having any truth to it.
I wonder how far you're really willing to take this distrust of "personal
opinion" and "accepted conclusions" when looking at art. Here's a link to a
famous painting:
http://www.christusrex.org/www2/art/images/piero09.jpg
I assume that you will interpret this as a depiction of the crucifixion of
Christ? How much are you willing to accept that this interpretation may be
wrong, that perhaps this isn't a painting of Christ on the cross, but some
other poor bastard who got executed on a cross? If I cite some authority on
painting who claims this is indeed a depiction of Christ on the cross, how
much will you take him to task for pushing an idea that's "more likely" just
a "personal opinion?"
That woman at the bottom in the blue robe, who do you think she is supposed
to be? I'll assume that you answered Mary. How do you know it's supposed
to be Mary? You might answer that blue is traditionally associated with
Mary. Where did you come up with this idea? From a book? or professor?
Well, then your interpretation is based on nothing more than the "accepted
conclusions" of someone else! Everything you understand (or think) you
understand about this picture is based on the opinions and accepted
conclusions of others. Does that fact seriously shake your belief that this
is really meant to be a depiction of CHRIST on the cross, with MARY at his
feet?
> That's fine unless
> they have control of the taxpayer's cheque book and start to buy all sorts
> of tripe on the basis that they know real art and label everyone else a
> Phillistine.
One man's tripe is another man's fine art. I'm a taxpayer too!
But seriously, if you're worried about your tax dollars then I suggest you
stop paying them and go to prison like Thoreau (actually, these days they'll
just take your property). But at least do it protesting some real
injustice, like the $400 billion defense budget, or multi-billion dollar
corporate welfare. It's pretty silly sweating the 0.00002% of the national
budget which goes toward art before worrying about the real waste.
> When they lecture at universities insisting that others
> accept their opinion as fact, we have a problem.
When people start insisting that they NOT lecture at universities simply
because people don't like their opinions, then we have a bigger problem.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
D) wrote:
>In article <3d14b36e...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote:
>+Artspeak extends these descriptions with double talk, verbal
>+inflation, pseudo philosophy and nonsense theory. This impresses many
>+until they are asked what exactly they undersand. The cop-out is the
>+usual answer "you wouldn't understand, period."
and as I said:
I don't believe that painting can be understood in any literal sense.
One can describe what he thinks of subject matter, technique, compare
artwork, mention known facts and ultimately say whether he likes it or
not.
>Here's one from a recent newspaper:
Lets analyze what was said
>First the reviewer tells us that the exhibition in question is "an
>absolute cornucopia of unstoppable abstract paintings". Then goes on;
-Artspeak that really means almost nothing. However it infers that the
guy likes it.
>
>"He pours and dribbles his paint with great energy and control, making, in
>effect,
_A technical statement.
> grand gestural musings, which are decorative but also very much
>images of the actual act of creation"
-More Artspeak
I have been reading this sort of crap for the last forty years. I
wouldn't object to it so much if there was really much of a choice.
Check out my comments on Blowbag Schapiro on wy web site.
I have yet to read a scathing review from the other side about any of
the greats and the fashionable. The only seriously bad reviews I've
found are against the likes of Dali, Bouguereau and Rockwell etc.
Usually members of the avant-gone, who once considered the cat's ass,
are now just plain ignored. Of course many have switched professions.
I believe that main reason negative criticism isn't allowed is because
it would cause prices for coveted signature artists to crash.
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-25060...@i160-104.nv.iinet.net.au...
> jsa_...@yahoo.com (JSA) wrote:
>
> +Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<3D119E7A...@sympatico.ca>...
>
> [snip]
> +> It's not like I'm going to prevent artists from doing whatever they
want
> +> to do. If someone wants to put that lone cinderblock somewhere and
call
> +> it art -- fine. But it's perfectly reasonable to question the validity
> +> or sense or even sanity of someone who embraces this art as "profound".
>
> +To you I say "Put up or shut up." Where would your justification that
> +your painting is art come from? "It must be so, naturally" is somewhat
> +insufficient from where I stand.
>
> Should it come from self-proclaimed experts - many of whom have never
> lifted a brush? Should we just believe them because others do? Isn't that
> just blind faith?
Should what come from self-proclaimed experts? Nick's justification for why
Nick's painting is art (and why JSA'a installation isn't)?
And, by the way, should we not listen to the opinions of art critics, just
because others do? Isn't that just blind prejudice?
Should we not listen to them, just because you don't?
Why not listen to what they have to say, and then come to your own
conclusion on the matter?
> Just because it's taught at uni, does that make it true?
Just because it's taught at uni, does that make it untrue?
> There are many
> people who have done "women's studies" who can attest that "facts" are
> sometimes fundamentally wrong and require a blind leap of faith to accept
> and work with. Yet these facts continue being taught because those who
> teach them claim to be the repository of truth and all those who disagree
> are misogynists (in the case of women's studies). Why is it that those
> who expose the fallability of the art elite are immediately labelled
> "anti-intellectual"?
Exposing the fallability of any human being is one thing. But you are
jumping to the conclusion that these "art elite" are always and necessarily
wrong. What the fuck, Andy?
> Why should we believe that lecturers know all there
> is to know about what makes something "art"? Who told them? How is their
> experience tested? Who decides who's an expert and who's ignorant?
How is YOUR experience tested? How do YOU decide who to believe and who's
ignorant? You seriously need to pull this great plank from your eye before
helping us who like Modern art with the splinter in ours.
>
> The problem for us is that expertise in art is not qualifiable. Two
> supposed experts independently looking at a brand new piece from an
> unknown "artist" will likely draw very different conclusions from it yet
> we are supposed to believe each of them is an "expert" because they both
> hold senior positions at major universities or galleries.
Well, then by what criteria do you consider yourself to be expert enough to
judge that these other "experts" are wrong?
Let's stop beating around the bush here. You don't like Modern art and your
argument against it having art status is simply that some unnamed experts
might be wrong in some unstated opinion!
If what Pollock did isn't art then just tell us why it isn't art! Don't
obscure the issue with "because Greenberg was stupid." I've never said that
Pollock is art BECAUSE Greenberg liked it, so don't use that as a cop-out
for dismissing it. Greenberg is not Pollock. I liked Pollock and
considered it great art before I ever read Greenberg. And don't just come
back with "well, you're wrong, too." That may be so, but it still doesn't
give me any objective criteria as to why abstract painting isn't art. Or
JSA's installation, for that matter.
> If this was
> science, it would be easier to know who's the expert because scientific
> testing ultimately exposes truth. (You might claim to have harnessed
> nuclear fission but if you can't prove it then your claims are worthless).
> But this isn't science so while no two people can independently draw
> identical conclusions from one artwork, no one can really claim to be an
> art expert.
>
> At a personal level it's easy to understand what is and isn't art - you
> just know.
No one can claim to be an art expert, but you're expert enough to "just
know" what is (and isn't) art? Well, OK;
I just know that Pollock's and Rothko's painting are art. Now prove me
wrong.
> Problems arise when taxpayer's money starts being spent in one
> area of art, despite the loud protestations of the taxpayers themselves,
> becasue the so-called experts dictate what should be recognised as real
> art and they rarely agree with the general public because to do so would
> involve them stepping out of their ivory tower and accepting that maybe,
> just maybe, the public do know what great art is - and that would render
> the "expert" obsolete.
I wasn't aware of the billions of dollars being spent on this "one area of
art," nor that the taxpayers were so up-in-arms about it. I guess I need to
start watching more CNN.
And even if money is being "wasted" on this art, do you think there would be
universal acceptance of the art you want public money "wasted" on? Being
against the use of public money on art is one thing, but using that as an
argument that said paintings aren't art is just plain illogical.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-25060...@i160-104.nv.iinet.net.au...
> ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp (Todd Strickland) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> +The major rules for writing anti-intellectual art drivel are roughly
speaking:
> [snip]
>
> It hardly takes intellect to read a critic's description of an abstract
> work and simply accept it at face value.
Is that what I do? I think I come up with some original ideas, every once
in a while, at least.
Is that what critics do, write descriptions? I thought they used their
critical faculties to discuss art and issues pertaining to art.
> It would indeed be an
> intellectual exercise if a dozen or so different critics independently
> viewed a new work and came to very similar conclusions about its merits,
> purpose, intent, technique and its meaning.
No, that would most likely indicate that the work was overly simplistic and
uninteresting. If there's only one thing that can be said about a painting,
then it can't be a very engaging work, can it?
