Beginner questions
FakeJesus
I'm quite a beginner in artworks, I would like to know how to deal with
all this stuff, like how to evaluate a work, how to deal in a gallery...
Thanks
--
\|/
@ @
----------------oOO-(_)-OOo----------------
Fake...@Pagans.org
ICQ: 1736554
Larry Seiler
and walk out disgusted and discouraged. Make more stuff, go to art fairs
and have "Joe" public tell you how good it is, and then get good and mad
the galleries just don't seem to get it!
Then...determine that no matter what...you're going to do artmaking because
YOU love it.....that you have to do it. After about 120 bad paintings,
you'll know something about painting, or whatever it is you do.
Eventually, if you darned intent enough about it, things will start
happening.
I could get more detailed, but Mr. "Fake"...truth is, all us artists have a
belly full of rejection, trial and error, wounds and scars, philosophy
enough to make us dangerous, and learn things the hard way....and I don't
want to start a discussion without you knowing the road is a hard and
difficult one. If you're there, and still willing to go on.....then there
are somethings that might save your head from a few bruises against the
wall.
BTW....the road is also worthwhile.
--
Larry Seiler
my art web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"Art attacks can skill!"
FakeJesus
artist. The truth is that I can't even draw my left hand on a piece of
paper... I have no artistic talents. However, I enjoy A LOT seeing
artworks. And I want to get into the buying-selling business. But first
there must be a few things that I must learn about paintings and stuff.
What should I learn, where and how...
I'm also wondering what makes a masterpiece. Why does a painting worth
300 000$ while another may worth 300$. How do you know it's time to
increase the price of a work?
Thanks for answering
Diana Lee
Diana
http://dianalee.com
Marilyn
That's a lonely road to take, Larry.
People should have some support group close to home, and/or at home:
family, friends, colleagues
Then there are professional artists who will critique work for a fee,
ranging from $40.00/hour to those associated with an art college $75.
(I guess there's an admin. fee?) The support & the networking, then
walk the streets.
Do you offer consultations or critiques?
Marilyn
CROCUSDES
>artworks. And I want to get into the buying-selling business. But first
>there must be a few things that I must learn about paintings and stuff.
>What should I learn, where and how...
>
>I'm also wondering what makes a masterpiece. Why does a painting worth
>300 000$ while another may worth 300$. How do you know it's time to
>increase the price of a work?
>
>Thanks for answering
Why do you think you'd be qualified to be a dealer? It takes a bit more than
simply liking art to promote it on the artists behalf and to encourage a
collector to by it for the right reasons.
Way too many dilletantes are cluttering up the arena passing themselves off as
legitimate dealers which only compound the problems artists and clients already
have trying to make the right connections between each other.
It's really annoying to see any Tom, Dick and Harriet feel justified to be an
"art consultant" or dealer when they have absolutely no idea what the business
of artselling is about in the first place, much less anything about art itself.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://www.chrisray.com
god...@my-dejanews.com
A master makes a masterpiece. A masterpiece ought to show the epitome
of a Masters talents if not the apex of his talents.
> Why does a painting worth
> 300 000$ while another may worth 300$.
Some of its hype, Scarcity, Market value. Everyone knows this.
> How do you know it's time to
> increase the price of a work?
When you feel that you are morally justified in doing so. Duh Fake
Jesus.
> Thanks for answering
> --
\|/
> @ @
>----------------oOO-(_)-OOo----------------
> Fake...@Pagans.org
> ICQ: 1736554
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
god...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> Larry Seiler wrote:
> > I could get more detailed, but Mr. "Fake"...truth is, all us artists have a
> > belly full of rejection,
Yes art critics are not understanding enough. Have you considered that
art critics might have feelings too...
> > trial and error, wounds and scars, philosophy
> > enough to make us dangerous, and learn things the hard way....and I don't
> > want to start a discussion without you knowing the road is a hard and
> > difficult one.
Of course one could be 6ft under or starving.
> > If you're there, and still willing to go on.....then there
> > are somethings that might save your head from a few bruises against the
> > wall.
> > BTW....the road is also worthwhile.
Not for everyone say Vincent Van Gogh. The road is full of Roadkill.
> Then there are professional artists who will critique work for a fee,
Free fifty! I checked Larries web-page (the previous you not Marylin)
(critique of brians' Fish or something, (male and sea-animal))
Fish and young-boys spend more time in the mouths of critics than
actually on the walls of galleries. Larries Male and sea-animal
is no acception. Brains erotic gaze fixes the viewer, turning him
to stone, melting him slightly. Brain the main and central figure
in the painting holds a fish in his lap lightly as a prize, Exactly
where his manhood would be. The fish is symbolic of Brians Manliness
and of mankinds domination and senseless cruelty over nature. As is
the Water a symbol of lovemaking and if not life itself.
(A longer Critique will cost you $12.00 hour)
> ranging from $40.00/hour to those associated with an art college $75.
> (I guess there's an admin. fee?) The support & the networking, then
> walk the streets.
Haven't you been reading it's all caviar kid. I've replaced the
blinis with Doritos, the stoned kids really love it, Oh yeah and
Venetian Smores.
> Do you offer consultations or critiques?
I certainly do...
> Marilyn
mdeli
>Well...make some stuff. Bring it in a gallery. Get their cold shoulder
>and walk out disgusted and discouraged. Make more stuff, go to art fairs
>and have "Joe" public tell you how good it is, and then get good and mad
>the galleries just don't seem to get it!
Although I don't particularly like the gallery scene I found that they
are interested in fine work even if it doesn't conform to the idiotic
fashions. You can always impress people if your work shows superior
skills.
>
>Then...determine that no matter what...you're going to do artmaking because
>YOU love it.....that you have to do it. After about 120 bad paintings,
>you'll know something about painting, or whatever it is you do.
You'll probably know little more than how to produce 120 other bad
paintings.
>Eventually, if you darned intent enough about it, things will start
>happening.
Like What?
>I could get more detailed, but Mr. "Fake"...truth is, all us artists have a
>belly full of rejection, trial and error, wounds and scars, philosophy
>enough to make us dangerous, and learn things the hard way....and I don't
>want to start a discussion without you knowing the road is a hard and
>difficult one. If you're there, and still willing to go on.....then there
>are somethings that might save your head from a few bruises against the
>wall.
>BTW....the road is also worthwhile.
>--
>
I like the "all us artists." Larry, no one speaks for all.
The artzy fartzies here often claim that those who disagree with them
are bitter and bear the "wounds and scars" etc. which Larry talks
about.
I found this to be rare for anyone who really knows his craft and can
produce work which is beyond the capability of the "wounded and
scarred." Most artists who possess the gift and superior craft have
little trouble selling their work and gaining acceptance in spite of
prevailing fashions. In my experience the only failures in this
category were artists bent on self destruction through drugs,
immaturity or culty mysticism.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Larry Seiler
> That's a lonely road to take, Larry.
Yeah.....I sure know that one. Perhaps one reason I'm a blues
musician/performer also.....hahaha....
> People should have some support group close to home, and/or at home:
> family, friends, colleagues
Yes...that's very good to have. Unfortunately, I had very little of that
ever, but am enjoying saving headaches now for others!
> Then there are professional artists who will critique work for a fee,
> ranging from $40.00/hour to those associated with an art college $75.
> (I guess there's an admin. fee?) The support & the networking, then
> walk the streets.
>
> Do you offer consultations or critiques?
Crazy thing....I live in a more rural Wisconsin 20 minutes outside a town
of 70,000 people. What sells here is cheap arts and crafts, and cheap art
prints in a Packers/beer market economy. To sell my work....I have to
consent to low monthly payments...!! hahaha...
Although people use their visa and mastercards in the high end galleries.
My last son is about to graduate from high school...and I may have to
figure out just what's best for me and my wife. We've struggled a long
time to have something of a normal family for our kids.....but soon I'll be
freed up to travel, relocate...whatever.
I'm wondering if its best to just get a small home here in Wisconsin where
the cost of living is lower.....and just travel three/four months out of
the year to areas like Sante Fe and Taos New Mexico, Jackson Hole,
Wyoming....Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts to Maine.....to paint, make new
gallery contacts, etc;
I am aware that there are circuits in existence as well that good
artists/instructors can get on that eventually constructs their lives and
livelihoods to travel various states doing workshops, resorts that offer
classes at about $500 per student for the week, and affords them
opportunity to paint and work on books.
My peers doing the kind of work I'm doing that are doing quite well seem to
differ only where they live or market. So....I'm really in that "trying to
figure it out" mode. I'd like to say I could be more available to offer
critiques and consulting for a fee. I'm sure I'd have to live in the "just
right" part of the country though.
Long answer...
The short of it...yes I have.
