Where Mani goes wrong...
WILLIAM PALMER
in rec.arts.fine. For one thing, at least he HAS a point of view.
Sadly, some posters seem to lack that. It seems to me that Mani
has an impressive knowledge of art, and that should be respected.
Further, Mr. Fox is likely wrong for calling Mani a sour-grapes
person. Mani has made some thoughtful criticisms of art-
school curricula. Whether or not Mani has a degree from such
an institution himself has nothing to do with his feelings about
what is being taught at art schools these days. One thing I
have--sadly enough--noticed about Mr. Fox is that he employs
the most shallow and crude methods when he opposes someone's
opinion. I hope I am wrong about him, but as of now I suspect
Mr Fox for an intellectual poltroon. That is a terrible suspicion
to have to harbor about another rec.arts.fine poster.
Returning to Mani Deli now, here is where he falls off the
path of good sense. Based on a number of statements Mani
has posted, it is clear that he greatly overvalues facility with the
paintbrush. He thinks THAT is everything, when it comes to
the ineffable something which makes an artist great. In other
words, in reading what Mani says, you get the impression
that if two painters had almost identical skills, but one of
them could do a slightly better job painting pinky-fingers, then
the better pinky-finger painter would be the greater artist!
Mani has a childish way of evaluating art, then. A
child--being innocent of such matters as thematic
concerns, and one hundred other things that go into
making a painter great--would of course think that artists
should be ranked with the one who could make the
most life-like paintings at the top.
That's where Mani strays from sound aesthetic judgment.
Like our hypothetical child, Mani seems wholly innocent
of such "complicated matters" as thematic concerns.
Perhaps he can never confront the fact that the reason
that Bouguereau is not nearly as great a painter as at least
one-dozen of the Symbolists, is that Bouguereau apparently
lacked whatever it is that inspires a painter to come up with
truly original subjects.
As to WHY Bouguereau was so timid in his thematic
concerns, I do not know. There could have been a purely
commercial motive. Bouguereau painted exactly the
sort of things that wealthy art patrons of his day preferred
to have on the walls of their large homes. On the other
hand, his lack of innovation with regard to thematic
concerns could have simply been the result of a lack
of any desire on Bouguereau's part to question the
status quo.
Please don't misunderstand me to suggest that Khnopff,
Schwabe, Bocklin, and the other leading Symbolists
were revolutionary firebrands. Far from that laughable
notion.. Their revolution was in their art, not in their
lifestyles. But while Bouguereau plowed familiar
ground over and over, the greatest among the
Symbolists were plainly motivated by things other
than simply a desire to sell their work and be popular
with critics and art buying public. The Symbolists,
it might be said, were pioneers and adventurers of
the mind, and the result was that they handled age
old questions in entirely new ways, ways that were
often seen as disturbing and even terrifying by the
public as well as the critical establishment of their day.
In fact, while the Symbolist period corresponded
roughly in its dates to the Impressionist period, for
most of the 20th Century the average person (even
the average art student) knew almost nothing
about the Symbolist period, since Impressionism
had almost entirely eclipsed it.
Anyway, where Mani goes wrong is revealed in the
way he uses a rather juvenile yardstick to evaluate the
greatness or lack thereof of painters. In so doing,
he asks readers to throw matters like originality in
theme and subject out the window. That is sort
of sad of Mani, because readers are not going to
do that..
As I said in another post, one suspects that perhaps
Mani had an elderly aunt who showed him a Bouguereau
reproduction when he was seven (or, even better, perhaps
took him to a museum and helped him focus his attention
on a Bouguereau original) and Mani has never been
able to get beyond that wonderful moment in his
chilhood. In the aesthetic sense, Mani Deli--
colorful rec.arts.fine poster though he is--certainly
seems like a case of arrested development.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
Andrew D
PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
+Without a doubt Mani Deli is one of the more interesting posters
+in rec.arts.fine. For one thing, at least he HAS a point of view.
+Sadly, some posters seem to lack that. It seems to me that Mani
+has an impressive knowledge of art, and that should be respected.
+Further, Mr. Fox is likely wrong for calling Mani a sour-grapes
+person. Mani has made some thoughtful criticisms of art-
+school curricula. Whether or not Mani has a degree from such
+an institution himself has nothing to do with his feelings about
+what is being taught at art schools these days.