> Since this never seems to
> happen, the act of critiquing art - or of believing a critique - can
> hardly be described as an intellectual exercise. It is more an act of
> faith.
That's ridiculous. I'm starting to have serious doubts about how much
criticism you have actually read.
For starters, if you read much criticism about Abstract Expressionism, for
example, you would know that the major early writers on the subject are not
that far apart in their analysis. From these beginnings, other writers have
delved into specific points in greater detail, and occassionaly someone
comes up with a "completely different" interpretation, but at the core there
is something like a consensus (as much as one can expect for art) concerning
AE, just like there are core issues at the heart of Renaissance studies, or
Impressionism. This is what "intellectual exercise" is all about. It is
not about "scientifically" finding THE ANSWER. Apparently you believe that
only the hard sciences can be "intellectual."
>
> [snip]
>
> British comedian Ben Elton got it right when he said the problem with
> critics is that in order to justify their own existence, they must dismiss
> public support as ignorance because if the public know best, the critics
> become obsolete.
OK, here's my problem with this Ben Elton thing. It's basically a
credibility issue.
This guy is a media darling at the moment, everyone loves him and everyone
wants to work with him (or schmooze with him at cocktail parties). The
critics LOVE him and everything he touches turns to gold. He never gets a
bad review (I've never seen one, although I admit I haven't been looking;
but I've seen a bunch of ass-kissing reviews of his books, his Queen
rock-opera, his Broadway play with Andrew Loyd Weber, his (ahem...)
"cutting-edge" shows on the BBC, etc...). So he goes on the BBC with their
number one ass-kisser, and he talks about how "real artists" should just
ignore the critics. I don't care if he's right or wrong, but why the hell
is HE talking about it? The critics love him! They are lining up to smell
his shit!
I think he's just trying to paint himself as a little more cutting-edge,
when in fact he is the height of mainstream; "dangerous" enough to be
entertaining, safe enough to have his own special on the BBC.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-25060...@i160-104.nv.iinet.net.au...
No, that would be anti-scientific. A scientist would look at the unit in
question; an intellectual would be in the coffee house reading Nietzsche.
> People who believe
> that verbose descriptions of art art oddities validate those works as
> "real art" would presumably believe that nuclear fission is just one
> pantry away from solving the world's energy problems - hardly an
> intellectual conclusion.
Now you're being anti-scientific AND anti-intellctual!
>
> +It's not like I'm going to prevent artists from doing whatever they want
> +to do. If someone wants to put that lone cinderblock somewhere and call
> +it art -- fine. But it's perfectly reasonable to question the validity
> +or sense or even sanity of someone who embraces this art as "profound".
>
> The problem is that the critics use opposition as a form of validation.
> The more controversial a piece is, the more it is proclaimed to be "great
> art". If it is publicly reviled then this revulsion is proof of the work's
> emotional authority. It's like Monty Python's Brian trying to deny he's
> the messiah - he can't win because his denial is proof of his divinity -
> as is his agreement.
All of your posts today revolve around one poorly considered argument; you
don't like what some art critic said therefore Modern art is BS! Now I ask
you, how intellectual is THAT?
Todd Strickland
mdeli
>If what Pollock did isn't art then just tell us why it isn't art!
In other words the usual ploy.
It is art, but not much above that produced by an average chimpanzee.
However if you doubt that chimpanzee art isn't art just tell us why?
Whether its art or not doesn't interest me. I doubt that either work
is any good simply because it can be imitated by most anyone with a
slight degree of technique.
>I just know that Pollock's and Rothko's painting are art. Now prove me
>wrong.
As I always said lots of art can also be crap. Now prove me wrong.
Its art. Bullshit is an art.
When Christo farts, its art. When Marilyn praises a room full of
bananas, its art. Duchamp's pisspot is art. So is Rockwell and Dali.
But the real question is IS ANY OF THIS art ANY GOOD?
The is it art question is a ploy to avoid discussing whether a piece
has any merit.
Andrew D
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-25060...@i160-104.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <af7pq...@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
+> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+>
+> +Interpretation is the tool by which we understand a work, or at least,
+> +attempt to.
+>
+> The latter part is closer to the truth. Attempting to understand, and
+> understanding, are two very different things. I can attempt to understand
+> how light travels through space, I might even form an opinion, but it
+> doesn't mean I can claim to understand.
+
+So, in other words, it's OK to make the effort, but one can never claim to
+actually understand anything? Under no circumstances? Well, if you want to
+get into a "theory of mind" kind of discussion, you may have a point. But
+I'll bet that you believe strongly that you do understand a great many
+things, as do I.
Art isn't science. Our interpretations or art are essentially unprovable.
Sure, if you speak directly with the artist and have him/her explain what
the painting is about (and I'm not one to accept that the artist is no
wiser than anyone else when explaining their own work) then you may well
have an understanding of the work. However, if your "understanding" comes
from personal interpretation or even reading reviews by authors, curators
or critics whose own "understanding" is really just their personal
interpretation, then you don't truly have understanding of that work. This
isn't the "theory of relatively" in which "understanding" can be tested
and ultimately proved or disproved - it's all personal opinion and so long
as a great many people, some of them self-proclaimed experts,
"understand" a single piece in vastly different ways, none of them has
understanding in any real sense.
+> This I believe is where mani
+> rightly challenges those who claim to understand something when it's more
+> likely they've either just formed a personal opinion or accepted the
+> conclusions of someone else who claims to understand.
+Hold on, let me get this straight. Other's ideas are nothing more than
+meaningless personal opinion, but when Mani states HIS opinion he "rightly
+challenges?" Your logic seems a bit hypocritical; Mani is the most
+opinionated person I've ever come across on usenet. The truth is simply
+that you agree with his opinion more that that of others, not that there is
+necessarily anything wrong with personal opinion in general.
Do I agree with mani that everything he likes is good and everything he
despises is bad? Probably not. Do I enjoy his approach? Often not. But on
this issue, he's not stating an opinion on art as he usually does, but on
people's claims of "understanding" art and in that, I have to agree with
him.
+And again, personal opinions and the conclusions of others are prima facie
+inaccurate? Well, then I might as well completely discount everything you
+say, since it's nothing more than your personal opinion, and therefore
+incapable of having any truth to it.
+I wonder how far you're really willing to take this distrust of "personal
+opinion" and "accepted conclusions" when looking at art. Here's a link to a
+famous painting:
+http://www.christusrex.org/www2/art/images/piero09.jpg
+I assume that you will interpret this as a depiction of the crucifixion of
+Christ? How much are you willing to accept that this interpretation may be
+wrong, that perhaps this isn't a painting of Christ on the cross, but some
+other poor bastard who got executed on a cross? If I cite some authority on
+painting who claims this is indeed a depiction of Christ on the cross, how
+much will you take him to task for pushing an idea that's "more likely" just
+a "personal opinion?"
My interpretation doesn't matter but are you telling me you fully
understand why the artist painted this image? You know what he was trying
to say, if anything at all?
But of course this image is recognisable and so there will be a majority
opinion on what it depicts and why. Chances are, a whole swag of
independent critics seeing it for the first time would draw similar
conclusions, so, while it may not be "understanding" in the literal sense,
there is at least a general agreement. Do you think this would be true of
a painting consisting of little more than a dribble of red and blue paint
on a grey canvas?
+> That's fine unless
+> they have control of the taxpayer's cheque book and start to buy all sorts
+> of tripe on the basis that they know real art and label everyone else a
+> Phillistine.
+One man's tripe is another man's fine art. I'm a taxpayer too!
But the majority often see tripe - and they pay more taxes than you. Yet
most of the so-called "art" purchased and displayed - on their behalf -
does not necessarily meet with their approval. In many cases it meets with
huge disapproval but the problem then is that the disapproval itself is
used as a validation of the piece in question as real art. It's a
lose-lose situation for the wider public and the critics laugh all the way
to the bank.
Andrew D
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
[snip]
+And even if money is being "wasted" on this art, do you think there would be
+universal acceptance of the art you want public money "wasted" on? Being
+against the use of public money on art is one thing, but using that as an
+argument that said paintings aren't art is just plain illogical.
At no point do I recall saying that modern or abstract art is not art. You
like it, fine. Others like it - fine also. If people want it then it has
it's place. But a trip to our major gallery here (Perth, Australia), or to
a graduate exhibition from our major fine arts university (Curtin), would
have you believing that abstract or modern art is the ONLY art.