I will be down a short time after the seventh, as this is a down time for
me financially and my server gets three months in advance. When I adjust,
and come back....we can strike this question/possibility up again! Take
care.....
Larry
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
Larry Seiler
you are right...please accept my apology.
> I found this to be rare for anyone who really knows his craft
hhmmm....no sacrifices or difficulties, for the truly gifted.
I apologize...of course you are right. My bruises of course were the
product of self-delusion, thinking I might possibly if not possess
talent... gain it. That I might learn skill. Foolish me....I never
thought that if gaining skill brought pain and sacrifice, that had I
encounter great difficulties that this should have been evidence to the
obvious- that I was never meant to have it. Wish you had been around 20
years ago....you could have saved me from the foolish dream and maybe I'd
have a regular 9-5 today, talking about retirement plans and investments,
etc;
I read your many posts. Argumentive. Nonempathetic. Agendized. You and
my 70's professors are the opposite and the same. Authorities in and of
themselves.....different ideas on what good art will be....yet just as
thoughtless and careless for whom is targeted to be exampled of, weight
pushed upon and riddled with wounding words. I don't recognize your
authority, and reject it.
Life is short. Art, a means to celebrate life.....
I have no time or patience for you sir...
Larry
FakeJesus
> simply liking art to promote it on the artists behalf and to encourage a
> collector to by it for the right reasons.
> It's really annoying to see any Tom, Dick and Harriet feel justified to be an
> "art consultant" or dealer when they have absolutely no idea what the business
> of artselling is about in the first place, much less anything about art itself.
All that, I know. That is why I want to know as much as possible before
entering in business. I'm 16 years old, I guess I have a lot of time to
do so. The point is that I'm asking some absolute beginner questions to
get started which is, i guess, one of the hardest part.
---
Marilyn
Hi Larry,
Speaking of talent. Did you see the Charlie Rose interview of
Gary Shandling? Gary claims that talent means being yourself,
being honest, giving everything you have. Based on that definition
alone,
I'd say that you must be a talented teacher from what I have
observed here.
Marilyn
Marilyn
Did you check out the rules for artists on Coagula?
It's from a curator's point of view. I don't agree with it completely
but there are some truths there when it comes to marketing.
I wish the best that life can offer to you and your family in this new
year.
Marilyn
Try a new "nom de plum"
something that doesn't include the
word FAKE.
This word might make people doubt your sincerity.
Trust is the most important thing in business relations.
Marilyn
mdeli
>> I like the "all us artists." Larry, no one speaks for all.
>
>you are right...please accept my apology.
>
>> I found this to be rare for anyone who really knows his craft
>
>hhmmm....no sacrifices or difficulties, for the truly gifted.
I was speaking of my experience as you were speaking of yours. I
repeat:
I found this to be rare for anyone who really knows his craft and can
produce work which is beyond the capability of the "wounded and
scarred." Most artists who possess the gift and superior craft have
little trouble selling their work and gaining acceptance in spite of
prevailing fashions. In my experience the only failures in this
category were artists bent on self destruction through drugs,
immaturity or culty mysticism.
>I apologize...of course you are right. My bruises of course were the
>product of self-delusion, thinking I might possibly if not possess
>talent... gain it. That I might learn skill. Foolish me....I never
>thought that if gaining skill brought pain and sacrifice, that had I
>encounter great difficulties that this should have been evidence to the
>obvious- that I was never meant to have it. Wish you had been around 20
>years ago....you could have saved me from the foolish dream and maybe I'd
>have a regular 9-5 today, talking about retirement plans and investments,
>etc;
>
>I read your many posts. Argumentive. Nonempathetic. Agendized.
I read many of yours which are homey, sentimentalized autobiography
and often factually incorrect. Yes, I have no empathy for most of the
convoluted bullshit written here. Nor for most of the work of those
who write it. This is not an art school where you have to AK the
teachers and students lest they expel you. If you are interested in an
exchange of sympathy and vacuous compliments the artzy fartzies here
will dole it out to you and each other.
> You and
>my 70's professors are the opposite and the same. Authorities in and of
>themselves.....different ideas on what good art will be....yet just as
>thoughtless and careless for whom is targeted to be exampled of, weight
>pushed upon and riddled with wounding words.
?
> I don't recognize your authority, and reject it.
>Life is short. Art, a means to celebrate life.....
>I have no time or patience for you sir...
I guess most people have much time or patience for your work.
Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about it so much.
god...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> Larry Seiler wrote:
> > > I like the "all us artists." Larry, no one speaks for all.
> > you are right...please accept my apology.
> > Larry
> Hi Larry,
> Speaking of talent. Did you see the Charlie Rose interview of
> Gary Shandling? Gary claims that talent means being yourself,
> being honest, giving everything you have. Based on that definition
> alone,
> I'd say that you must be a talented teacher from what I have
> observed here.
Hi Marylin you have a gift for flatery. But isn't your source for
a definition of talent questionable if the definition itself not
wide open? note that my response covers 1&2 of GS's definition.
Although I don't hope for unecessary roughness, the overt and almost
political friendlyness is begining to make this group slightly dull
and unbelievable.
Whatever enemies agree on is true between them.
> Marilyn
BAONA of the Slavant Gard!
Degas5
>> I like the "all us artists." Larry, no one speaks for all.
>
>you are right...please accept my apology.
>
>
>hhmmm....no sacrifices or difficulties, for the truly gifted.
>
>product of self-delusion, thinking I might possibly if not possess
>talent... gain it. That I might learn skill. Foolish me....I never
>thought that if gaining skill brought pain and sacrifice, that had I
>encounter great difficulties that this should have been evidence to the
>obvious- that I was never meant to have it. Wish you had been around 20
>years ago....you could have saved me from the foolish dream and maybe I'd
>have a regular 9-5 today, talking about retirement plans and investments,
>etc;
>
>my 70's professors are the opposite and the same. Authorities in and of
>themselves.....different ideas on what good art will be....yet just as
>thoughtless and careless for whom is targeted to be exampled of, weight
>authority, and reject it.
>
>Life is short. Art, a means to celebrate life.....
>I have no time or patience for you sir...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ooooooooooou!!!!!!
Bravo, bravo, Larry. After years of reading Hugod posts in prodigy newsgroups,
I appreciate you putting him in his proper place politely. I could never find
the words to do it!
Bonnie
Degas5
>>
>>you are right...please accept my apology.
>>
>>> I found this to be rare for anyone who really knows his craft
>>
>>hhmmm....no sacrifices or difficulties, for the truly gifted.
>
>repeat:
>
>I found this to be rare for anyone who really knows his craft and can
>produce work which is beyond the capability of the "wounded and
>scarred." Most artists who possess the gift and superior craft have
>little trouble selling their work and gaining acceptance in spite of
>prevailing fashions. In my experience the only failures in this
>category were artists bent on self destruction through drugs,
>immaturity or culty mysticism.
>
>>product of self-delusion, thinking I might possibly if not possess
>>talent... gain it. That I might learn skill. Foolish me....I never
>>thought that if gaining skill brought pain and sacrifice, that had I
>>encounter great difficulties that this should have been evidence to the
>>obvious- that I was never meant to have it. Wish you had been around 20
>>years ago....you could have saved me from the foolish dream and maybe I'd
>>have a regular 9-5 today, talking about retirement plans and investments,
>>etc;
>>
>>I read your many posts. Argumentive. Nonempathetic. Agendized.
>
>and often factually incorrect. Yes, I have no empathy for most of the
>convoluted bullshit written here. Nor for most of the work of those
>who write it. This is not an art school where you have to AK the
>teachers and students lest they expel you. If you are interested in an
>exchange of sympathy and vacuous compliments the artzy fartzies here
>will dole it out to you and each other.
>
>>my 70's professors are the opposite and the same. Authorities in and of
>>themselves.....different ideas on what good art will be....yet just as
>>thoughtless and careless for whom is targeted to be exampled of, weight
>>pushed upon and riddled with wounding words.
>
>> I don't recognize your authority, and reject it.
>>Life is short. Art, a means to celebrate life.....
>>I have no time or patience for you sir...
>
>Otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about it so much.
>--
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
>Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work
>and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
>
>
>
>
>
>
I just think we use this area for different reasons. You use it to vent your
frustration and most others I've conversed with in this group are her for a
pleasant exchange with people like themselves who enjoy discussing art.
I saw your web page and affirm your knowledge of technique is there. Your work
also speaks alot about Mani Deli.
What I would like to know is, why do you bother reading posts written by people
whose opinions you think little of? I always pass over yours.
Get a life!
Bonnie
CROCUSDES
>newsgroups,
>I appreciate you putting him in his proper place politely. I could never
>find
>the words to do it!