Indeed, it would be difficult to stick with the school system long enough
to get a degree if you despise almost everything they "teach". So a
vehement critic with a degree would be a rare find.
[snip]
+In other
+words, in reading what Mani says, you get the impression
+that if two painters had almost identical skills, but one of
+them could do a slightly better job painting pinky-fingers, then
+the better pinky-finger painter would be the greater artist!
If their works were almost identical except for the fingers then that
would surely be the case... unless there was some other significant
difference that makes the poor pinky painting better in some other regard.
+Mani has a childish way of evaluating art, then. A
+child--being innocent of such matters as thematic
+concerns, and one hundred other things that go into
+making a painter great--would of course think that artists
+should be ranked with the one who could make the
+most life-like paintings at the top.
I don't think that is necessarily true. Some kids love paintings of
animals with HUGE teary eyes, hardly lifelike. Others love action
cartoons, also far from lifelike. Mani himself does not paint as a
"realist", more a surrealist and repeatedly states that his preference is
not restricted to "realism". Neither Disney, nor Rockwell nor Dali were
realists.
+That's where Mani strays from sound aesthetic judgment.
+Like our hypothetical child, Mani seems wholly innocent
+of such "complicated matters" as thematic concerns.
+Perhaps he can never confront the fact that the reason
+that Bouguereau is not nearly as great a painter as at least
+one-dozen of the Symbolists, is that Bouguereau apparently
+lacked whatever it is that inspires a painter to come up with
+truly original subjects.
What's original about smearing paint on canvas in a completely
non-subjective way?
+As to WHY Bouguereau was so timid in his thematic
+concerns, I do not know. There could have been a purely
+commercial motive. Bouguereau painted exactly the
+sort of things that wealthy art patrons of his day preferred
+to have on the walls of their large homes. On the other
+hand, his lack of innovation with regard to thematic
+concerns could have simply been the result of a lack
+of any desire on Bouguereau's part to question the
+status quo.
Perhaps he was painting what he wanted to paint. Perhaps he was inspired
by beautiful forms rather than the dark, ugly side of life that "inspires"
so many of his critics. How is his inspiration less credible or worthwhile
than that of today's dribble and smear abstractionists (who, let's face
it, could tell you anything they think you want to hear about their latest
piece because you would have no basis on which to assess the work anyway)
[snip]
+As I said in another post, one suspects that perhaps
+Mani had an elderly aunt who showed him a Bouguereau
+reproduction when he was seven (or, even better, perhaps
+took him to a museum and helped him focus his attention
+on a Bouguereau original) and Mani has never been
+able to get beyond that wonderful moment in his
+chilhood. In the aesthetic sense, Mani Deli--
+colorful rec.arts.fine poster though he is--certainly
+seems like a case of arrested development.
But if that's who he is then why isn't that allowed to be reflected in his
opinions? Why are the paint-strewn tantrums of apparently near-insane
people more valuable as art than skillful renderings by people who derive
their artistic enjoyment from the world's beauty (real or imagined) rather
than from the dregs of some warped, drug-affected mind?
And why are the "realists" always the ones at fault in this debate? Why is
that they are the ones who need to "grow" or "develop"? Perhaps those
lecturers/artists who mani despises were shown hideous images when they
were young and perhaps that explains why this is all they can perceive to
be art as adults. Had you considered that?
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
augart
Luna Tuna
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>Had you considered that?
It's my observation that the consensus
opinion in this newsgroup has been that Mani
is incapable of 'growing.' Growing in the
sense of learning something valuably new,
or having a single new idea in all the
years he's been posting his 'broken record'
diatribes here, often resorting to childish
name-calling and mud-slinging.
Kenny Danielson
thoughtful dialog it will be enough for me.
--
Kenny Danielson, Coeur d'Alene ID
"augart" <aug...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:525d72a7.02091...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
emotionally charged put-down words. That tendency causes you to lose the
high ground. Your obsession with the symbolists cause you to interject them
in almost every one of your postings which reduces your postings to a
promotional platform for symbolism.
The question becomes: is your posting a comment on Mani or a opportunity to
promote your own obsession? Is this then your true point of view - promote
symbolism whenever, wherever and however? That is exactly what a bible
thumper does?