Similarly, any competitive exhibition judged by members of the arts
faculty or public gallery will see all prizes go to modern and abstract
works - none to realist or even impressionist pieces. The awards are of
course accompanied by legthy diatribes as to why a canvas consisting of
nothing more than red and blue squares "literally oozed energy while being
both simple and complex through the use of carefully juxtaposed colour
fields which tempt the viewer to interpret the act of creation for
themselves".
That is the problem I have. If the balance of art in public galleries and
universities reflected the pursuit or acceptance of art in the wider
community, then I think we'd have the perfect compromise. But while the
art elite insist on dismissing anything vaguely recognisable as "mere
illustration" whilst failing to see abstract art as "mere decoration" I
can't see how this discussion will ever end.
At a personal level I really couldn't care less. I paint what I paint and
people love it. That suits me fine.
Andrew D
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
[snip]
+All of your posts today revolve around one poorly considered argument; you
+don't like what some art critic said therefore Modern art is BS! Now I ask
+you, how intellectual is THAT?
Where did I say modern art is BS? I don't particularly like it, i'm sure
that's clear. But I don't think I've ever declared that it can't or
shouldn't be considered art.
JSA
> It hardly takes intellect to read a critic's description of an abstract
> work and simply accept it at face value. It would indeed be an
> intellectual exercise if a dozen or so different critics independently
> viewed a new work and came to very similar conclusions about its merits,
> purpose, intent, technique and its meaning. Since this never seems to
> happen, the act of critiquing art - or of believing a critique - can
> hardly be described as an intellectual exercise. It is more an act of
> faith.
Anti-intellectual is where you claim there are no criterior for
ascertaining the "merits, purpose, intent, technique and meaning" of
something, thereby positing a relativism where your own opinion is as
valid as anyone else's, hence closing off all discussion.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> In article <afaaj...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> +All of your posts today revolve around one poorly considered argument;
you
> +don't like what some art critic said therefore Modern art is BS! Now I
ask
> +you, how intellectual is THAT?
>
> Where did I say modern art is BS? I don't particularly like it, i'm sure
> that's clear. But I don't think I've ever declared that it can't or
> shouldn't be considered art.
>
appear easier to understand. Hegel tried to give the idea some
respectability by talking about the dialectic and poor old Marx fell for it.
We still have people, mainly pinkos, who can't see past this.
So, when you present an argument that shows that you understand so much more
about the issue that you can see the shades of grey between what they see
only as a black and white division, you appear very threatening (or mad) to
them. So they have to try to push you into one of the two boxes to help keep
their understanding of the world consistent and avoid cognative dissonance.
Andrew D
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-26060...@i165-249.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <afaaj...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
+> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+>
+> [snip]
+> +All of your posts today revolve around one poorly considered argument;
+> +you don't like what some art critic said therefore Modern art is BS! Now I
+> +ask you, how intellectual is THAT?
+>
+> Where did I say modern art is BS? I don't particularly like it, i'm sure
+> that's clear. But I don't think I've ever declared that it can't or
+> shouldn't be considered art.
+>
+Some people seem only able to see the world in dichotomies - is makes things
+appear easier to understand. Hegel tried to give the idea some
+respectability by talking about the dialectic and poor old Marx fell for it.
+We still have people, mainly pinkos, who can't see past this.
+
+So, when you present an argument that shows that you understand so much more
+about the issue that you can see the shades of grey between what they see
+only as a black and white division, you appear very threatening (or mad) to
+them. So they have to try to push you into one of the two boxes to help keep
+their understanding of the world consistent and avoid cognative dissonance.
What Todd should have picked up from my posts is that I don't think the
*critics and curators* who promote modern art as the ONLY art are any sort
of authority to be taken too seriously - especially when they rely on
vague, meaningless generalities (like "juxtaposed colour fields" when they
really mean "shapes") to try and get their message across in a way that
sounds authoritative. They dismiss skilled realists as illustrators
apparently without realising that much of what they promote as great art
is often a perfect mimic of gift wrapping paper and was being turned out
by school children long before Pollock made it famous.
Andrew D
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
[snip]
+> It would indeed be an
+> intellectual exercise if a dozen or so different critics independently
+> viewed a new work and came to very similar conclusions about its merits,
+> purpose, intent, technique and its meaning.
+No, that would most likely indicate that the work was overly simplistic and
+uninteresting. If there's only one thing that can be said about a painting,
+then it can't be a very engaging work, can it?
I think that could well be the crux of the issue. Skilled art (let's call
it realism) is often seen only at face value and is therefore dismissed as
illustration. We are supposed to believe it lacks creativity - that it's
not art. Judges, lecturers and curators often overlook realist work in
favour of abstract pieces presumably because they feel "engaged" or
challenged. I assume this means they can't figure it out but enjoy trying.
They pass by a beautifully rendered fox hunter on horse back because they
see a nice picture of a man on a horse yet they give awards to someone who
enters a whiteboard and marker as a work of art - because it "engages"
them?
Surely if they weren't so blinkered, they could easily find hidden
meanings in the realist works too - if they just looked. Naturally they
would likely end up inventing meanings where none were intended, but
that's what they do when they pour praise on the obscure works anyway.
If we accept that art has to be challenging rather than obvious, then
maybe we'd have to declare crosswords as great art (they sure as hell
confound me). If you can be engaged by paint spilled on a massive canvas,
then I can't see how you're not challenged by Elvis on velvet - unless
you're not looking beyond the obvious. If that's the case, then you're no
better than those of us who aren't challenged by Rothko's stripes. I mean,
how much more "overly simplistic" can you get than coloured stripes on a
coloured background? If this is engaging, then a Rockwell (or even one of
my daughter's school projects) should keep you enthralled for decades.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
>
> *critics and curators* who promote modern art as the ONLY art are any sort
> of authority to be taken too seriously - especially when they rely on
> vague, meaningless generalities (like "juxtaposed colour fields" when they
> really mean "shapes") to try and get their message across in a way that
> sounds authoritative.
>
than sheltered employment.
There must be a similar aphorism relating to doing, rather than talking
about, art to this one:
'Those that can, do; Those that can't teach; Those that can't teach, teach
teachers; Those that can't teach teachers, become educational inspectors;
Those that can't inspect education become educational theorists'.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
>
> it realism) is often seen only at face value and is therefore dismissed as
> illustration. We are supposed to believe it lacks creativity - that it's
> not art. Judges, lecturers and curators often overlook realist work in
> favour of abstract pieces presumably because they feel "engaged" or
> challenged. I assume this means they can't figure it out but enjoy trying.
> They pass by a beautifully rendered fox hunter on horse back because they
> see a nice picture of a man on a horse yet they give awards to someone who
> enters a whiteboard and marker as a work of art - because it "engages"
> them?
>
art, can be non-representational, but highly complex and very skilled. The
carving on the Taj Mahal, for example, has to be seen to be believed, marble
is carved to resemble delicate lace in its lightness. Though, of course, the
poor Taj is now a visual cliche, that is no more its fault than that
Shakespear appears to be filled with verbal cliches.
I think that Freud is probably a better example than that of hunting scenes.
He is generally representational, and realistic, but in an unusual way.
>
> If we accept that art has to be challenging rather than obvious, then
> maybe we'd have to declare crosswords as great art (they sure as hell
> confound me). If you can be engaged by paint spilled on a massive canvas,
> then I can't see how you're not challenged by Elvis on velvet - unless
> you're not looking beyond the obvious. If that's the case, then you're no
> better than those of us who aren't challenged by Rothko's stripes. I mean,
> how much more "overly simplistic" can you get than coloured stripes on a
> coloured background? If this is engaging, then a Rockwell (or even one of
> my daughter's school projects) should keep you enthralled for decades.
>
I am not against decorative art, paint spilled on canvas as you put it, but,
if it is put in frames or exhibited as if it were a painting, then it looks,
to me, as silly as framing linoleum or marley tiles. But then, if somebody
lacks imagination or aesthetic understanding sufficiently to frame deck
chair covers, then why shouldn't they be happy with it? Isn't it bad enough
for them to have failed on so many levels, without having it rubbed into
their face that they have failed on this one too?
I think it is a bit cruel, like going to Bedlam to tease the inmates that
used to be a standard entertainment, but is no longer encouraged.
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> In article <afaaj...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> +All of your posts today revolve around one poorly considered argument;
you
> +don't like what some art critic said therefore Modern art is BS! Now I
ask
> +you, how intellectual is THAT?
>
> Where did I say modern art is BS? I don't particularly like it, i'm sure
> that's clear. But I don't think I've ever declared that it can't or
> shouldn't be considered art.