>Bonnie
Politeness isn't what's called for here Bonnie. In this particular case the
boy often forgets to take his medication I imagine so there is mindless ranting
and ignorant dogmatic....well brain farts are the only thing I can describe his
less than amusing posts as. Best thing is to simply ignore him which is what
most of us do. Pity?....naw, not worth the effort. Ignore him and enjoy the
rest of the stuff that comes up here....or not, it's your choice.
Marilyn
>
> In article <368FA9CB.2180@not_a_real_address.ca>,
> Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> > > > I like the "all us artists." Larry, no one speaks for all.
> > > you are right...please accept my apology.
> > > Larry
>
> > Hi Larry,
>
> > Speaking of talent. Did you see the Charlie Rose interview of
> > Gary Shandling? Gary claims that talent means being yourself,
> > being honest, giving everything you have. Based on that definition
> > alone,
> > I'd say that you must be a talented teacher from what I have
> > observed here.
>
> Hi Marylin you have a gift for flatery. But isn't your source for
> a definition of talent questionable if the definition itself not
> wide open? note that my response covers 1&2 of GS's definition.
>
> Although I don't hope for unecessary roughness, the overt and almost
> political friendlyness is begining to make this group slightly dull
> and unbelievable.
>
> Whatever enemies agree on is true between them.
>
> > Marilyn
>
> BAONA of the Slavant Gard!
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
You have the gift for obfuscation. Maybe English is not your
first language? Most times, I can't understand what you are saying
or don't want to.
What's wrong with being nice? You want to be mean there
are plenty of mean groups.
Marilyn
Larry Seiler
> I'm 16 years old, I guess I have a lot of time to
> do so. The point is that I'm asking some absolute beginner questions to
> get started which is, i guess, one of the hardest part.
I think at 16 years of age....you deserve the benefit of a doubt and a
break! Good for you.....chase your dreams!
Its getting late....and I'll get back to you as to your other post to me!
peace....
Larry
Larry Seiler
> It's from a curator's point of view. I don't agree with it completely
> but there are some truths there when it comes to marketing.
> I wish the best that life can offer to you and your family in this new
> year.
Hi Marilyn.....
No, can't say I'm familiar with the "rules for artists" on Coagula.
Might be of interest to check out. I thank you for your encouraging words.
Hopefully I won't be gone long! peace....
<snip>
Today the alternator in my car died....and my van sitting in the garage had
its alternator go several weeks ago. Seems to never fails when winter
delivers much snow and cold. If only I was a more accomplished artist with
real gifts....I wouldn't have these difficulties, such as affording to keep
those darn cars running right! (for those "having ears to hear", uh-hem!
otherwise, just a private dig!).
Larry Seiler
> Gary Shandling? Gary claims that talent means being yourself,
> being honest, giving everything you have. Based on that definition
> alone,
> I'd say that you must be a talented teacher from what I have
> observed here.
>
thanks Marilyn..... bugs me that someone's got to make it their ambition
to afflict others so unnecessarily. Sad. Take care.
Larry
br...@wralaw.com
For Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> god...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Speaking of talent. Did you see the Charlie Rose interview of
> > > Gary Shandling?
> > Hi Marylin you have a gift for flatery. But isn't your source for
> > a definition of talent questionable if the definition itself not
> > wide open?
> > Although I don't hope for unecessary roughness, the overt and almost
> > political friendlyness is begining to make this group slightly dull
> > and unbelievable.
Do alliances in philosophical debates help or hinder truth finding?
> > Whatever enemies agree on is true between them.
And enemies also tend to dissagree when they don't need to, right?
--
Bryn (never Phil) Ayers
god...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> spewed:
> god...@my-dejanews.com expired:
-<castrate>-
> > Although I don't hope for unecessary roughness, the overt and almost
> > political friendlyness is begining to make this group slightly dull
> > and unbelievable.
> You have the gift for obfuscation. Maybe English is not your
> first language?
My first language is love...
> Most times, I can't understand what you are saying
> or don't want to.
If you can't understand, how do you know you don't want to?
I dare you to answer this!
> What's wrong with being nice?
Nothing!
You do not understand what I meant. And you are not being nice.
Your response is exactly what I am talking about. Reread the
post and respond line by line. You are being evasive if not
also insulting. If my use of language is difficult, or even
intentionally obscure, it does not make any response correct.
Respond to this:
> > Although I don't hope for unecessary roughness, the overt and almost
> > political friendlyness is begining to make this group slightly dull
> > and unbelievable.
Your correct question to this(ad-hoc) is
whats wrong with being politically friendly?
Answere: it is dishonest!
I did not semantically say it is wrong to be nice or mean that.
> You want to be mean there
> are plenty of mean groups.
This is one of the meanest groups. You aren't being nice you are
just giving out too many punishments and rewards. I do understand
your position, since often I see posts that attack you, Marylin,
even when you aren't on the thread. For example the German one.
Remember no matter what I have not done this. Nor will I since
it doesn't either lead us to the truth or reality, nor is it
emotionally helpfull.
I'll repeat what you said that bothers me
> Most times, I can't understand what you are saying
> or don't want to.
If you are sick of unsolicited flames, don't say things like this.
It makes you look like you are perhaps intentionally trying not
to understand people who do not see things your way or worse not
understanding people who do see things your way. If you do not
understand my posts' the fault can be laid partially or entirely at
my feet. But if you do not wan't too...
Remember its the little things that are important and its the little
things that aren't important.
> Marilyn
BAONA #@#$&^*
god...@my-dejanews.com
croc...@aol.com (CROCUSDES) wrote:
> >Bravo, bravo, Larry. After years of reading Hugod posts in prodigy
> >newsgroups,
> boy often forgets to take his medication
It's better to forget, reread artist of the century thread, Picasso,
Dali, Van Gogh, Warhol, Disney, all fanatics. What they lacked in
skill they made up for in fanaticism.
To Crocusdes: why not say what you mean. You of course have no knowledge
that either mdeli or larry (the him that you talk of isn't clear to me)
is on medication even if they need it. Forgot and 'never seen a
phsychologist except at a grocery' are nearly the same thing.
Isn't this the second medication response by you? Why the fear of
Mental Illness. Isn't religion which 80%+ believe in institutionalized
schizophrenia? Aren't even the moderately sane a small minority? And
without the ability to prove a Universal negative like "there is No
Tooth Fairy", isn't it impossible to prove who is actually sane and
insane?
As Modern art is really Business Mans LSD () the ability to
generate madness with or without believing in it is necessary for
Modern art, Advancement in Science, love etc.
"Mental Illness is the road to Freedom" - Jello Biafra
BOANA @#%%&(^#@!
Marilyn
>
> In article <36906E5B.639D@not_a_real_address.ca>,
> For Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> > god...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > Speaking of talent. Did you see the Charlie Rose interview of
> > > > Gary Shandling?
> Interpretation. Is Gary Shandling a dictionary? Big no!
No he is not a dictionary, but he is a very successful,
critically acclaimed, intelligent performer, writer, producer
director. Many people respect what he has to say.
Marilyn
>
Marilyn
I will not answer you point by point.
The 1st rule of communication is clarity, and you are not clear.
I will take up your dare and explain further what I meant
when I said:
"I don't understand your posts or want to."
1. Some are hard to understand although there may be truths
and original thoughts contained therein.
2. Some contain crude stupid words, example below "spewed" "castrate"
They are out of context. These posts I don't want to
understand.
The word "nice" could also mean "politically correct."
As for German posts, I don't read German, just English & French.
Mean newsgroup, rec.arts.fine ? I don't think so. There are a couple
of meanies but I skip their posts.
Marilyn
god...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <36906E5B.639D@not_a_real_address.ca>,
mdeli
>I just think we use this area for different reasons. You use it to vent your
>frustration and most others I've conversed with in this group are her for a
>pleasant exchange with people like themselves who enjoy discussing art.
In other words those who disagree with most here are frustrated. This
conference is just for "pleasant exchange."
>I saw your web page and affirm your knowledge of technique is there. Your work
>also speaks alot about Mani Deli.
According to some here that's what artwork is supposed to do .
>What I would like to know is, why do you bother reading posts written by people
>whose opinions you think little of?
I enjoy the discussion and the opinions expressed here have helped me
crystalize ideas for my book which will by advertised on my web page
shortly.
>I always pass over yours.
Good
>Get a life!
>Bonnie
Get success if you can.
mdeli
>Politeness isn't what's called for here Bonnie. In this particular case the
>boy often forgets to take his medication I imagine so there is mindless ranting
>and ignorant dogmatic....well brain farts are the only thing I can describe his
>less than amusing posts as.
Of course they aren't amusing to an old ingrown fart like you who
knocks of hack imitation Art Nouveau with a few politically correct
mega-clunks added in order to conform to 1950's modernity.