If you are posting on the topic of where Mani goes wrong; why are you
commenting on Mr. Fox? You sit in judgement of him - placing your self in
the position of judge over another is a method of building yourself up at
the expense of another. Your are saying: "look at my articulate writing
style - it is so superior to that of Mr. Fox".
As the old saying goes. "you sound like a pompous ass".
As far as artistic philosophy is concerned Mani and his supporters are not
artistic pluralists. They proclaim - without in my opinion any artistic
understanding - that the "trompe l'oeil" style is the only true form of
art. Like it or not that is their position but they do not come across as
pompous asses - just bull headed fools.
keith
WILLIAM PALMER <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Yyei9.781$vt7.45...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Leigh
"Kenny Danielson" <kendan...@earthlink.net> wrote
> If he only saves r.a.f. from some of the familiar tantrums and evokes some
> thoughtful dialog it will be enough for me.
This newsgroup centers on Mani, revolves around Mani, is fueled by Mani. He
is the god to be revered and vilified. Without him there would be nothing to
talk about. HE is the discussion, not art. The redundant diatribes have gone
on through the years and will go on forever more... godlike, don't you
think?
Sigh... wasn't art the point here? Not just one single minded, redundant,
opinion? I don't read him, but he is obviously the darling of rest of the
troops.
L.
WILLIAM PALMER
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Muli9.376$q41...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> You make some interesting points well articulated but then interject
> emotionally charged put-down words. That tendency causes you to lose the
> high ground. Your obsession with the symbolists cause you to interject
them
> in almost every one of your postings which reduces your postings to a
> promotional platform for symbolism.
You know, I can't quarrel with a thing you say in your first paragraph.
As to the mixing of the "well-articulated" with the "emotional," that is
one facet of my posting style. While that would certainly be a flaw in
an academic article, many of my newsgroup readers enjoy it. Further,
because of the great difference in background among newsgroup
readers, it is impossible to maintain the high-ground with all of them
all the time. What gives you high-ground among some will put you
on "low ground" with others. So, I just try to keep them entertained
and coming back for more.
But please do not misunderstand that to mean I am insincere.
After all, you can mean what you say and still try to be entertaining.
I certainly mean what I say when I pose what a reasonable person
would see as a serious argument. Further, you are correct about
my promoting Symbolism. My doing that is only fair to those
many great artists who have been more-or-less neglected for
a century. For instance, just ask yourself how much energy
and money has gone into promoting the Impressionists for the
last one-hundred years. Why? For a number of reasons, but
mostly because art dealers knew that the Impressionists had
a vast market-potential because of the thematic concerns of
their art makes it suitable to so many different kinds of people
and in so many situations. So, what is wrong with the long
neglected Symbolists getting some much-needed promotion
now?
One good example of the neglect showed itself when I did
a Google newsgroup search on Carlos Schwabe the other
day and came up with very few GEMS (a GEM is a
"Google mention"). Further, several of those GEMS
were from my earlier articles on Symbolism, and most
of the others were from some French-speakers. Of
course, if you check now there will be a few more
based on my posts of the past couple of days, but still--
contrast those numbers for Schwabe with GEMS for Manet,
Degas, and the other even more famous Impressionists,
who have been discussed at length in rec.arts.fine.
>
> The question becomes: is your posting a comment on Mani or a opportunity
to
> promote your own obsession?
Valid question, certainly. I think non-commercial promotion (as long
as it is on newsgroup topic) is perfectly appropriate in Usenet. If
you are promoting achievers of the past who have been unreasonably
neglected, so much the better.
Is this then your true point of view - promote
> symbolism whenever, wherever and however? That is exactly what a bible
> thumper does?
>
> If you are posting on the topic of where Mani goes wrong; why are you
> commenting on Mr. Fox? You sit in judgement of him - placing your self in
> the position of judge over another is a method of building yourself up at
> the expense of another. Your are saying: "look at my articulate writing
> style - it is so superior to that of Mr. Fox".
I certainly have not noticed that. In fact, most of my Usenet writing
can stand some editing, since my usual practice it to let my thoughts
roll from my mind right into the net. In my view, the only instance of
unusual writing I have posted here recently is my "Ugly? Beautiful?