Well, you've called it "tripe," you've called people who like it
"anti-intellectual," you've called critics who write about it an "art elite"
made up of nothing but "self-proclaimed experts" who spout nothing but "mere
opinion" and regurgitate "other's accepted conclusions," you've implied (if
not outright stated) that these people should not be allowed to teach at
university and that they are incapabale of having any valid opinions on the
subject (although your opinions, I guess, are completely valid), you've
implied that it is criminal for any public money to be spent on it (although
you'd be happy to see such money spent on art that you like)...
But I guess you're right, you never actually called it BS...
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> In article <afa24...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> +"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> +news:right-25060...@i160-104.nv.iinet.net.au...
> +> In article <af7pq...@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
> +> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
Unprovable does not equal meaningless. I grant you (yet again) that
interpretation does not mean verifiable factual knowledge; it's a different
kind of knowledge, and it's ambiguous and hard to pin down. But it's an
unavoidable kind of activity which everyone uses constantly on a daily
basis. We couldn't even have this conversation if you were unwilling to
interpret (the letters on the screen, the words they represent, the
knowledge they allude to, and the metaphorical and idiomatic expressions
they form).
Interpretation is crucial to life, and unavoidable anyways. Art is one
place where interpretation can be undertaken for the sheer intellectual
enjoyment of it, rather than for survival purposes. This interpretive
aspect is a STRENGTH, not weakness, of art. I know it bugs the shit out of
some more scientifically inclined thinkers, who think knowledge must always
be pinned down and precise.
Back in my English major college days, one student voiced protest at the
"ambiguous" meanings of symbolism and metaphor in poetry. The teacher
simply replied that if that student had a problem with ambiguity, he was in
the wrong major. I couldn't have agreed more.
> Sure, if you speak directly with the artist and have him/her explain what
> the painting is about (and I'm not one to accept that the artist is no
> wiser than anyone else when explaining their own work) then you may well
> have an understanding of the work.
I agree with you that the artist himself is not the final arbiter of
"meaning" in his own work.
> However, if your "understanding" comes
> from personal interpretation or even reading reviews by authors, curators
> or critics whose own "understanding" is really just their personal
> interpretation, then you don't truly have understanding of that work.
Can I look at a Pollock painting and "read" it, or "understand" it with the
kind of concrete (?) understanding I might have looking at a mathematical
equation? No, but that doesn't mean that I can't "understand" on some
level, even if this understanding is subjective and interpretive. You seem
to imply that because it's interpretive, that it can't be called
understanding in any sense of the word; that's a very limited definition of
understanding, and one that no one could really get by with in their daily
life.
> This
> isn't the "theory of relatively" in which "understanding" can be tested
> and ultimately proved or disproved - it's all personal opinion and so long
> as a great many people, some of them self-proclaimed experts,
> "understand" a single piece in vastly different ways, none of them has
> understanding in any real sense.
In physics there are, to this very day, vastly different opinions on
fundamental questions. Does this mean that all physicists have NO
understanding in "any real sense?"
Some opinions are more informed than others. This is true of art, as well
as science.
Cop-out. You DO have an interpretation, don't you?
> but are you telling me you fully
> understand why the artist painted this image?
That's beside the point; just give me your answer. But in answer to your
question, have I claimed to "fully understand" this painting, and why the
artist painted it?
>You know what he was trying
> to say, if anything at all?
Look me in the eye (if that's possible over a telephone line) and tell me
that you seriously doubt this was intended to be a crucifixion of Christ, or
that anyone who believes so is simply deluding themselves.
>
> But of course this image is recognisable and so there will be a majority
> opinion on what it depicts and why. Chances are, a whole swag of
> independent critics seeing it for the first time would draw similar
> conclusions, so, while it may not be "understanding" in the literal sense,
> there is at least a general agreement. Do you think this would be true of
> a painting consisting of little more than a dribble of red and blue paint
> on a grey canvas?
My point wasn't about any "general agreement," but rather on the validity of
interpretation of ANY STYLE of art. You've been taking a very wide swipe at
interpretation as a meaningless and unintellectual activity; you've been
saying that interpretation cannot be called "understanding" by any meaning
of the word. Now I show you a picture which you obviously believe you do
have some understanding of, and this understanding (even if incomplete) is
based on a particular interpretation. But now you hide behind "there is at
least a general agreement." If your original assertion about the invalidity
of interpretation is correct, then all these critics are simply mistaken in
their agreement; they are in agreement about a delusion.
Aside from that, if general agreement does count for something in this area
(which, in fact, I believe it does), then you should know that there is a
lot of agreement about much Modern art; there's probably more agreement
about Picasso than Vermeer.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>'Those that can, do; Those that can't teach; Those that can't teach, teach
>teachers; Those that can't teach teachers, become educational inspectors;
>Those that can't inspect education become educational theorists'.
>
If this statement is considered generally true, its rather stupid.
Teachers are a most important facet of an intelligent society. Many of
those who can do, teach. I and most here would be in a sad state had
they not had teachers.
GBS was a very talented crank and much of what he said should be
questioned.
mdeli
I'll say it again in one sentence, "understanding is different from
interpretation."
Snip
>
>
>Can I look at a Pollock painting and "read" it, or "understand" it with the
>kind of concrete (?) understanding I might have looking at a mathematical
>equation? No, but that doesn't mean that I can't "understand" on some
>level, even if this understanding is subjective and interpretive.
Sounds like your usual squirm. I'm not interested in levels.
If you understand Pollock, JUST TELL US WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND and I
don't.
Expect the usual BS or nothing at all!
mdeli
D) wrote:
>I think that could well be the crux of the issue. Skilled art (let's call
>it realism) is often seen only at face value and is therefore dismissed as
>illustration.
Most illustration contains large amounts of abstraction. Nothing wrong
with abstraction but there is lots wrong with Modern Academic
Abstraction.
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> What Todd should have picked up from my posts is that I don't think the
> *critics and curators* who promote modern art as the ONLY art are any sort
> of authority to be taken too seriously
Show me a critic or curator who promotes Modern art as the only art--and I
don't doubt that there are some--and I will be the first to agree with you.
But you've been painting with a much wider brush than that.
> - especially when they rely on
> vague, meaningless generalities (like "juxtaposed colour fields" when they
> really mean "shapes") to try and get their message across in a way that
> sounds authoritative. They dismiss skilled realists as illustrators
> apparently without realising that much of what they promote as great art
> is often a perfect mimic of gift wrapping paper and was being turned out
> by school children long before Pollock made it famous.
Irony, yet again. You lament the fact that these critics and curators
narrow-mindedly dismiss skilled realism, yet you yourself narrow-mindedly
(in my opinion) and dismissively compare Pollock to gift wrapping paper and
the work of children. But hey, your entitled to your opinion...
But lest you think all Modern art critics dismiss realism as mere
illustration, I'll quote some Meyer Shapiro for you, from 1957:
In the course of the last fifty years the painters who freed
themselves from the necessity of representation discovered
whole new fields of form-construction and expression
(including new possibilities of imaginative representation) which
entailed a new attitude to art itself. The artist came to believe
that what was essential in art--given the diversity of themes
and motifs--were two universal requirements: that every work
of art has an individual order or coherence, a quality of unity
and necessity in its structure regardless of the kind of forms
used; and, second, that the forms and colors have a decided
expressive physiognomy, that they speak to us as a feeling-
charged whole, through the intrinsic power of colors and lines,
rather than through the imaging of facial expressions, gestures
and bodily movements, ALTHOUGH THESE ARE NOT
NECESSARILY EXCLUDED--FOR THEY ARE ALSO FORMS.
[emphasis mine]
The success of Dali, Tanguy, Magritte, Wyeth, Shahn, Benton, Freud, Goings,
Estes, etc. attests to the fact that Modernism and Postmodernism never laid
down any law against representational styles.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
>
>
> mdeli wrote:
> > Because interpretation isn't understanding.
>
> Here lies the key, I believe. As Mani seems to be saying, many people
> confuse interpretation with understanding. This usually looks likes, "I
> interpret this painting in my own way, and that is THE way of
> understanding the work." Personal opinion and bias become "fact".
>
> I can interpret a painting, but that doesn't mean I understand it. In
> fact, I'd go so far as to say that you can't "understand" a painting --
> you can't KNOW what it means "for certain" no matter how simple the work
> is. Understanding implies complete, for certain knowledge of what a
> work entails. But there is no "for certain". There is only
> interpreting. And while some interpretations of a particular painting
> may be more fashionable than others, that doesn't make the
> interpretation correct.