> Best thing is to simply ignore him which is what
>most of us do.
Unless they stop taking their medication and get curious.
> Pity?....naw, not worth the effort. Ignore him and enjoy the
>rest of the stuff that comes up here....or not, it's your choice.
Yes, never read anything that might contradict your beliefs.
Make believe this is a Modern Art-Love-In and only read articles by
the artzy fartzies here when they blow kisses to each other. Never
rock the boat.
Degas5
>your
>>frustration and most others I've conversed with in this group are her for a
>>pleasant exchange with people like themselves who enjoy discussing art.
>
>In other words those who disagree with most here are frustrated. This
>conference is just for "pleasant exchange."
>
>>I saw your web page and affirm your knowledge of technique is there. Your
>work
>>also speaks alot about Mani Deli.
>
>According to some here that's what artwork is supposed to do .
>
>>What I would like to know is, why do you bother reading posts written by
>people
>>whose opinions you think little of?
>
>I enjoy the discussion and the opinions expressed here have helped me
>crystalize ideas for my book which will by advertised on my web page
>shortly.
>
>>I always pass over yours.
>
>Good
>
>>Get a life!
>>Bonnie
>
>Get success if you can.
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
>Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work
>and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
>
>
>
>
>
>
lol
br...@wralaw.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > Interpretation. Is Gary Shandling a dictionary? Big no!
>
> No he is not a dictionary, but he is a very successful,
> critically acclaimed, intelligent performer, writer, producer
> director. Many people respect what he has to say.
I see where you are comming from. Too bad the great and beautiful
Shandling isn't here to read this!
>
> Marilyn
> >
>
--
Bryn Ayers
Larry Seiler
> the artzy fartzies here when they blow kisses to each other. Never
> rock the boat.
> --
> Mani DeLi
Its not a question of being open to different ideas or having one's boat
rocked. Ideas presented with decency and social manner rather than
delivered with rude, hate-filled rhetoric and crass "un"snappy put-downs
will always find some audience.
There is an old proverb that would do your cause good. It
says....."kindness makes a person attractive"
Obviously....if a person comes off as attractive....there will be the ease
of comfort to look more carefully at what they are saying. You want
everyone to bend to hear your thoughts and ideas.....but you will bend in
no degree to deliver your thoughts in ways others can receive it.
You do your cause injustice, and would be better off finding a person who
understands public relations to be your mouth piece. You get people so
irritated with YOU, and then assume they can not handle your points made.
If you are really trying to promote "skill" and better art making.....quit
promoting the need you have to indulge in feeding off the high of
abusiveness you lay upon others.
What you are doing speaks so loudly no one can hear what you're saying!
Larry
DFRussell
|> I enjoy the discussion and the opinions expressed here have helped me
|> crystalize ideas for my book which will by advertised on my web page
|> shortly.
Can I get an autographed copy?
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
DFRussell
|> > Make believe this is a Modern Art-Love-In and only read articles by
|> > the artzy fartzies here when they blow kisses to each other. Never
|> > rock the boat.
|> > --
|> > Mani DeLi
[snip]
|> What you are doing speaks so loudly no one can hear what you're saying!
If that was true, why do so many people -- including you --
argue with his comments?
The simple fact that you are arguing with him invalidates
your conclusions.
god...@my-dejanews.com
> when I said:
> "I don't understand your posts or want to."
> 1. Some are hard to understand although there may be truths
> and original thoughts contained therein.
> 2. Some contain crude stupid words, example below "spewed" "castrate"
> They are out of context. These posts I don't want to
> understand.
Good Work Marylin, considerably less evasive. Can we say one small
step for one woman one Giant leap for Mankind.
I'm sorry you do not see the metaphoric connection between the
ejaculation, fertility and speach or castration and censorship.
It is the fertility of the mind -You are now pregnant with Ideas.
> The word "nice" could also mean "politically correct."
Since you speak french Nice is also a wonderful beach town east of Cannes.
> As for German posts, I don't read German,
'Click away Marylin another smearer' I read by mdeli...(or close)
>just English & French.
> Mean newsgroup, rec.arts.fine ? I don't think so. There are a couple
> of meanies but I skip their posts.
Do you ever skip your own?
> Marilyn
BOANA
Larry Seiler
> argue with his comments?
I cannot speak for the others.....but, as for myself, I would hope there is
some remote possibility of his representing his position with decency. I
like to give a person a chance....before completely just outright
dismissing him/her as abased, irreprovable, stiffnecked and hardened of
heart. In giving such an opportunity I then have confidence that I am not
about to completely ignore someone unjustly.
Having so made myself clear....I feel I am within my ethical constraints to
go on from here as you say, free to ignore.
> The simple fact that you are arguing with him invalidates your
conclusions.
However...the arguments were not with him... i.e. "ideas" ....but against
his rude unsociable behavior. It would be good for all present that this
gentleman come to terms with these reasons people take issue with him....as
well as it being good for him.
I hope I satisfied that accounting of myself to you.
good day...
Larry
DFRussell
|> > If that was true, why do so many people -- including you --
|> > argue with his comments?
|>
|> I cannot speak for the others.....but, as for myself, I would hope there is
|> some remote possibility of his representing his position with decency.
You're expressing an *opinion* when you state that he doesn't "represent
his position with decency".
I
|> like to give a person a chance....before completely just outright
|> dismissing him/her as abased, irreprovable, stiffnecked and hardened of
|> heart. In giving such an opportunity I then have confidence that I am not
|> about to completely ignore someone unjustly.
Translation: I can't stop myself from attempting to arguing with Mani :-)
|>
|> Having so made myself clear....I feel I am within my ethical constraints to
|> go on from here as you say, free to ignore.
Even outside of your "ethical constraints," you are "free to ignore". :)
|>
|> > The simple fact that you are arguing with him invalidates your
|> conclusions.
|>
|> However...the arguments were not with him... i.e. "ideas" ....but against
|> his rude unsociable behavior.
So, you're saying you never argued with what Mani says... only the way
he says it? Careful now....
|> It would be good for all present that this
|> gentleman come to terms with these reasons people take issue with him....as
|> well as it being good for him.
You're again expressing an opinion: I have no problem with either what
he says or the way he says it... Ummmm, I assume your objections to other
posters who are certainly ruder than he will be forthcoming shortly?
|>
|> I hope I satisfied that accounting of myself to you.
You are not required to provide an "accounting of" yourself to me.
I'm simply pointing out the apparent errors in your logic and
Larry Seiler
> You're expressing an *opinion* when you state that he doesn't "represent
> his position with decency".
This is true....yes. An opinion. Arguably subjective finite, and in some
particular worldviews without power, for no recognition of an absolute or
Uncaused Cause is grounds for dismissal of ethical necessity. Might making
right... relativistic muscles exercised by whom out shouts another. No
foundation to agree that "truth" exists....thus the only absolute is
freedom to deny the absolute. License....total self-deified proclamations
such that assure convenience.
Yes..an opinion. One that even the casual visiting observer to this group
finds inclination to perceive.
> I'm simply pointing out the apparent errors in your logic and
> conclusions.
Error....does this preclude the existing of truth? Is this truth absolute?
If not then perhaps simply your opinion....but if more than opinion, but
of indeed "truth" then comes the necessity to understand the nature of this
"truth". For which case we may need to ask which nonvalue evolved into the
first value in human evolution. Or...if truth exists, then exists
Absolutely, if this is an "actual" existence or "potential" existence.
Potentiality would require "actual" existence such that potential would be
realized. But then whence cometh this "actual" existence? It would have
to be an Uncaused First Cause....whole, perfect and complete. Any
incompletion would suggest yet that the potential for becoming complete
exist....and potentiality cannot beget actuality. Actuality brings about
potentiality. Thus we enter a whole realm into the studies of ethics for
which I am game....and for which I find entertaining, but beyond this post
will bother no further engagement for what is an arts discussion group.
Your opinion of my having an opinion to suggest that I am illogical is
self-defeating......as itself being an opinion. It is opinion unless you
care to defend the existence of "absolute" truth. However....if we get
into that debate...then we need to understand the nature and character of
the origins of absolute truth needing an Absolute Giver. Such a nature
would reveal that in being "actual" existence and not simply "potential"
existence...complete perfection would thereby detail standards whereby
"decency" could be rooted and defined.
Since I don't think you will wish to go that route in debate....suffice it
to say then sir, that your opinion is not proven to be a "truth" at
all....but an opinion about an opinon merely. As such.....so noted!
Let the logic of it be considered by other possessors of opinions.....let
the alleged "truth" of your opinion be judged by evidences of a standard
that clearly separates what makes a right right and a wrong wrong. Until
you define the source and authority of that....you simply air a worldview,
and I might point out there are a number of major worldviews in existence.