Schwabe's Mysterious Symbolist Masterpiece," and--ironically--
that has not generated one follow-up post yet. Oh, yes, and I
took that sideswipe at Mr. Fox because he has not been
acting forthrightly, in the intellectual sense. Instead of
tackling my ideas, he is foolishly trying to disparage me
for the amusement writing I do in certain other newsgroups.
(Maybe Mr. Fox would like to be Grand Commissar of
Usenet and decree that each poster can wear only one hat.)
>
> As the old saying goes. "you sound like a pompous ass".
Oh, I suppose I do sometimes, when I get to arguing. But I don't
think anyone would say that about my "Ugly? Beautiful? (Schwabe's
Mysterious Symbolist Masterpiece)."
>
> As far as artistic philosophy is concerned Mani and his supporters are not
> artistic pluralists. They proclaim - without in my opinion any artistic
> understanding - that the "trompe l'oeil" style is the only true form of
> art. Like it or not that is their position but they do not come across as
> pompous asses - just bull headed fools.
In a way, the whole dispute might seem silly to some. After all,
when you argue "Bouguereau, etc., versus the Symbolists," you are
talking about two art schools which have both been incredibly
neglected in favor of Symbolism.
By the way, here is a little gem for Mani: "The Symbolists disliked
Impressionism because Zola had supported it, but they disliked even
more the Zolas of painting, whom they called photographic artists,
such as Gerome, Bouguereau, Gervex and of course Meissonier."
Philippe Jullian, THE SYMBOLISTS, copyright Phaidon Books,
1974. Now, that Jullian quotation opens into a lot of other matters,
but, it might be helpful to note that many of the Symbolists disliked
Zola because they saw their role as being one of anti-naturalism.
The Symbolists' thematic concerns, after all, generally concerned
matters that lay beyond the surface of things. (These two opposing
concepts are dealt with very effectively in Huysman's "Against Nature,"
novel. The title--translated from the French--means "Against
NATURALISM," not literally "against nature." Personally,
I enjoy Gerome's work very much. I think his exotic subjects
make his work more interesting than that of Bouguereau.
>
> keith
[...]
WILLIAM PALMER
In my earlier post under this subject line, I wrote (in a paragraph
near the end of my posting):
[...]
>
>> In a way, the whole dispute might seem silly to some. After all,
> when you argue "Bouguereau, etc., versus the Symbolists," you are
> talking about two art schools which have both been incredibly
> neglected in favor of Symbolism.
CORRECTION:
Of course, I should have written,
---------------------------------------------------------------
...you are talking about two art schools which have both been
incredibly neglected in favor of *Impressionism*.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please make the correction in your records. Sorry for any
annoyance.
Mr. Tudball
>Please make the correction in your records.
>Sorry for any annoyance
A Confederacy of Dunces
Ignatius, is that you?
I'm curious about your personal life Mr. Palmer. I hope you moved out
of your mother's house. You're beginning to sound deranged.
-j
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
WILLIAM PALMER <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:s6ni9.116$1N1.4...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Thomas Ziorjen
I disagree -- this place has had substantial dialogue at
times -- *despite* the sniping by Mani. He can be ignored,
and he's no darling to me, even if he does inadvertently
promote my work.
Thomas
online portfolio:
http://www.user.dccnet.com/thomas_ziorjen
Andrew D
Tuna) wrote:
+In article <right-19090...@i160-151.nv.iinet.net.au>,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
+
+>Had you considered that?
+
+It's my observation that the consensus
+opinion in this newsgroup has been that Mani
+is incapable of 'growing.' Growing in the
+sense of learning something valuably new,
+or having a single new idea in all the
+years he's been posting his 'broken record'
+diatribes here, often resorting to childish
+name-calling and mud-slinging.
If "growing" means accepting the unacceptable than it appears this is a
more restrictive rule than colouring within the lines.
Andrew D
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
[snip]
+As far as artistic philosophy is concerned Mani and his supporters are not
+artistic pluralists. They proclaim - without in my opinion any artistic
+understanding - that the "trompe l'oeil" style is the only true form of
+art. Like it or not that is their position but they do not come across as
+pompous asses - just bull headed fools.