>
> It's like when people try to figure out what an artist intended to say,
> assuming they intended to say anything. It's a game you can play, but
> it's a futile one. Even if you have the artist there, in your room,
> tied to a chair. Torture the painter day and night, and he might give
> you an explanation of their work. But who's to say the artist has a
> clearer perspective on the painting than anyone else?
>
> Once a work is complete and "let loose", it takes on its own life. It
> no longer "belongs" to the artist. What the work means is open to
> interpretation -- and your opinion of what the work means might make
> more sense than the artist's own opinion.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
Well said. If Mani had put it that well maybe I'd have stayed a little
cooler under the collar. You point out, as others here have, that
interpretation isn't understanding in any hard sense of the word. But
unlike the others, you don't write off the value of interpretation just for
this fact. After all, artists often (almost always?) do have some ideas
that they would like to express, whether it be a religious story, a
satirical commentary, a mood, or a feeling. As an artist, don't you have
some idea that you would like the viewer to get, in addition to the
enjoyment of visually experiencing the work?
For me the key phrase in your message is "What the work means is open to
interpretation." For me, that act of interpretation is a big part of the
experience of art; after all, "The viewer completes the work." I suppose
others place less importance on this aspect, and that's fine. I just feel
that some of what's been said in this thread isn't really so much about the
merits or drawbacks of interpretation, but simply using the inherent
ambiguity of interpretation for a subterfuge attack on art (particularly
Modern art) as having no meaning at all. I just can't accept that art, even
visual art, is as "meaningless" as some people seem to think.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
> "Todd Strickland" wrote:
>
> I'll say it again in one sentence, "understanding is different from
> interpretation."
>
> Snip
> >
> >
>
> >Can I look at a Pollock painting and "read" it, or "understand" it with
the
> >kind of concrete (?) understanding I might have looking at a mathematical
> >equation? No, but that doesn't mean that I can't "understand" on some
> >level, even if this understanding is subjective and interpretive.
>
> Sounds like your usual squirm. I'm not interested in levels.
>
> If you understand Pollock, JUST TELL US WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND and I
> don't.
>
I have before, and I'm sure I will again. And I'm sure you'll be just as
impressed as the last time.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
museum floor is really "installation art" and deserves careful
consideration praise and of course "understanding."
And Strickland types can say the usual ploy about it, "prove it isn't
art."
However, if it happens to be lying near the entrance to the museum
it generally considered what it is and is usually removed.
mdeli
Whether I'm impressed or not ain't the question.
JUST CUT THE CRAP AND TELL US WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND.
Anyone else here "understands" Pollock? Speak up!
Andrew D
<mwe...@spamblockislandnet.com> wrote:
[snip html posting]
Huh?
Andrew D
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-26060...@i165-249.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <afa24...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
+> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+>
+> +"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+> +news:right-25060...@i160-104.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> +> In article <af7pq...@enews1.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
+> +> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+>
+> Art isn't science. Our interpretations of art are essentially unprovable.
+
+Unprovable does not equal meaningless. I grant you (yet again) that
+interpretation does not mean verifiable factual knowledge; it's a different
+kind of knowledge, and it's ambiguous and hard to pin down. But it's an
+unavoidable kind of activity which everyone uses constantly on a daily
+basis. We couldn't even have this conversation if you were unwilling to
+interpret (the letters on the screen, the words they represent, the
+knowledge they allude to, and the metaphorical and idiomatic expressions
+they form).
+Interpretation is crucial to life, and unavoidable anyways. Art is one
+place where interpretation can be undertaken for the sheer intellectual
+enjoyment of it, rather than for survival purposes. This interpretive
+aspect is a STRENGTH, not weakness, of art. I know it bugs the shit out of
+some more scientifically inclined thinkers, who think knowledge must always
+be pinned down and precise.
But therein lies the problem. If the intellectual appreciation of art must
be an inprecise process, then how can art be either taught or criticised?
+> Sure, if you speak directly with the artist and have him/her explain what
+> the painting is about (and I'm not one to accept that the artist is no
+> wiser than anyone else when explaining their own work) then you may well
+> have an understanding of the work.
+I agree with you that the artist himself is not the final arbiter of
+"meaning" in his own work.
That's not actually what I wrote. I *don't* accept that the artist is no
wiser than anyone else when explaining their own work. Having said that, I
can see how an abstract expressionist would be happy for people to find
there own meanings where it's likely there is no meaning at all. I suspect
the success of expressionism relies on this. After all, how much meaning,
purpose or intent can there possibly be in paint spilled on canvas after
canvas in a way that might see a child have his paints taken away for a
month until he learns to treat them with respect?
+> This
+> isn't the "theory of relatively" in which "understanding" can be tested
+> and ultimately proved or disproved - it's all personal opinion and so long
+> as a great many people, some of them self-proclaimed experts,
+> "understand" a single piece in vastly different ways, none of them has
+> understanding in any real sense.
+In physics there are, to this very day, vastly different opinions on
+fundamental questions. Does this mean that all physicists have NO
+understanding in "any real sense?"
Of those things - clearly.
+Some opinions are more informed than others. This is true of art, as well
+as science.
But if understanding is inprecise, subjective, interpretive... then how
can any opinion be "more informed"? This is where the "art elite" label
comes from - the idea that some people's interpretations are "more
informed".
[snip]
+> My interpretation doesn't matter
+Cop-out. You DO have an interpretation, don't you?
But it doesn't matter. Why do you care what I think?
+> but are you telling me you fully
+> understand why the artist painted this image?
+That's beside the point;
Cop-out. ;)
Andrew D
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-26060...@i165-249.nv.iinet.net.au...
[snip]
+> - especially when they rely on
+> vague, meaningless generalities (like "juxtaposed colour fields" when they
+> really mean "shapes") to try and get their message across in a way that
+> sounds authoritative. They dismiss skilled realists as illustrators
+> apparently without realising that much of what they promote as great art
+> is often a perfect mimic of gift wrapping paper and was being turned out
+> by school children long before Pollock made it famous.
+Irony, yet again. You lament the fact that these critics and curators
+narrow-mindedly dismiss skilled realism, yet you yourself narrow-mindedly
+(in my opinion) and dismissively compare Pollock to gift wrapping paper and
+the work of children. But hey, your entitled to your opinion...
But that was my point exactly - that IF realist work is illustration, not
art, then Pollock is child's play, not art.
+But lest you think all Modern art critics dismiss realism as mere
+illustration, I'll quote some Meyer Shapiro for you, from 1957:
+
+ In the course of the last fifty years the painters who freed
+ themselves from the necessity of representation discovered
+ whole new fields of form-construction and expression
+ (including new possibilities of imaginative representation) which
+ entailed a new attitude to art itself. The artist came to believe
+ that what was essential in art--given the diversity of themes
+ and motifs--were two universal requirements: that every work
+ of art has an individual order or coherence, a quality of unity
+ and necessity in its structure regardless of the kind of forms
+ used; and, second, that the forms and colors have a decided
+ expressive physiognomy, that they speak to us as a feeling-
+ charged whole, through the intrinsic power of colors and lines,
+ rather than through the imaging of facial expressions, gestures
+ and bodily movements, ALTHOUGH THESE ARE NOT
+ NECESSARILY EXCLUDED--FOR THEY ARE ALSO FORMS.
+ [emphasis mine]
Kind of included them as a last thought it appears.
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
and debates about "what the artist really meant",
I'm reminded of a UK English exam in which students
were asked to criticise a Brian Patten poem
that used the word "herd" in place of "heard"
[presumably with full marks for discussing puns, homophones
& the danger of mindlessly following what one's told to do].
Needless to say, in a subsequent interview the author
was happy to confirm that he's just bad at spelling.
["no spelling no poetry" anyone?]
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept/Staff/JEHS/
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
Determining whether it's safe to cross the street in light traffic is an
imprecise process too, yet it's done successfully millions of times a day.
And parents generally do a pretty good job of helping their children to
learn this imprecise process.
Every field of learning (including the hard sciences) is filled with
"imprecise processes" and ambiguous kinds of information but this doesn't
render them unintelligeble.
Your point here is valid, trying to understand how various kinds of
imprecise or ambiguous data can be comprehended by the human mind, but it's
not limited to painting. If I say, "My wife is a rose," how is it that most
people will understand that I mean she is beautiful, not that I married a
plant? The field of semiotics delves deeply into such questions, but even
without an advanced degree, any normal person can come up with the CORRECT
interpretation to my sentence. You, if you trully followed your own logic,
would conclude that I had married a plant; or you would pedantically
complain that I was making an imprecise statement.