Needless to say, is it not easier simply to ask for respect, kind
exchanges, and decency? But....then again, that's my opinion!
good night.....
Larry
DFRussell
|>
|> > You're expressing an *opinion* when you state that he doesn't "represent
|> > his position with decency".
[snip]
|> Yes..an opinion. One that even the casual visiting observer to this group
|> finds inclination to perceive.
I'm glad you understand that it is an opinion. Mine differs; therefore, your
conclusion above is incorrect.
Please note that when I say "mine differs," I refer to my opinion of
Mani's posts... not the *fact* that your *conclusions* based on your
opinions are incorrect.
Your statement would be correct if you limited it to, "*Some* casual
visiting observers to this group...".
As is the problem with many posters here, you're having difficulty understanding
that other people do not share your opinions.
|>
|> > I'm simply pointing out the apparent errors in your logic and
|> > conclusions.
|>
|> Error....does this preclude the existing of truth?
Philosophy.... obviously, you understand that you were wrong. In general...
the fact that your logic is in error does not preclude your conclusion
from being correct, it does substantially reduce the probability, though :-)
To quote an old saying, "Even a blind pig sometimes finds an acorn.".
[big snip of philosophy 101 ramblings]
|> Your opinion of my having an opinion to suggest that I am illogical is
|> self-defeating......as itself being an opinion.
:-)
I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating a fact. Your conclusions
were incorrect. Your sophistry does not change that *fact*.
[more snipped]
mdeli
>I cannot speak for the others.....but, as for myself, I would hope there is
>some remote possibility of his representing his position with decency.
Perhaps you should resurrect the Legion of Decency.
I
>like to give a person a chance....before completely just outright
>dismissing him/her as abased, irreprovable, stiffnecked and hardened of
>heart. In giving such an opportunity I then have confidence that I am not
>about to completely ignore someone unjustly.
>
Larry, most of the stuff I write here is serious and wouldn't offend
Miss Purity Pantyhose. I just wrote messages on Tamara, drawing,
kitsch etc.
snip
>However...the arguments were not with him... i.e. "ideas" ....but against
>his rude unsociable behavior.
Having missed an invitation to the gas chamber by the world's greatest
self appointed art critic Adolf Hitler and then grown in the streets
of NYC and I find this conference tame. I suppose things are different
out in the Bible Belt where people like me are seen as whatever.
I would remind you however that my personal attacks are usually a
matter of answering a person in kind. When I started writing here
EIcher complained about my credentials, then my spelling, then etc. He
has called me an idiot and does so at every opportunity. I have been
called a rightist, a leftist, a Hitler sympathizer, a communist and
all variations of loony. I welcome it and I can hold my own. I don't
find it rude or offensive and I might note that I never seen you
mention this when it came from the other side.
Our illustrious and fairly humorless sculpture Chris Ray of the Avant
Gone, whose skill rivals a welding school drop-out, has just labeled
all my messages as "brain farts" (an excellent synonym for Artspeak)
Perhaps if this were directed at you, you would blow a gasket. I find
it useful and amusing.
My serious messages here are aimed at younger people who might prefer
an education to a load of Artspeak. I have always suggested
comparison as a means of determining merit. I have seriously urged all
to question schools which turn out armies of failures, fashionable art
theories, art books, critics and museums, all couched in a humor and
cynicism many here find offensive. If they are offended by this I have
no excuses to offer. I believe there are lots of people out there who
should be offended.
I and many others here offer counter arguments to Artzy Fartzy baloney
which at the moment can't be found elsewhere. Just brain farts
according to Mr. Ray and why not? He is entitled to his opinion. But
remember, all who write here run the risk of getting an answer.
I also write reviews of those who dare exhibit on the net. This
appalls some of the art school types here who think one should only
say nice things. No on is stopping them from doing so. However unlike
the Artspeak in the Mags I call them as I sees them.
I like all others here have to face criticism. Eicher called my
artwork a hoax and others labeled it as terrible. Brother Alphabet
mentioned Hitler and condemned my occasional use of photographs. I
didn't stop reading their messages or answering them because of this.
I respect everyone's right to speak here in any manner they choose.
However, where my respect goes after that is up to me.
> It would be good for all present that this
>gentleman come to terms with these reasons people take issue with him....as
>well as it being good for him.
>
It might even be better if you came to terms with reality.
Internet conferences are word jousts, honest and true free-speech.
That's what makes them interesting. If you can't take the heat don't
go to the jungle. Just stay on safe ground where all can blow kisses
at each other.
>I hope I satisfied that accounting of myself to you.
>
>good day...
>
>Larry
Larry Seiler
> |> self-defeating......as itself being an opinion.
> I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating a fact. Your conclusions
> were incorrect. Your sophistry does not change that *fact*.
you fail to argue that your statement is based upon a verifiable fact, i.e.
"truth", thus it remains in the category of simply opinion based as well.
It is a relative argument for which in this case it is supposed that
everyone should have a right to be a "jerk" if that is one's preference.
The sad point of it all once again, is that this becomes ground to
establish a convenient buffer or wall to protect oneself from moral
conviction to consider the thoughts and feelings of others while at the
same time being a proverbial "bull in a China shop" demanding others to be
more accountable or obligated to prove themselves
reasonable....logical...worthy "ONLY" if way has been given to accomodate
"him." A true example of self-inflamed Darwinian pomp and arrogance.
Thus....my "opinion" is if such a one is unwilling to adjust his behaviors
to suit the relative "many" opinions of others....than that "many" have
only the recourse left to them to ignore him.....and with solid conviction
for doing so. period....
Thank you for helping me cross that bridge, and so feel no need to second
guess my motives in choosing thus to "ignore"..... *shrug*
Larry
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> > |> Your opinion of my having an opinion to suggest that I am illogical is
> > |> self-defeating......as itself being an opinion.
>
> > I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating a fact. Your conclusions
> > were incorrect. Your sophistry does not change that *fact*.
>
> you fail to argue that your statement is based upon a verifiable fact, i.e.
> "truth", thus it remains in the category of simply opinion based as well.
It would seem you have a reading comprehension problem.
It was clearly pointed out that your statements were contradictory.
Not to even mention rambling, disjointed, etc.
If you don't like what Mani said, either refute it or shut up.
Whining about *HOW* he said it only makes one think worse of you
and convinces everyone that Mani was correct.
[...]
Larry Seiler
> I have no artistic talents. However, I enjoy A LOT seeing
> artworks.
Ah...heck, Howard Cosell couldn't box either..but he could call 'em! He
knew boxing.
> there must be a few things that I must learn about paintings and stuff.
> What should I learn, where and how...
First of all...like learning to paint....learing "about" painting will take
time as well.
There's the whole philosophical side to it....the divisions of those that
love to debate what is or isn't art, etc;
Side stepping all that.....there are some basic design principles that what
I will risk calling "good" art uses whether it is conscience or not on the
part of the artist. The artist that learns these elevates his/her
potential beyond depending on "happy accidents"
The bookstores, such as Borders Books Music and Cafe, will have many good
books, and you need to find a good illustrated basic book on design that
will cover topics such as perspective, balance, texture, line, shape, form,
color, negative and positive space, etc;
You need to understand that the eye of the viewer that most of us as
artists are hoping to manipulate....capture, and hold interest. Learned
abilities mastering these principles, which transcends style...will
advance/promote that appeal to the eye.
What I do when I begin teaching a painter's workshop.....is bring in a huge
stack of art magazines...Wildlife Art, American Art Review, Modern Painter,
American Artist, Southwest Art.....etc;
I assign each artist to pick three images that quickly most appeal to
them.....and then three that in particular they feel least appeal to them.
We then sit around in a circle and each tries to explain why they feel that
way.
During this time I'm looking to see whom understands and vocalizes design
principles.....but, much to my amazement many artists refer to answers
related to feelings. "I...I...don't know...I guess it just....." etc;
From there.....I spend about an hour demonstrating how negative and postive
space works to orchestrate what I call "eye path"....and how the construct
of such creates either good balance that will appeal to the eye...or not.
The two forms of balance being either symmetrical (formal) or assymmetrical
(informal), with the latter being more interesting....the other more
common, trite, obvious and BORING !!!
Then I go on to demonstrate how warm vs cold colors can affect or assist
balance to work successfully.
The eye is lazy and negative space is necessary and ought to be the larger
percentage of the painting. When negative space and positive are nearly
the same amount, it creates confusion and the eye has to work too much. If
the positive space elements becomes a greater percentage of the work, the
eye actually will be drawn to the negative space and it becomes a struggle
to stay focused on what the mind thinks was intended to be looked upon.