Neither Disney nor Rockwell nor Marvel could be considered "trompe l'oeil".
WILLIAM PALMER
"Mr. Tudball" <Mr_Tu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28907-3D8...@storefull-2197.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> William Palmer wrote:
> >Please make the correction in your records.
> >Sorry for any annoyance
>
> A Confederacy of Dunces
> Ignatius, is that you?
Now, isn't a bit silly of you to use someone's public correction of
an erroneous word in his post, for your satirical jab? Even so,
considering that last week (in another group) I was the target
of a subhuman libel of the vilest sort--regarding my ongoing auto-
biography, FACTS IN THE CASE OF BILL PALMER--
I suppose I should not protest your dollop of satire
>
> I'm curious about your personal life Mr. Palmer. I hope you moved out
> of your mother's house. You're beginning to sound deranged.
You can call me an exponent of Second Generation cyberpunk,
or cp.gen2.
.
Essentially (and I will make this short since were are not in
a cyberpunk group), First Generation cyberpunk was a
literary movement comprising a sort of sub-genre of science
fiction. The First Generation includes some brilliant writers
who saw the net getting started and dreamed up superb sf
scenarios about a net that never existed and never will exist.
However imaginative, the First Generation writers never really
had an authentic interactive net life at all. They readily
admit that.
People like me (not suggesting that I know for a fact there
are any more of us; I don't CARE if there are more of us)
were born on the net and came from within the net. We
might write science fiction, but we don't need to, because
we are convinced that the reality of the net today is far more
exciting than any sf scenario. Therefore, we feel no need to
write our posts in a hard-boiled, street-wise, techno-style
suggesting a bad imitation of William Gibson. We can
sound like anything or anybody. What we have in common
are minds that have been altered through use of the net,
to the extent that when we look back at what we were
before the net, it is like we are trying to imagine ourselves
as children or retarded adults.
So, how did the King of All Cyberpunks become
obsessed with Symbolist art? Well, we will have
to save that for some future discussion, but there is
nothing about livin' IN the net that suggests to me
that mysteries which we humans may or may not
lack the capacity to solve are not woven into the
fabric of our universe...Symbolist art is humble art,
in a sense. The Symbolist artist says, I don't know,
but I will try with every fiber of my being to use my
talents to pose the important questions...
alt.genius.bill-palmer.retard-written.on.chudov.wordy.rocket
(Temporary office headquarters: rec.arts.prose)
"I don't run with the herd, I FLAME the herd."
wil...@ix.netcom.com
WILLIAM PALMER
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-19090...@i160-151.nv.iinet.net.au...
> In article <Yyei9.781$vt7.45...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>, "WILLIAM
> PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
[...] Snip of a number of interesting remarks by Andrew,
because they were just posted on this same thread.
Basically, I agree with most of what you are saying. But have you
really seen a painting by Fernand Khnopff, or are you just picking
up on some disparaging comments Mani made about the great
Belgian Symbolist?
Frankly, I would suspect that anyone who took even a very quick
look at any of Khnopff's many masterpieces and called him a "paint
smearer" or a "dauber" might have more than more than one screw
loose. And there are at the very least one-dozen other leading
Symbolist painters with magnificant technical skills. I think Mani
is confusing you. As I said earlier, you meet "Mani"'s in literature
too--such as the chap who maintains that every writer who came
after Dickens is clueless scribbler, whose worst crime is that he is
not Charles Dickens! People like Mani exist in the field of
music, too, of course.
But I will be the first to agree with you and Mani both that
there is a lot of abstract rubbish polluting the art world.
And I am not an anti-modern, either. For instance, I
think that Stuart Davis is vastly underrated, and in fact
represents the quintessence of U. S. modern art.
I share your protest about the all the paint-splattering,
though, because living in Los Angeles, I have often noted
with dismay the way all too many of the most respected
galleries feature dreary atrocities by third and fourth
rate Pollack and de Kooning imitators, etc.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Mani Deli
>This newsgroup centers on Mani, revolves around Mani, is fueled by Mani. He
>is the god to be revered and vilified. Without him there would be nothing to
>talk about. HE is the discussion, not art. The redundant diatribes have gone
>on through the years and will go on forever more... godlike, don't you
>think?
