Don't Let History Repeat Itself... Learn from Art
John Ng
painters are those who paint realistically. For example, the worst
culprit of all is Bouguereau who paints like a photograph. Why should
a painter condescend to reproducing what technology can easily
achieve? Look at Cezanne, he is the pioneer and avant-garde of images
that is his personal trademark.
History is likely to repeat itself again and I feel sure that we are
going the fruitless way of Bouguereau in the area of movie-making.
"Final Fantasy" has proven to the world that realistic movies are just
a button away. If we could produce such realistic animation in 2001,
what more in thirty years time? Why copy what we can see in real
life? Why bouguerize our movies? Why reproduce what we can produce
with technology? We should leave silver-screen realism to the
computers while we concentrate on higher forms; that is creating
ideas, novel and new.
Frivolous actors like James Dean and Clint Eastwood are destined to be
forgotten. They have produced no artistry but clownish imitation of
real life. One of the worst culprits, you would agree, is Marlon
Brando. In "Godfather", he is insipid and talentless, emulating a
Mafia in high realism. If I want to see a gangster, tell me why
should I go to the movies? I could jolly well visit my local Bikie
Gang. Look at his "Last Tango". It is nothing but an erotic movie
that I put together with my "Deep Throat" and "Debbie Does Dallas"
videos. A panderer of filth, Marlon is nothing more than John Holmes
and John Leslie.
Realism is out I tell you. Hollywood should make more films like
"Austin Powers" whose incoherent imagery rivals that of Picasso's.
Novel and new is the key to success, along and with dazzling colours.
Future movies should heed lessons learned in Modern Art, and the most
successful ones with be those whose the actors are dressed in flat and
colourful costumes. The reason being that we have learned how Cezanne
cleverly painted pictures that incorporated a view from multiple
angles, bringing the notion of the forth dimension into a single
dimension canvas. Likewise because multi-dimension is inherent in
movies, we should therefore try to achieve a single dimension... a
simple deduction. Such tricks can be done by dressing up the actors
in Yogi Bear or Popeye costumes. The actors should also master the
art of talking like Porky Pig so that the audience can in no way
confuse their performance with reality.
Just like the Art revolution that was in place exactly 100 years ago,
the movie industry should modernise, or fade into oblivion. The
future of such endeavours should be labelled "Modern Cinematography".
In closing, I admonish the industry once again to innovate or face
utter destruction. Realism is out, Modern is in.
John
ART RENEWALIST
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Bob & Dale Ford
John Ng wrote:
>
> We have known since the end of the 19th Century that the worst
> painters are those who paint realistically. For example, the worst
> culprit of all is Bouguereau who paints like a photograph.
No he doesn't paint like a photograph.
Todd Strickland
chris
The big problem with representational art is that it is based on outmoded
ideas like objective or external reality, which we all know now to be
illusions. What we feel is all that really counts, and all the other stuff -
logic, reason - even language - just hampers us in our search for
self-fulfillment.
Look at what happens in the school system - in the old days, kids were
taught reading, writing, arithmetic in order to force them into modes of
thought that would blind them to the evils self suffiency and self respect
(i.e. Kapitalism). Reading skills were acquired through hateful literature
like "Tom Sawyer" - which glorifies a life of poverty and racism - or the
"Iliad", a celebration of war, destruction, and the apparent evils of women.
In order to learn to write, children were forced to take abhorrent courses
ranging from penmanship to grammar, all with an eye to teaching them how to
communicate precisely and logically. But human beings are neither precise,
nor logical, and hence the school system was clearly designed to take away
any sense of their humanity.
In arithmetic - the most evil of all subjuects - they learned everything
from counting ( a fundamental technique for the manipulation of property) to
handling fractions (so they compute interest rates for the the loan sharking
exacted upon the poor). For more aggressive students, such courses often
lead to studies in dangerous fields like mathematics and physics, which by
nature generates H-bombs, and a military industrial complex built on human
calculators devoid of feelings.