The tension is too difficult to reconcile, and the viewer simply surrenders
the effort and moves on to view another's work.
To complete this session....I have a stack of 3"x 5" blank index cards and
black flair pens. I have each artist squint their eyes looking at the
works they like, to see only the light and dark values which make the
positive spacial elements and negative obvious. This arrangement I have
them draw out on this index card, for which thereafter the means by which
the work has successfully or unsuccessfully achieved pictoral balance can
better be analyzed.
Then I encourage them for a good time of their next year or so's
development, to make a habit when visiting galleries or looking at
magazines to carry out this little survey on a small index card for
themselves until such in time it quickly becomes second nature to pick up
on it right away.
Now....here's a good point that comes from all of this. We can take
advantage of that incredible volume of work that has been done and
published out there by artists to teach us WHAT WORKS and WHAT DOES NOT
WORK !! When I can see what has failed to work for another artist....I
have saved myself "x" number of hours having to repeat that artist's same
failed efforts, and basically advanced my progress immediately! Avoiding
what does not work gives me more time to focus on what does. That is worth
an education alone right there!
What makes this exercise really fun....is to sketch out the negative and
positive elements on a card with the actual image of the painting turned
upside down. If balance is working in that image.....it will work upside
down as well, but the advantage is you have disengaged the left brain's
difficulty understanding image artistically and handed the job more
efficiently over to the right brained creative hemisphere.
Oh....after the painter's workshop is over.....rarely ever will the artists
choose those same images they thought they like. Instead, they pick new
images that points out their heightened discretions.
You will find "Fake".....(I really wish you'd have left a name), that even
though you rate yourself very poorly in drawing......that if you did a
drawing of another image....(such as a photograph of an animal) but had
that photo turned upside down and forced yourself not even once to turn it
around until you were done, that the drawing you would do....finished, and
then turned around...would have results that would surprise you
considerably! The reason is....is that the critical nature you have of
your own artistic capabilities is locked up in your left brain hemisphere
which degrades you during the drawing process. The left brain has
absolutely no patience with this upside down stuff.....and sorta drifts off
leaving your little 'ole right brained creative self to do its thing!
> I'm also wondering what makes a masterpiece. Why does a painting worth
> 300 000$ while another may worth 300$. How do you know it's time to
> increase the price of a work?
the history of an artist.....whom they know....whom affluent circles often
want to propel forward for reasons perhaps unknown.....work that is
discernably more excellence in that particular genre or style of the
advocates that support it....and, dying!
peace.....
Larry
Larry Seiler
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
mdeli
>> |> Your opinion of my having an opinion to suggest that I am illogical is
>> |> self-defeating......as itself being an opinion.
>
>> I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating a fact. Your conclusions
>> were incorrect. Your sophistry does not change that *fact*.
>
>you fail to argue that your statement is based upon a verifiable fact, i.e.
>"truth", thus it remains in the category of simply opinion based as well.
>
>It is a relative argument for which in this case it is supposed that
>everyone should have a right to be a "jerk" if that is one's preference.
>The sad point of it all once again, is that this becomes ground to
>establish a convenient buffer or wall to protect oneself from moral
>conviction to consider the thoughts and feelings of others while at the
>same time being a proverbial "bull in a China shop" demanding others to be
>more accountable or obligated to prove themselves
>reasonable....logical...worthy "ONLY" if way has been given to accomodate
>"him." A true example of self-inflamed Darwinian pomp and arrogance.
This is one of the nuttiest paragraphs I read on this conference.
Larry What's "self-inflamed Darwinian pomp and arrogance."
Perhaps you bare all the scars you claim art has given you because you
should really have been a lawyer. You could then you could have gone
on and on and on and gotten paid for it.
mdeli
imagine that like some conservatives I advocate a return to the old.
They could not be more incorrect. I do not suggest recreating styles
or subject matter because they are classical or painting in the style
of the Salons or a blind return to Raphaelesque purity. Good artists
inevitably use their techniques and skills to do something which
others haven't already done.
What is really worth preserving from the past is that technical
knowledge which is universal and can be put to use in executing any
style or subject matter. We need never worry that Art will run out of
styles.
I am convinced that there is as much fine work produced now as before.
It just doesn't conform to what is presently fashionable and fits the
narrow confines of what is considered by critics as great Modern Art.
CROCUSDES
>It just doesn't conform to what is presently fashionable and fits the
>narrow confines of what is considered by critics as great Modern Art.
Bravo Mani!!! Now you're writing like a thinking human being for a change.
You see, you can do it and even make good sense. I'm proud of you man. We
would all enjoy your participation more if you continue contributions like the
above. We may disagree but it's not necessary to be disagreeable and still get
along.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://www.chrisray.com
mdeli
Excellent!
Perhaps you should start a Committee of Public Safety and rate our
messages in order to see that they conform to the high moral precepts
of this conference.
-I suggest using the following criteria:
-Agreeable
-disagreeable
-X rated, might be offensive to artzy fartzies and under-aged
children
I would be the first to nominate Eicher to your staff.
I also suggest that you get your fellow sculpture Poons to erect a
guillotine in the MOMA sculpture garden as a warning to all who might
laugh at the sacred content in the place. Perhaps you could also get
Christo to cover it with toilet paper.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and read about a skeptical view of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
CROCUSDES
>messages in order to see that they conform to the high moral precepts
>of this conference.
>
>-I suggest using the following criteria:
>-Agreeable
>-disagreeable
>-X rated, might be offensive to artzy fartzies and under-aged
>children
I like the idea very much, I'll get to work on this right away. Now if you
promise to head The Committe of What's Best For Us To Look At then I might
suggest the following criteria:
-Skillful
-unskillful
-too ugly or too confusing for the common man or children over the age of
eighteen.
I think we're making some progress here. Welcome to the world Mani.
mdeli
The genuinely exceptional artist is damned difficult to imitate. This
is rarely the case with MAA especially in its later examples. In MAA
each artist basis all his work on one simple idea, like colored
stripes, a splatted canvas or schmiery somewhat recognizable images
which are stylistically and technically simple. The important thing
here is to give the public the impression that no one had ever done
this sort of thing before, that it's NEW.
Although there were indeed great artistic innovators the present day
artzy-fartzy aesthete doesn't realize that the subject matter of great
art is not entirely unique. Are Raphael's Madonnas unique, Rembrandt's
portraits? Vermeer's interiors or someone's landscapes unique? The
best paintings are unique in their execution.
Many artists tried to reach the heights of the greatest masters but
never accomplished the feat. Nevertheless many of these artists
produced fine paintings. Terborch and Jan Steen are not in the same
class as Vermeer but their paintings are admired and as carefully
preserved as are those of so many other lesser masters.
In MAA there is no such thing as a lesser master. Picasso imitators
are considered trash. A fake Pollock is worthless. Matisse imitators
are considered hack art school incompetents. With MAA value is a
matter of believing a work to be a signed original. Only the signature
really counts. On the other hand if a forged signature were found on a
very fine old master painting, as has often been the case, it is not
considered trash but is still judged on the basis of quality. If the
quality is of a high order the work still retains a high value.
etc.
Iian Neill
> >there must be a few things that I must learn about paintings and stuff.
> >What should I learn, where and how...
If you want to be a critic or a dealer, ideally the best thing to do would be to
become an artist yourself, in some capacity. That is a monumental enough task, I
know, but some experience in wielding the pencil and the brush intelligently could
not hurt your understanding of what makes a masterpiece. You might also want to
ransack your local library, read up on everything artistic. Follow your tastes, but
be willing to look into periods you may never heard of - there are some wonderful
surprises in the wilderness. But you'll never find them if you do not first look.
> >I'm also wondering what makes a masterpiece. Why does a painting worth
> >300 000$ while another may worth 300$. How do you know it's time to
> >increase the price of a work?
The financial worth of a painting is not always congruent with its artistic merit -
take, for example, many of the works by Jackson Pollock, Henri Matisse, Pablo
Picasso, Constantin Brancusi, etc. When looking at a work of art, ask yourself what
it is about it that strikes you - if it does not affect you in any way, then you
may wish to consider moving on to another - or else returning to it at a later
date, when you have seen more of the artist's works. In any case, you will need to
look at the painting with discernment - how does the distribution of dark and light
masses enhance it? - how good is the drawing, the composition? - are the colours,
etc., appropriate to the theme of the work? This is just the beginning, of course,
as many members of this group will affirm. But it is a start.
Regards,
Iian Neill
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in fine art from the 19th century's greatest masters, feel
free to visit the Renaissance Cafe in its two aspects:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
http://members.spree.com/sip/gerome/index.html
mdeli
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.
mdeli
which presently inhabits our museums.