>
>Sigh... wasn't art the point here? Not just one single minded, redundant,
>opinion? I don't read him, but he is obviously the darling of rest of the
>troops.
What bugs you is an opinion that doesn't agree with your's.
Besides my put downs of Artzy Fartsyism I have continually written
serious messages. This twit and most others here rarely address any of
my serious points.
When I answer personal invective in kind, most here get furious. Then
there are those who ask what I think of there work and cry fowl when I
say what I think.
If you want to hear only nice things about Modern Academic Art and
send each other love and kisses about your art work you should start a
Modern Art Love In forum. I suggest Yente Welch as moderator.
Of course you can also kill file my messages. Yente Welch claims she
has been doing this for years but evidence shows that she reads them
anyway. I guess like so many artzy fartzy failures here she has a
masochistic streak.
...no skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
Andrew D
PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-19090...@i160-151.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <Yyei9.781$vt7.45...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>, "WILLIAM
+> PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
+
+[...] Snip of a number of interesting remarks by Andrew,
+ because they were just posted on this same thread.
+Basically, I agree with most of what you are saying. But have you
+really seen a painting by Fernand Khnopff, or are you just picking
+up on some disparaging comments Mani made about the great
+Belgian Symbolist?
+Frankly, I would suspect that anyone who took even a very quick
+look at any of Khnopff's many masterpieces and called him a "paint
+smearer" or a "dauber" might have more than more than one screw
+loose.
The smear and dribble comments were more about the art promoted by half
the members of this group as the only great art rather than your favourite
symoblists. My personal opinion of Fernand Khnopff, (and I know little of
his work) is that he either couldn't or wouldn't draw properly. If his art
is more about symbolic ideas that the accurate portrayal of those ideas
then I'd still suggest, as I did earlier, that someone with equal skill
(and the same idea) would be a "better artist" if they could also draw
properly (and that does not necessarily mean absolute realism).
Andy D.
Noumenon
WILLIAM PALMER wrote:
> "Ugly? Beautiful?
> Schwabe's Mysterious Symbolist Masterpiece," and--ironically--
> that has not generated one follow-up post yet.
It will hardly generate any follop-ups because
questions that your post raises any do not require discussion.
Answers are known and the whole thing is quite obvious.
It may be perfect as a discussion topic for teenagers,
and hardly interesting to grown-up mature ehhh... artists and adherents.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
WILLIAM PALMER
"Noumenon" <ArtE...@Concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:3D8AD361...@Concentric.Net...
>
>
> WILLIAM PALMER wrote:
>
> > "Ugly? Beautiful?
> > Schwabe's Mysterious Symbolist Masterpiece," and--ironically--
> > that has not generated one follow-up post yet.
>
>
> It will hardly generate any follop-ups because
> questions that your post raises any do not require discussion.
> Answers are known and the whole thing is quite obvious.
Ha! Same old modus operandi. I have remarked before about
the way you stay safely general in order to try and fool the
guillible into believing you know things you don't. That, my
friend, is a common pose among sophomores (and among the
perennially sophmoric).
>
> It may be perfect as a discussion topic for teenagers,
> and hardly interesting to grown-up mature ehhh... artists and adherents.
That is to say, since the question I posed is far too profound for
your limited cognitive powers, you will try to--as they say in
poker--sand bag by pretending the matter is so far beneath
your lofty intellect that you will not deign to make any
intelligent response to the challenge I posed in my article.
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary office: rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>
Leigh
"Thomas Ziorjen" <thomas_...@NoSPAMdccnet.com> wrote
> >
> > This newsgroup centers on Mani, revolves around Mani, is fueled by Mani.
He
> > is the god to be revered and vilified. Without him there would be
nothing to
> > talk about. HE is the discussion, not art. The redundant diatribes have
gone
> > on through the years and will go on forever more... godlike, don't you
> > think?
> >
> > Sigh... wasn't art the point here? Not just one single minded,
redundant,
> > opinion? I don't read him, but he is obviously the darling of rest of
the
> > troops.
> >
> > L.