>
> +> Sure, if you speak directly with the artist and have him/her explain
what
> +> the painting is about (and I'm not one to accept that the artist is no
> +> wiser than anyone else when explaining their own work) then you may
well
> +> have an understanding of the work.
>
> +I agree with you that the artist himself is not the final arbiter of
> +"meaning" in his own work.
>
> That's not actually what I wrote. I *don't* accept that the artist is no
> wiser than anyone else when explaining their own work.
And that's not actually what I wrote, either. I would be extremely
interested to know what the artist intended, or how he interprets his work.
I would probably give such information more weight, but it doesn't
necessarily mean that his word is the final say.
> +> This
> +> isn't the "theory of relatively" in which "understanding" can be tested
> +> and ultimately proved or disproved - it's all personal opinion and so
long
> +> as a great many people, some of them self-proclaimed experts,
> +> "understand" a single piece in vastly different ways, none of them has
> +> understanding in any real sense.
>
> +In physics there are, to this very day, vastly different opinions on
> +fundamental questions. Does this mean that all physicists have NO
> +understanding in "any real sense?"
>
> Of those things - clearly.
And therefore they have no business teaching such ideas in univerisity?
>
> +Some opinions are more informed than others. This is true of art, as
well
> +as science.
>
> But if understanding is inprecise, subjective, interpretive... then how
> can any opinion be "more informed"? This is where the "art elite" label
> comes from - the idea that some people's interpretations are "more
> informed".
OK. Then I suppose my uninformed opinion that the universe was created when
a great demon farted is just as valid as the "Big Bang" theory, which
although widely accepted remains somewhat controversial, and is basically
unprovable. Einstein, Hubbel, Lamaitre; what the fuck did they know, right?
What an idiotic group of self-professed "experts."
>
> [snip]
>
> +> My interpretation doesn't matter
>
> +Cop-out. You DO have an interpretation, don't you?
>
> But it doesn't matter. Why do you care what I think?
If it doesn't matter then just answer. Is it a crucifixion of Christ, or
not?
>
> +> but are you telling me you fully
> +> understand why the artist painted this image?
>
> +That's beside the point;
>
> Cop-out. ;)
Nice try Andy. You simply snipped my answer. But I'll give it to you
again.
At no time during this thread have I claimed to "fully understand" this
painting, or any other painting. I have never claimed to understand with
absolute certainty why the artist painted this image.
Nevertheless, I stand by my simple interpretation that this is an image of
the crucifixion of Christ, and the woman at the bottom left is Mary. Do you
disagree?
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> In article <afcpv...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
>
> +"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> +news:right-26060...@i165-249.nv.iinet.net.au...
> [snip]
> +> - especially when they rely on
> +> vague, meaningless generalities (like "juxtaposed colour fields" when
they
> +> really mean "shapes") to try and get their message across in a way that
> +> sounds authoritative. They dismiss skilled realists as illustrators
> +> apparently without realising that much of what they promote as great
art
> +> is often a perfect mimic of gift wrapping paper and was being turned
out
> +> by school children long before Pollock made it famous.
>
> +Irony, yet again. You lament the fact that these critics and curators
> +narrow-mindedly dismiss skilled realism, yet you yourself narrow-mindedly
> +(in my opinion) and dismissively compare Pollock to gift wrapping paper
and
> +the work of children. But hey, your entitled to your opinion...
>
> But that was my point exactly - that IF realist work is illustration, not
> art, then Pollock is child's play, not art.
But that's my point exactly below. Serious art critics and historians DO
NOT view all representational works as mere illustration. There are simply
too many representational and "realist" painters canonized in Modern and
Postmodern art for that claim to be valid.
>
> +But lest you think all Modern art critics dismiss realism as mere
> +illustration, I'll quote some Meyer Shapiro for you, from 1957:
> +
> + In the course of the last fifty years the painters who freed
> + themselves from the necessity of representation discovered
> + whole new fields of form-construction and expression
> + (including new possibilities of imaginative representation) which
> + entailed a new attitude to art itself. The artist came to
believe
> + that what was essential in art--given the diversity of themes
> + and motifs--were two universal requirements: that every work
> + of art has an individual order or coherence, a quality of unity
> + and necessity in its structure regardless of the kind of forms
> + used; and, second, that the forms and colors have a decided
> + expressive physiognomy, that they speak to us as a feeling-
> + charged whole, through the intrinsic power of colors and lines,
> + rather than through the imaging of facial expressions, gestures
> + and bodily movements, ALTHOUGH THESE ARE NOT
> + NECESSARILY EXCLUDED--FOR THEY ARE ALSO FORMS.
> + [emphasis mine]
>
> Kind of included them as a last thought it appears.
You obviously haven't read much of Schapiro.
Todd Strickland
Todd Strickland
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
> +> Sure, if you speak directly with the artist and have him/her explain
what
> +> the painting is about (and I'm not one to accept that the artist is no
> +> wiser than anyone else when explaining their own work) then you may
well
> +> have an understanding of the work.
>
> +I agree with you that the artist himself is not the final arbiter of
> +"meaning" in his own work.
>
> That's not actually what I wrote. I *don't* accept that the artist is no
> wiser than anyone else when explaining their own work.
Sorry, misread your original line. Got it now.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
>> + In the course of the last fifty years the painters who freed
>> + themselves from the necessity of representation discovered
>> + whole new fields of form-construction and expression
>> + (including new possibilities of imaginative representation) which
>> + entailed a new attitude to art itself.
>> + The artist came to believe
>> + that what was essential in art--given the diversity of themes
>> + and motifs--were two universal requirements:
Now get this
>> + that every work
>> + of art has an individual order or coherence, a quality of unity and necessity in its structure regardless of the kind of forms
>> + used
means nothing!
>> + ; and, second, that the forms and colors have a decided
>> + expressive physiognomy,
means nothing!
>> + that they speak to us as a feeling-
>> + charged whole, through the intrinsic power of colors and lines,
I guess color in Modern Academic Art is more "intrinsic."
>> + rather than through the imaging of facial expressions, gestures
>> + and bodily movements, ALTHOUGH THESE ARE NOT
>> + NECESSARILY EXCLUDED--FOR THEY ARE ALSO FORMS.
Gee, what about a still life with flowers?
>You obviously haven't read much of Schapiro.
I have! Don't waste your time.
Check out my comments on Blowbag Schapiro of the avant gone on my web
site.
Todd Strickland
> "Todd Strickland" quotes Shapiro:
>
> > In the course of the last fifty years the painters who freed
believe
> > that what was essential in art--given the diversity of themes
>
> Now get this
>
> > of art has an individual order or coherence, a quality of unity
> > and necessity in its structure regardless of the kind of forms
>
> means nothing!
Makes perfectly good sense to me...
>
> > and, second, that the forms and colors have a decided
> > expressive physiognomy,
>
> means nothing!
Makes perfectly good sense to me...
>
> > that they speak to us as a feeling-
> > charged whole, through the intrinsic power of colors and lines,
>
> I guess color in Modern Academic Art is more "intrinsic."
No, you twit, color and line have intrinsic expressive power in ALL ART.
Abstract or representational, it is the line and color which expresses the
content. Once this is admitted, "what kind of image" to paint becomes a
secondary question.
> > rather than through the imaging of facial expressions, gestures
> > and bodily movements, ALTHOUGH THESE ARE NOT
> > NECESSARILY EXCLUDED--FOR THEY ARE ALSO FORMS.
>
> Gee, what about a still life with flowers?
What about it? "...for they are also forms."
> >You obviously haven't read much of Schapiro.
>
> I have! Don't waste your time.
>
I suggest you read him again; maybe this time your brain will inadvertently
soak up some of his good sense.
> Check out my comments on Blowbag Schapiro of the avant gone on my web
> site.
I did. They were laughably pathetic.
Do you think it's hard to rip good writing to shreds with such "criticism?"
Shit, I'll bet I can do it even better than you.
Todd Strickland
Andrew D
<ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-27060...@i165-072.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <afcd...@enews3.newsguy.com>, "Todd Strickland"
+> <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote:
[snip]
+> +Interpretation is crucial to life, and unavoidable anyways. Art is one
+> +place where interpretation can be undertaken for the sheer intellectual
+> +enjoyment of it, rather than for survival purposes. This interpretive
+> +aspect is a STRENGTH, not weakness, of art. I know it bugs the shit out
+of
+> +some more scientifically inclined thinkers, who think knowledge must
+always
+> +be pinned down and precise.