Namely, "The Emperor's New Clothes."
bean...@my-dejanews.com
> There is only one valid theory of most of the so called Modern Art
> which presently inhabits our museums.
>
> Namely, "The Emperor's New Clothes."
>
>
Am I the only one who is soooooo sick of this lame-o debate?? I just don't
understand what the impetus is to keep beating this dead horse. Is it
jealousy over gallery and museum space or a feeling of a dearth of
validation? Can't we just respect each other's particular interests,
inclinations and talents? Yes, it is true that there is some bad art out
there, both by virtue of lack of skill and lack of imagination. But
honestly, let this pony go to the dog food factory in peace!!
J.
Linda Thomas
> > There is only one valid theory of most of the so called Modern Art
> > which presently inhabits our museums.
> >
> > Namely, "The Emperor's New Clothes."
> >
> >
>
> Am I the only one who is soooooo sick of this lame-o debate?? I just
> don't understand what the impetus is to keep beating this dead horse. Is
> it jealousy over gallery and museum space or a feeling of a dearth of
> validation? Can't we just respect each other's particular interests,
> inclinations and talents? Yes, it is true that there is some bad art out
> there, both by virtue of lack of skill and lack of imagination. But
> honestly, let this pony go to the dog food factory in peace!!
>
> J.
>
way, for years in this ng. He has no wit, no insight, no humor, and knows
absolutely nothing about art - modern or otherwise. Check out his website.
It is the work of a crackpot with time on his hands, in my opinion.
I can't stop him from posting (wouldn't if I could), but I can ignore him.
--
Linda Thomas
*Time is never wasted when you're wasted all the time.
--Catherine Zandonella*
A.A. Raimes
<lth...@metnet.com> writes
>No, you're not alone. Mani has been saying exactly the same thing, the same
>way, for years in this ng. He has no wit, no insight, no humor, and knows
>absolutely nothing about art - modern or otherwise. Check out his website.
>It is the work of a crackpot with time on his hands, in my opinion.
>
>I can't stop him from posting (wouldn't if I could), but I can ignore him.
You should be able to *kill* an author or a thread that you simply don't
want to read anymore - most software has this facility to set it so that
the posts from that person/thread are no longer collected. I do this
regularly ! In that way everyone has the choice about what they read
rather than having the annoying stuff inflicted where it is not welcomed
- of course there is always the risk that you might miss a good post but
you can still see who is contributing to the thread and that way can
decide if it is worth starting to collect again.
Maybe that is useful to a few people.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
mdeli
>bean...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> > There is only one valid theory of most of the so called Modern Art
>> > which presently inhabits our museums.
>> >
>> > Namely, "The Emperor's New Clothes."
>> >
> Mani has been saying exactly the same thing, the same
>way, for years in this ng.
To a twit like you all my messages sound the same. I doubt that you
read my messages. You have never addressed any of my points.
> He has no wit, no insight, no humor, and knows
>absolutely nothing about art - modern or otherwise.
> Check out his website.
>It is the work of a crackpot with time on his hands, in my opinion.
Good Advice. Check it out and decide for yourself.
>I can't stop him from posting (wouldn't if I could), but I can ignore him.
>
Why don't you?
A.A. Raimes
<hug...@interlog.com> writes
>read my messages. You have never addressed any of my points.
What's the point in anyone addressing your *points* ? you never reply
anyway because yours is a one way system. I am still waiting for the
answer to my challenge to you on Rothko ....
Alison A Raimes
mdeli
check it out.
Mani Deli
This is an important question. which contains some interesting
implications.
I remember one of my painting teachers holding up a Rothko and asking
dumfounded students the same question. I answered and needless to say
didn't last long atthat school.
Can I copy a Rothko exactly? The answer is no. Now you might presume
that this implies that there is great merit in Rothko.
I can probably do a reasonable copy of a Rothko. However if you take
de Kooning or Pollock. I doubt that I could even do a reasonable
copy. And what does this prove? Not what most art teachers think.
First I will say that neither de Kooning, Pollock, or even Rothko was
capable of doing an exact copy of their own works. Why? Primarily
because there work is little more than accidental complexity.
If you were to take three pails of colored paint and drop them on a
10x10 foot canvas and then walk through it the result would be
accidental complexity. Would you have a masterpiece? I doubt that
anyone including Mondrian, Vermeer or Hockney would have had the
ability to copy even a section of this accidental work. If sheer
accident had artistic value I suppose Michaelangelo's drop-cloth from
the Sistine Chapel would have been saved and now hang in the Louvre.
Critics could rave as to how even he managed to anticipate Pollock.
The important question is whether a work is imitateable? And I am not
referring to subject matter alone.
Rothko, Pollock and Mondrian are easily imitated. Good forgeries of
that sort of work are around to prove it. Average art students also
succeed at this. Some of the best imitations I've seen of these and
many other Modern Academics are in museum rental sections and in the
collections of office painting outfits and furniture stores.
Could one copy a classical master. It is more likely that one could
copy a Vermeer exactly than a Pollock. Does that make Pollock
superior? I'd gladly rent a fine copy of a Vermeer, Van Eyke or an
Ingres however these are not to be found because they would require
extreme skill to copy and far more skill to imitate.
Now do a thought experiment. Imagine taking that Rothko and erasing
the signature and signing it R, Mutt. Now take this to your favorite
modern academic art dealer and see if he will buy it. Better still
leave the signature and try to sell it in a remote fleemarket in
Paraguay where no one has yet heard the hype and see if anyone
bites.
Rothko is 99% hype and 1% skill.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>I remember one of my painting teachers holding up a Rothko and asking
>dumfounded students the same question.
I can imagine them being dumbfounded. Not as much because of the work
itself but because it is actually held up :-)
>First I will say that neither de Kooning, Pollock, or even Rothko was
>capable of doing an exact copy of their own works. Why? Primarily
>because there work is little more than accidental complexity.
I like that... "accidental complexity". It reminds me a bit of Bob
Ross with his happy trees and happy accidents. Of course, it's not
fair to compare Bob Ross to this illustrous threesome. Bob Ross was a
far better artist.
>Now do a thought experiment. Imagine taking that Rothko and erasing
>the signature and signing it R, Mutt. Now take this to your favorite
>modern academic art dealer and see if he will buy it. Better still
>leave the signature and try to sell it in a remote fleemarket in
>Paraguay where no one has yet heard the hype and see if anyone
>bites.
It's not beyond imagination that one might buy it for a reasonable
price (let's say a dime), gesso over it and use it as a kind of second
hand canvas (or to repair a hole in the roof with it).
King Rundzap
newsgroup, in general, is not so uptight about responding to threads
weeks or months after there was last activity in them, I find it
curious that Mani is verbatim reposting something from November 2002,
especially when it's a thread he started that included many
interesting counterpoints that he didn't address very well.
But at any rate, I guess it's worth pointing or repointing out some of
the problems, just in case some "innocent" doesn't use Google Groups
and is misled.
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<q7d7k01ska3mlh8h0...@4ax.com>...
> copy a Rothko?
> This is an important question. which contains some interesting
> implications.
> I remember one of my painting teachers holding up a Rothko and asking
> dumfounded students the same question. I answered and needless to say
> didn't last long atthat school.
> Can I copy a Rothko exactly? The answer is no.
You didn't last long at Bauhaus partially because you said you
couldn't copy a Rothko exactly? Maybe that's not ridiculous, but I'm
guessing it is. Your professors were thinking that their capable
students should be able to copy Rothko exactly, and if not, maybe they
shouldn't be there? Is that what you're claiming?
> Now you might presume
> that this implies that there is great merit in Rothko.
It's just because one can't copy anything exactly. It has to do with
ontology. Print runs, photocopies, photographs and so on are not
exact copies either.
> I can probably do a reasonable copy of a Rothko.
This is not very well defined. What would make it a reasonable copy?
Probably someone saying, "Hey, that looks kinda like a Rothko", or
maybe mistaking your "reasonable copy" for a Rothko. But which
someone(s)?
> However if you take
> de Kooning or Pollock. I doubt that I could even do a reasonable
> copy.
That sounds suspicious. I'm sure we could pick someone(s) who would
also say about your de Kooning or Pollock copies, "Hey, that looks
kinda like a de Kooning or Pollock", or maybe mistaking your copies
for a de Kooning or Pollock. You see, you're leaving out who is
considering these things in our thought experiment (which would be
better as an actual experiment) as well as leaving out the criteria
for bestowing the phrase "reasonable copy" on the work in question.
Those aren't minor issues in an argument like the one you're
presenting.
>And what does this prove?
That you're consciously (well, it should be conscious, at least, if
you actually have a background in philosophy of science as you've
claimed) using a number of fallacies, such as omission fallacies,
hasty generalization, etc. with the aim of gaining new converts?