There is a strong parallel in art education - as soon as you teach a person
the basics of representational drawing, or a knowlege of tone, what do they
start doing? They start using it as a tool to understand the world around
them, they start forgetting that one's feelings are the only thing that
matter, and they start trying to communicate with others through their art
by daring to reduce the glories of self-invented aestetic language to
commonplace trivialities, all on the pretence of making it accessible to
others. They start asking why someone else's work is more (or less)
effective than their own - talk about the creation of social hierarchies! In
the very worst scenario, those who have dedicated their lives to such
socially destructive madness go on to create discriminatory cliques (like
the hateful ateliers of the 19th Century) designed to keep the Truie Self
from progessing, and finding its own expression.
Worst of all, they make money at it. They are able to do so only by
pandering to the lowest instincts of human nature, so that rather than
demanding their audience to understand them on their own terms, they
actually want to find a common language between themselves and others. But
isn't this just as inane as trying to dress up real emotions with fancy
trappings like logic and reason, and calling the resulting mess "ideas"?
Preposterous, if you ask me.
So I say, let's pour on the paint, go with the flow, see what happens.
Regards;
Chris
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02020...@posting.google.com...
silverpoint
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02020...@posting.google.com...
John Ng
> No he doesn't paint like a photograph.
Yes he does. Some MODERNISTs say that if you look behind his
painting, and very carefully, you will find "Kodak" written on it.
Special Kodak canvas I guess.
John
John Ng
> So I say, let's pour on the paint, go with the flow, see what happens.
I think you got it Chris. Rare are the times when two art lovers see
eye to eye. Yes, "let's pour on the paint" and see how it flows --
random or through some physical law. At any rate, we know that, the
resulting art is surely a masterpiece of "logic", "reason" and
creativity. Pooh pooh to Bouguereau for his are just paintings that
anybody, armed with a photograph, can do. Pouring paint, that is
sheer skill.
John Ng
> No he doesn't paint like a photograph.
By the way, I just figured out that you hadn't read the post in it entirety.
John
John Ng
> John, you've been smoking crack again, haven't you?
How did you derive at that. Yes, I have been smoking CRACK in a POT. Get it?
John
John Ng
> I give up...
Hooray, one up for Porky Pig.
silverpoint
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020205184608.141$r...@newsreader.com...
> Good idea. It's like talking to Haines about bigotry. But this nonsense
did
> prompt some pretty good commentary on modern art that otherwise might not
> have been posted.
>
>
> "silverpoint" <etenthstr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I give up...
> >
> > "John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d1bb492a.02020...@posting.google.com...
> > > We have known since the end of the 19th Century that the worst
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
Todd Strickland
> ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp (Todd Strickland) wrote in message
>
> > John, you've been smoking crack again, haven't you?
>
> How did you derive at that.
Oh, I just sumarized it...
silverpoint
the decadence of modern art.
That's all, folks
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02020...@posting.google.com...
Val N. Tyne
>
>Porky pig is a degenerate as well. Ever notice that Petunia Pig isn't
>wearing any pants? What is her relationship to Porky, anyway? And if pork
>is involved, can a Jewish conspiracy be far behind? I rest my case.
ahhhh cum on! No one, but NO ONE can hold
a candle to Wylie E. Coyote - MEEP MEEP!
"Never give up trying" was his motto - which
should be the clarion call for all struggling artists...
John Ng
> Thanks, and I still give up. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
Yeah, so you can't create a turnip from blood.
John
silverpoint
eggs by breaking some omelettes....
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.0202...@posting.google.com...
Bob & Dale Ford
me to discuss in depth and not worth the effort. You are viewing
computer generated images and deciding they are photo realistic. When I
think of a photograph I do not think of his paintings. They are not
that realistic at all. You can definitely tell they are paintings. You
want realism, photo depiction skills check out the photo realists,
although they might give you an aneurysm.
RBrac53660
stupid is as stupid does