+> But therein lies the problem. If the intellectual appreciation of art must
+> be an inprecise process, then how can art be either taught or criticised?
+Determining whether it's safe to cross the street in light traffic is an
+imprecise process too, yet it's done successfully millions of times a day.
+And parents generally do a pretty good job of helping their children to
+learn this imprecise process.
It's anything but inprecise.
[snip]
+> +Some opinions are more informed than others. This is true of art, as
+well
+> +as science.
+> But if understanding is inprecise, subjective, interpretive... then how
+> can any opinion be "more informed"? This is where the "art elite" label
+> comes from - the idea that some people's interpretations are "more
+> informed".
+OK. Then I suppose my uninformed opinion that the universe was created when
+a great demon farted is just as valid as the "Big Bang" theory, which
+although widely accepted remains somewhat controversial, and is basically
+unprovable. Einstein, Hubbel, Lamaitre; what the fuck did they know, right?
+What an idiotic group of self-professed "experts."
I don't think anyone truly understands how things started. Whether
theological or scientific, it all seems to ultimately come down to that
one question - what came before? Neither side can answer. Each option is
"proved" only in as much as hypothesis and subsequent testing bear out one
or another theory. This is why science ends up in college - because there
are too many different religions and all are based on faith, not testing.
mdeli
that the basics even exist. They think drawing is a matter of emotion,
self expression, compositional theory, learning to see, eye/hand
coordination, left brain stuff and loads of slogans.
Most art schools teach little more how to make excuses for utter
incompetence and never get deeply into the technical aspects of
anything.
The basics of drawing are scientific and can still be found in
mechanical and architectural drawing texts and for artists and there
is lots more to learn past this. Present artistic drawing texts for
the most part contain little more than hints at technical information
and are illustrated by very mediocre examples. Their information is
aphoristic rather than scientific and they are written by people who
can't draw.
Drawing in previous centuries was taught starting with the technical
basics. Most everyone who studied that could produce a drawing that
looked like an object and also had some aesthetic attraction. I have
studied drawing texts from a historical point of view along with
student drawings. Even most Victorian ladies could draw far better
than most of today's best students.
Drawing as taught in most Modern Academic institutions today is a
recipe for a life of artistic failure.
mdeli
>In article <3d1d2ed4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, n...@mail.com says...
>
>> The basics of drawing are scientific and can still be found in
>> mechanical and architectural drawing texts and for artists and there
>> is lots more to learn past this.
>
>Could you enumerate what those basics are, please? Are you talking about
>such things as perspective, composition, line, shading, etc.?
Yes. However the best book I found that outlines what is necessarily
learned is "how to draw comics the marvel way"
It isn't really an instruction book in my opinion as it lacks detail.
I consider it an outline. The drawing it contains are excellent and I
consider it worthwhile to compare it to the incompetence contained in
the artzy fartzy drawing Bible by Nicolaides, "the natural way to
draw." (written in the 1930's) which at base is responsible for the
miles of dirty paper produced by art school students.
Most art drawing instruction books today are by people who can't draw.
Try looking at the drawing book advertised here at
http://www.notebookpublications.com/ where the publisher talks about
learning to see and hand /eye coordination.
The average graduat art student today doesn't have enough knowledge to
draw the chair he's sitting on.
Peter H.M. Brooks
<as...@jklwerui.sd> wrote in message
news:MPG.178757f06...@news-server.bak.rr.com...
> > mechanical and architectural drawing texts and for artists and there
> > is lots more to learn past this.
>
> such things as perspective, composition, line, shading, etc.?
>
is meant by 'scientific' is very unclear.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >such things as perspective, composition, line, shading, etc.?
>
> Yes. However the best book I found that outlines what is necessarily
> learned is "how to draw comics the marvel way"
>
it is 'scientific'.
Maybe Marvel is a famous scientist who produced a theory of drawing - if so,
please post the references.
mdeli
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
><as...@jklwerui.sd> wrote in message
>news:MPG.178757f06...@news-server.bak.rr.com...
>> In article <3d1d2ed4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, n...@mail.com says...
>>
>> > The basics of drawing are scientific and can still be found in
>> > mechanical and architectural drawing texts and for artists and there
>> > is lots more to learn past this.
>>
>> Could you enumerate what those basics are, please? Are you talking about
>> such things as perspective, composition, line, shading, etc.?
>>
>I would also be interested to learn of the basis for this claim. Quite what
>is meant by 'scientific' is very unclear.
>
>
The reason things look the way the do is explained by science. Roughly
speaking it is applied geometry.
mdeli
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Marvelous as the 'marvel way' might be, maybe you can explain how it is that
>it is 'scientific'.
Perhaps you can. I never said it was scientific.
Nerd Gerl
>Even most Victorian ladies could draw far better
>than most of today's best students.
Is this a problem for you?
==========
Portfolio of Nude Angels: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
See In Person @ MatrixArts Space | Sacramento, CA
E- Portfolio: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/nangels.zip
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:31:40 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
> >
> ><as...@jklwerui.sd> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.178757f06...@news-server.bak.rr.com...
> >> In article <3d1d2ed4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, n...@mail.com
says...
> >>
> >> > The basics of drawing are scientific and can still be found in
> >> > mechanical and architectural drawing texts and for artists and there
> >> > is lots more to learn past this.
> >>
> >> Could you enumerate what those basics are, please? Are you talking
about
> >> such things as perspective, composition, line, shading, etc.?
> >>
> >I would also be interested to learn of the basis for this claim. Quite
what
> >is meant by 'scientific' is very unclear.
> >
> >
> The reason things look the way the do is explained by science. Roughly
> speaking it is applied geometry.
>
mathematics, not science.
More importantly, can you let me know what geometrical theorems are applied?
Just a list would be fine - maybe a description of how they are applied
would be useful too.
I note that you claim classical drawing to be 'scientific' but back down on
this claim when it comes to your suggestion for learning classical drawing.
Not very consistent of you that.
Lissa
as...@jklwerui.sd wrote:
> In article <3d1e37b...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, n...@mail.com says...
>
> > The reason things look the way the do is explained by science. Roughly
> > speaking it is applied geometry.
>
> Would it be more reasonable to say that acquiring skill at drawing
> involves "learning to look" or "learning to observe" rather than
> "learning to see", which can be easily taken too literally?
It is perfectly reasonable to say "learning how to see."
Richard L. Gregory in his book_Eye and Brain, The Psychology of Seeing_ has
the following to say about "Learning How to See" in his chapter of the same
title:
"Do people brought up in different environments come to see differently?
The Western world has visual environments with many straight parallel
lines, such as roads, and right-angular corners of buildings and furniture
and so on. These are strong, generally reliable perspective cues to
distance. (...)
Those who stand out as living in a non-perspective world, were the Zulus.
Their world has been described as a 'circular culture'--traditionally their
huts were round, they did not plough their land in straight furrows, but in
curves, and few of their possessions had corners or straight lines."
(p.150-51)
In studies it was found that these people experienced the Muller-Lyer to
only a small extent, and were hardly affected at all by other such
distortion illusion figures. Also, studies of people living in dense
forests show that they do not see many distant objects. When taken out of
the forest, and shown distant objects for the first time they see these
objects as small not far away.
If nothing else these examples show that our perception is learned, deeply
connected to our brain processes and influenced by our environmental cues.
Lissa
--
"You become what you think about most of the time." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Andrew D
<mwe...@SPAMBLOCislandnet.com> wrote:
+x-no-archive: yes
+
+This just in: (a clip from Harper's weekly news email.)
+
+"[...]Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, reported that he sold
+between $20.5 million and $91 million in assets last year and
+complained that he had to pay accountants $60,000 to figure out how to
+fill out the required disclosure forms. Governor Jesse "The Mind"
+Ventura declared that he would not run for reelection and that he
+would spend the rest of his term traveling. Iraq announced that three
+novels by Saddam Hussein will be taught in schools next year. A
+British man made the news by claiming that postmodern art and critical<====
+theory had made him severely depressed.[...]"
+
+Andy D could be next.
+In response to "huh?"
+You seem to be upset over modern/postmodern art.
+It's here and it isn't going to go away because you
+don't like it.
I'm not upset over it. I don't like it but that's not the issue. My main
concern is the current trend to dismiss any traditional work as non-art. I
see signs of this changing and so I'm yet to give up hope.