>
>
> I disagree -- this place has had substantial dialogue at
> times -- *despite* the sniping by Mani
>
Rats! You ruined my bet with myself that my opinion re: Mani = RAFGod was
out of bounds and to be ignored. If I cared enough, I could prove it by
searching the numbers on how often his name is mentioned in both subject
lines and body. But it's too obvious to bother.tribute.
> He can be ignored,
> and he's no darling to me, even if he does inadvertently
> promote my work.
>
He CAN'T be ignored. He's all anyone talks about. He's the standard to whom
all either bow or curse. I've come and gone on this ng for many years. Some
things never change.
L.
Mani Deli
>He CAN'T be ignored. He's all anyone talks about. He's the standard to whom
>all either bow or curse. I've come and gone on this ng for many years. Some
>things never change.
>
.. like your coming and going and essentially having nothing to say.
Leigh
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote
>
> Yes, Mani owns the ng, no doubt about it.
> Any attempt to start a serious discussion
> are scuttled by him. He saves every post
> and reposts threads that are 5 years old
> just to keep things on his track.
>
> Now if you don't believe me, let's try
> discussing the subject you brought
> up on Eric Fischl's statue of the falling
> woman in New York City.
>
> Here is the poem that Fischl wrote on its
> base:
>
> "We watched,
> disbelieving and helpless,
> on that savage day.
> People we love
> began falling,
> helpless and in disbelief."
> Eric Fischl
The poem is unfortunate... it didn't need to be said, certainly not with
such trite.
>
> He was there, he saw bodies fall and
> in an effort to distill the horror of
> what he saw into a single image
> he created the statue.
Maybe he saw the news videos, but my reading says he was in the Hamptons at
the time. No matter.
> Of course it
> is evocative and terrible to look
> at.
>
> Putting a veil over it, recalls
> Ashcroft's veil over the statue
> of Justice. This is a veil over
> the reality of what happened.
The reality needs to be 'real'. But I don't think I would have allowed this
strong a piece to be exhibited in such close proximity to the people who DID
see the incidents. Later, not now.
My opinion is that it takes this kind of work to keep us from forgetting
(and many of us will push it to the back of our minds until it is
forgotten.) No beautiful, serene monolith will ever say what Fischl's piece
says.
Thanks for bringing up the subject again, Marilyn. A shame you couldn't omit
the rib kicking at your signature. Old habits, I guess.
L.
Gaiawar
And my chalenge yet stands over in alt.skunks, Bill.
-Gaiawar
WoN ereH
>Ashcroft's veil over the statue
>of Justice. This is a veil over
>the reality of what happened.
First of all, having a sculpture (that looks, at least from the pictures, like
a deformed turd in flight), in plain view of the public does not constitute
free artistic expression. That's like insisting pornographic *art* be
available for children to view in the checkout line at Kmart. If I had a
beloved that faced the absolute horror of being forced to jump from a building
or embrace 2000 degree flames, I certainly would not want to be FORCED to view
such a so-called memorial. There is plenty on the daily news to turn my
stomach and cause me angst and I don't call that art either.
As for Ashcroft not wanting titties framing his (albeit ultra
conservative/prudish) head, I find nothing wrong with that. If I were giving
daily briefings to the nation I wouldn't want my head framed by dicks, however
artfully they might be carved, and doubt you would either.
And of course Christo was considered quite the artist for covering things up.
;)
Debra
Mani Deli
<willia...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Returning to Mani Deli now, here is where he falls off the
>path of good sense. Based on a number of statements Mani
>has posted, it is clear that he greatly overvalues facility with the
>paintbrush. He thinks THAT is everything, when it comes to
>the ineffable something which makes an artist great.
I think fine technique is the foundation of fine painting. A
foundation is where everything else sits. The only reason I mention it
so often is that it is sorely absent from student work all the way to
Modern Academic masterpieces.
> In other
>words, in reading what Mani says, you get the impression
>that if two painters had almost identical skills, but one of
>them could do a slightly better job painting pinky-fingers, then
>the better pinky-finger painter would be the greater artist!
No my friend, the technical gulf between the symbolists you mention
and the 19th and early 20th greats, i.e. Bouguereau, Gerome etc. is
vast. If you think its just a matter of pinky fingers, I can only say
it isn't my opinion.