> Not what most art teachers think.
I'd agree that it probably does not prove anything that most art
teachers think. Primarily because it doesn't really prove anything,
and most art teachers don't limit their thinking to conspicuous
fallacies.
> First I will say that neither de Kooning, Pollock, or even Rothko was
> capable of doing an exact copy of their own works. Why?
For the same reason I noted above: "It's just because one can't copy
anything exactly. It has to do with ontology. Print runs,
photocopies, photographs and so on are not exact copies either." No
one could create an "exact copy" of their own work. So that fact in
itself doesn't prove anything about art.
> Primarily
> because there work is little more than accidental complexity.
There is accidental and non-accidental complexity in their artworks,
just as there is in Bouguereau, who of course could not also do an
exact copy of his works. And unless you're using the mathematical
sense of "complexity" here, by the way, that is also not very
well-defined. Earlier in this thread (the easiest way to find it is
by using Google Groups) someone else also pointed out to you that
there is accidental complexity in all actions and events.
> If you were to take three pails of colored paint and drop them on a
> 10x10 foot canvas and then walk through it the result would be
> accidental complexity.
And non-accidental complexity, too. You intended to take those
particular pails of colored paint, that particular size canvas in that
particular way, etc. and walk through it. If you're believing that
one has complete control over any kind of paint application in any
scenario, you didn't do enough ontology, or physics for that matter.
> Would you have a masterpiece?
Who is judging whether the work is a masterpiece? What did they say?
I wouldn't be able to judge it for myself until I saw it. Facts about
how something was created do not sway my judgment of the finished
product one way or another, although I can be intrigued by those kinds
of facts on their own merit.
> I doubt that
> anyone including Mondrian, Vermeer or Hockney would have had the
> ability to copy even a section of this accidental work.
Earlier you made a distinction between an "exact copy" and a
"reasonable copy". We know that they couldn't do an exact copy,
because of ontic facts. Since "reasonable copy", as (not) defined
above, left the door open to just about anyone we could think of
judging something like, "That kinda looks like an X", I'm not so
skeptical that Mondrian, Vermeer or Hockney would have (had) the
ability to produce a "reasonable copy" of a section of our paint spill
work.
> If sheer
> accident had artistic value
Well, it does. There aren't any works that do not involve accidental
complexity.
> I suppose Michaelangelo's drop-cloth from
> the Sistine Chapel would have been saved and now hang in the Louvre.
There was a good point made about this earlier in the thread (about
cultural norms), and which, of course, you didn't respond to.
But there are other problems with it, as well. Too many to mention
them all, in fact, but here's a big one. "If x has artistic value,
then everyone believes that x has artistic value" is false, and you
believe it to be false, also (otherwise Bouguereau wouldn't have
artistic value, since some people do not believe him to have artistic
value). Your If (then) statement above relies on "If x has artistic
value, then everyone believes that x has artistic value"--if that is
instead false, then sheer accident, and Michelangelo's drop cloth,
could have artistic value, despite the fact that neither Michelangelo
nor those around him might have believed that it had artistic value.
If you claim it is true instead, then you have to say that Bouguereau
does not have artistic value, or risk being inconsistent (which maybe
you don't care about, as we could assume you don't based on two
uncorrected contradictions to follow).
> Critics could rave as to how even he managed to anticipate Pollock.
Lots of things "could be the case" as we consider counterfactuals,
yes.
> The important question is whether a work is imitateable?
I'm not sure why that's an important question. We already know that
"exact copies" aren't possible, and that "reasonable copies" depend on
who we ask and what they're meaning by "reasonable copy".
> And I am not
> referring to subject matter alone.
?
> Rothko, Pollock and Mondrian are easily imitated.
Speaking of inconsistencies, someone earlier in the thread pointed out
that you just finished saying that one can't even do a "reasonable
copy" of Pollock, yet here you are saying that Pollock is "easily
imitated". That was a good thing for them to point out (I didn't even
catch it the first time I read your initial comment in this thread way
back when), and it's curious that you didn't even bother to fix that.
> Good forgeries of
> that sort of work are around to prove it.
Again, as someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, good
forgeries (however you're defining that) of all kind of works, from
all periods of art, are around. You must read ARTnews, no? Forgeries
that fooled various people for various periods of time are frequently
mentioned there, and again, from all periods of art. To repeat (since
that appears to be the motif), "reasonable copies" depend on who we
ask and what we ask them.
> Average art students also
> succeed at this.
Oops, maybe I repeated too soon. It would be better here--who are we
asking whether an "average art student's 'copy' of X's art" is a
"reasonable copy"? What definition of "reasonable copy" is the person
we're asking supposed to be applying?
> Some of the best imitations I've seen of these and
> many other Modern Academics are in museum rental sections and in the
> collections of office painting outfits and furniture stores.
> Could one copy a classical master.
Not an "exact copy". We already covered that material.
> It is more likely that one could
> copy a Vermeer exactly than a Pollock.
No, not an "exact copy". You can't do that, period. The "reasonable
copy" of course (repeat along) depends on who we ask and what we ask
them.
> Does that make Pollock
> superior?
The issues you've brought up so far are potentially (at least)
interesting issues of (a) ontology and (b) psychological aesthetic
judgment regarding "copies". However, they have no bearing on the
aesthetic value of the originals, at least not without further
argumentation establishing such a connection. Basically, you're
changing the subject here all of a sudden, or just using more
fallacies and hoping that no one notices. Did you ever run a three
card monty game?
> I'd gladly rent a fine copy of a Vermeer, Van Eyke or an
> Ingres however these are not to be found because they would require
> extreme skill to copy and far more skill to imitate.
Here's the second great example of a contradiction that was previously
pointed out that you didn't care to change, lol. from "It is more
likely that one could copy a Vermeer than a Pollock" to "(Vermeer
copies) are not to be found because they would require extreme skill".
At least pick a fallacious argument and stick to it! lol
> Now do a thought experiment. Imagine taking that Rothko and erasing
> the signature and signing it R, Mutt. Now take this to your favorite
> modern academic art dealer and see if he will buy it.
Here, you're confusing economic and business considerations with
aesthetics. Brilliant.
> Better still
> leave the signature and try to sell it in a remote fleemarket in
> Paraguay where no one has yet heard the hype and see if anyone
> bites.
I'm sure they would. Your underlying assumption here is either, "No
one _really_ likes ________ (insert the name of Mani's favorite
detested artist or genre)", or "No one in places like Paraguay
_really_ likes ______". Well, we've already covered this in other
threads, which you ignored, and I'm sure you're going to ignore it
again, but believe it or not, people actually buy artworks that you
think suck, including abstracts, that were made by unknown artists. I
even gave you links to abstracts that were selling for hundreds of
dollars (selling, not just priced at hundreds of dollars), by
unknowns. Of course you just ignored all of that.
> Rothko is 99% hype and 1% skill.
Is that what your skill-o-meter read? When was the last time you had
it calibrated?
> No skill no art!
All of the stuff conventionally called art displays skill!
--King Rundzap
zeno
are the consistent mental deficiencies of Mani's fallacies and misinformation. In this sense he serves
modern art very well. It is as if he is saying, "hey, you too can be dumb like me, if you like what I
like and hate what I hate"....so who wants to go there? His "head in the sand" attitude should provoke
curiosity for those not afraid to further investigate what he protests. What is worse is his unwitting
encouragement of the tendency to associate his own style of work with that same level of mental
deficiency (medium=message?), and that would be an unfortunate disservice.
Zeno
When presented with a musical notation (after the fact) of one of his amazing improvised solos, the
jazz artist John Coltrane said he couldn't play "that".
Electric Nachos
zeno wrote in message <41449068...@sonic.net>...
>When presented with a musical notation (after the fact) of one of his
amazing improvised solos, the
>jazz artist John Coltrane said he couldn't play "that".
That's funny!
Milton
Robert Rauschenberg's Factum I and II were done in 1957.
Malcolm Morley's copy of Vermeer's Portrait of the Artist in his
Studio
was 1968.
Morley's Painters Floor
http://www.albrightknox.org/acquisitions/acq_2000/Morley.html
is five years old.
Glenn Brown worked with images from Auerbach, de Kooning, and Karel
Appel since at least 1994.
Cecily Brown, my personal favorite of the "new painters" has been
hiding detailed (and fairly horrifying) images under deKooningesque
"hot licks" for a couple of years now.
I dunno, can Gerhard Richter copy his own abstracts?
zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<41449068...@sonic.net>...
GODSTAR
> I like that... "accidental complexity". It reminds me a bit of Bob
> Ross with his happy trees and happy accidents.
Its pretty much exactly what bob ross does...