The West Australian Art Gallery is filled with "modern" art with no
traditional art on display in the main gallery at all, despite the fact
they have a huge collection of historical Australian art from the late
1800's and early 1900's. I can assure you there has been a great deal of
excellent representational art produced since then - though you wouldn't
think so if you visited this gallery.
Similarly, our major art college favors abstract art above all else.
Whether it's "modern" or not is really open to interpretation since people
have been dribbling and throwing paint around for a long time now. But
anything remotely "realist" or too recognisable as a specific subject is
condemned - as is the student who persists in producing it.
Week after week, our only daily newspaper displays "art" that looks
remarkably familiar - dribbles, splashes, swishes, vague geometric shapes,
areas of flat, solid colour and so on yet almost never shows any art from
the huge "realist" community of artists in this state.
None of these institutions represents the wider art world. They dismiss or
ignore whole sections of the arts community for no apparent reason.
Articles in this group suggest that this is possibly a worldwide trend.
It's clear that modern, abstract art dominates more as a result of
institutionalised stealth than any genuine broadbased support.
Surely you wouldn't ask that I simply accept that situation without
question when I know that there is diverse opinion in the wider art world
and that abstract art does not, in my experience, enjoy majority public
support? This doesn't mean "modern" art shouldn't have a place - clearly
it should. But it is not the be all and end all of "art".
Andy .
William Barkin
my work...but to say that it is: "poorly executed, trite, and totally banal"
is absurd...it appears to me your describing your own output....you who has
never demonstrated the ability to create anything representational has no
qualms denigrating others that have...your opinions are laughable...you
don't deserve to be debated you stupid moron...like I said, Mani's got you
pegged to a tee...
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020701084150.491$a...@newsreader.com...
> Andy, I don't know what they're doing in Australia, but elsewhere you've
> got it backwards. Abstract art has been out of fashion, in the US at
least,
> for many years. I do it because I like to do it. What is 'in' in the US
> artworld is postmodernism; has been for quite some time. The art is mostly
> realistic, and often well-executed, but with 'social' themes. I would be
> living in a much bigger house and driving a better car if I went along
with
> the trend (and was 30 years younger, to suit the youth-centered US
> society).
>
> In my view most of this work is adolescent - the themes are trite and
> obvious. Educated people (sorry) don't need to be told that AIDs is bad,
or
> that women and minorities are poorly treated. But that's my view. As to
> realism in art - I don't object to it at all. One of my personal favorite
> artists is Edward Hopper, who painted realism when Abstract Expressionism
> was the accepted thing in New York. What I do object to is bad art. Much
> 'realist' art done by amateurs (and some professionals, unfortunately) is
> poorly executed, trite, and totally banal. See William Barkin's website
for
> good examples of this. (Yes, I know your response to this, William, same
as
> always: fuck you fuck you fuck you. Get an education.)
> --
> Dan
> www.danfoxart.com
>
> "Art is what the Trust Fund Kids say it is."
mdeli
>Andy, I don't know what they're doing in Australia, but elsewhere you've
>got it backwards. Abstract art has been out of fashion, in the US at least,
>for many years.
Perhaps Fox imagines this because his sales a slipping.
Seems to me that the modern sections of the museums I visit have about
at least 80% abstract art. Even outdoor art shows are about 50/50.
However what Dan calls non-abstract probably isn't that in my book.
Modern Academic Art is a mixture of abstraction and no-skill-realism.
However abstraction still predominates.
> What is 'in' in the US art world is postmodernism; has been for quite some time.
Postmodern is the same crap tha's been repeated for the last 70 years
with a new Artspeak song and dance accompaniment. Most all is abstract
schmier as avant-gone as Fox's.
mdeli
wrote:
>It is perfectly reasonable to say "learning how to see."
>
It is. However that isn't what is done in art school.
Its also reasonable to say, "learning to hear" and learning to "pee."
mdeli
>If what Pollock did isn't art then just tell us why it isn't art!
In other words the usual ploy.
It is art, but not much above that produced by an average chimpanzee.
However if you doubt that chimpanzee art isn't art just tell us why?
Whether its art or not doesn't interest me. I doubt that either work
is any good simply because it can be imitated by most anyone with a
slight degree of technique.
>I just know that Pollock's and Rothko's painting are art. Now prove me
>wrong.
As I always said lots of art can also be crap. Now prove me wrong.
Its art. Bullshit is an art.
When Christo farts, its art. When Marilyn praises a room full of
bananas, its art. Duchamp's pisspot is art. So is Rockwell and Dali.
But the real question is IS ANY OF THIS art ANY GOOD?
The is it art question is a ploy to avoid discussing whether a piece
has any merit.
mdeli
>In article <3d1e37b...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, n...@mail.com says...
>
>> The reason things look the way the do is explained by science. Roughly
>> speaking it is applied geometry.
>
>Would it be more reasonable to say that acquiring skill at drawing
>involves "learning to look" or "learning to observe" rather than
>"learning to see", which can be easily taken too literally?
>
Yes, that is approxmatly what I have been saying.
If the term "learning to see" were just another artzy aphorism I
wouldn't have brought up the point.
It is however used as verbal excuse by teachers and authors who can't
draw because they don't know the fundamentals.
Its a statement which sounds like its contains information until you
dare to analyze it.
Lissa
mdeli wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 22:24:57 -0600, Lissa <ljro...@cadvision.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It is perfectly reasonable to say "learning how to see."
> >
> It is. However that isn't what is done in art school.
>
> Its also reasonable to say, "learning to hear" and learning to "pee."
Hey Doofus ... kids do have to learn how to pee. Ever hear of pottie
training? Sure ... peeing is an unconscious bodily response, but we are
taught how to control it and direct it. Just like seeing or hearing.
Lissa
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
>
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
--
Ima Sweat
>If nothing else these examples show that our perception is learned, deeply
>connected to our brain processes and influenced by our environmental cues.
And you should consider what true Eskimoes
experience in their world. They too historically
built circular, as opposed to rectangular, igloos.
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
[snip]
+ What I do object to is bad art. Much
+'realist' art done by amateurs (and some professionals, unfortunately) is
+poorly executed, trite, and totally banal.
If we are to accept that art is in the eye of the beholder and that there
are no rules or restrictions in good art, then who decides one person's
realist art is "bad" but another persons big swishes of paint are "good"?
From my observation, it is often the "well executed" realist art that
receives the most derision from those "in the know". Painters who produce
more naive (poorly executed) works are often elevated as great(er)
artists.
Andy D.
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
+In particular, I'm struck by your objection to Nik's portraits on the
+grounds that they do not imitate the subject exactly.
I've moved my response to Nik's thread.
Andy.
Discussion
study etc., is a very good thing. I would also say that
there is room for the untutored, the maverick and the
naive from whom there may come something unique,
something containing an essence that in every other
case has been trained out of those who have done
some of the studying you are recommending.
Henri Russeau for example.
N.H
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020702141544.944$3...@newsreader.com...
> Andy -
>snip<
> Trying to be an artist
> without knowing art history is like trying to be an economist without
> knowing about the crash of '29.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
I have tried to bait him with a logically structured question that if he
answered would enhance one of his own arguments - but he ignored it.
You are trying to bait him with a logically structured question that is in
essence a trap which can be used to argue the ridged limitations of his 'god
of illusion - perspective'.
He is basically a street kid. He'll throw rocks at your windows and as soon
as you open your door - he'll turn and start running while yelling threats
which become more distant with every leap. There you stand, at your door,
feeling frustrated and helpless. No matter what you try or how many times
you try - you can never get him - you are trapped by your own need to feel
in control - he has won because he controls your anger.
Does this sound like star wars and the dark side?
keith
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:aflqp7$na3$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
mdeli
>I notice that you are having trouble getting an answer from mani.
Where?
>I have tried to bait him with a logically structured question that if he
>answered would enhance one of his own arguments - but he ignored it.
Most of what you write is convoluted drivel not worth a comment.
>
>You are trying to bait him with a logically structured question that is in
>essence a trap which can be used to argue the ridged limitations of his 'god
>of illusion - perspective'.
>
>He is basically a street kid.
You are basically a jerk pissed off that I peg you as a university
hack.
>He'll throw rocks at your windows and as soon
>as you open your door - he'll turn and start running while yelling threats
>which become more distant with every leap.
Name one "threat".
>There you stand, at your door,
>feeling frustrated and helpless.
If you feel that way its because you don't know your craft.
>No matter what you try or how many times
>you try - you can never get him - you are trapped by your own need to feel
>in control - he has won because he controls your anger.
As I said convoluted drivel.