>Mani has a childish way of evaluating art, then. A
>child--being innocent of such matters as thematic
>concerns, and one hundred other things that go into
>making a painter great--would of course think that artists
>should be ranked with the one who could make the
>most life-like paintings at the top.
This is the accusation that I believe all is technique. It isn't so.
What you do with technique counts for a lot. I think the artists you
mention aren't in the top class although some produced fine work. Most
of their work lacks complexity and fine detail, nor is it particularly
original in my view.
>
>That's where Mani strays from sound aesthetic judgment.
>Like our hypothetical child, Mani seems wholly innocent
>of such "complicated matters" as thematic concerns.
Look at the artists I mentioned and of course Dali for thematics.
>Perhaps he can never confront the fact that the reason
>that Bouguereau is not nearly as great a painter as at least
>one-dozen of the Symbolists, is that Bouguereau apparently
>lacked whatever it is that inspires a painter to come up with
>truly original subjects.
B. finest works are entirely original.
>As to WHY Bouguereau was so timid in his thematic
>concerns, I do not know. There could have been a purely
>commercial motive. Bouguereau painted exactly the
>sort of things that wealthy art patrons of his day preferred
>to have on the walls of their large homes.
So do most artists.
> On the other
>hand, his lack of innovation with regard to thematic
>concerns could have simply been the result of a lack
>of any desire on Bouguereau's part to question the
>status quo.
I don't judge artwork solely on subject matter.
>Please don't misunderstand me to suggest that Khnopff,
>Schwabe, Bocklin, and the other leading Symbolists
>were revolutionary firebrands. Far from that laughable
>notion.. Their revolution was in their art, not in their
> lifestyles. But while Bouguereau plowed familiar
>ground over and over,
he didn't
> the greatest among the
>Symbolists were plainly motivated by things other
>than simply a desire to sell their work and be popular
>with critics and art buying public. The Symbolists,
>it might be said, were pioneers and adventurers of
>the mind, and the result was that they handled age
>old questions in entirely new ways, ways that were
>often seen as disturbing and even terrifying by the
>public as well as the critical establishment of their day.
In my view most symbolists subject matter is fairly conventional for
the period. I find nothing wrong with that. I fault most for very
average drawing and technique, a lack of interesting detail and
nothing special in color, composition or ideas. The most interesting
symbolist, if you consider him that was probably Gustav Moreau, who
is way beyond those you mention.
>In fact, while the Symbolist period corresponded
>roughly in its dates to the Impressionist period, for
>most of the 20th Century the average person (even
>the average art student) knew almost nothing
>about the Symbolist period, since Impressionism
>had almost entirely eclipsed it.
Most students think there was nothing other than impressionism for
that period.
>Anyway, where Mani goes wrong is revealed in the
>way he uses a rather juvenile yardstick to evaluate the
>greatness or lack thereof of painters. In so doing,
>he asks readers to throw matters like originality in
>theme and subject out the window.
I don't think the symbolists were particularly original.
> That is sort
>of sad of Mani, because readers are not going to
>do that..
>
>As I said in another post, one suspects that perhaps
>Mani had an elderly aunt who showed him a Bouguereau
>reproduction when he was seven (or, even better, perhaps
>took him to a museum and helped him focus his attention
>on a Bouguereau original) and Mani has never been
>able to get beyond that wonderful moment in his
>chilhood. In the aesthetic sense, Mani Deli--
>colorful rec.arts.fine poster though he is--certainly
>seems like a case of arrested development.
>
I guess that your symbolist hang up leaves you with the impression
that I like little more than B. Look at my former messages.
William Palmer
response. Your comments provided much food
for thought. Of course, I was being a bit
satirical in some of what I said earlier,
because I was annoyed by your remarks on
Khnopff. There is no doubt in my mind that
you have a tremendous knowledge of art,
and that--as a genuine artist--you have
worked out your aesthetic principles very
thoroughly over the years. I have noticed
a few people sniping at you, but I think what
they miss is that someone with an authentic
point of view, who will defend that point of
view vigorously, always makes a bigger target
in a newsgroup. If you are wishy-washy, or
simply play coy about your views, it is
much easer to avoid the flack. On the
other hand, if newsgroups did not have
people ready and willing to articulate
and defend their beliefs, Usenet would be
a pretty boring place.