Modern Art
Mani Deli
those not generally used by the MODERN ARTIST, the critic very often
denigrate these qualities as mere "gimmicks." Gimmicks like paintings
executed in fine blends or containing unfashionable subjects or works
which by today's fashion conventions are considered "overly"
realistic. The term Gimmicks by now refers to almost any classical
move that rarely occurs in Modern Academic Art, especially when it
amounts to something which required overt skill.
There is now a whole school of art critics and crank art historians
who specialize in inflicting Artspeak on the Old Masters. Some of
these critics have written coffee-table editions about Renaissance or
Baroque Art which tend to mention Picasso, Matisse and Cezanne as
often as the artist who is the actual subject. These writers have
become specialists in advanced Modern Art detection. They specialize
in detecting things like the influence of Brancusi on Michelangelo,
Picasso and de Kooning on Raphael and Rembrandt, and Mondrian on
Vermeer. Some have even managed to detect traces of the footprints of
Cezanne, De Kooning and Pollock lurking in almost all great classical
painting.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Marcus Williamson
>When classical or contemporary works employ techniques other than
>those not generally used by the MODERN ARTIST, the critic very often
>denigrate these qualities as mere "gimmicks."
Can you provide some examples of critics using this term in articles?
Look forward to hearing from you.
regards
Marcus
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
inch of Rembrandt's highlights and see an abstract composition - the same
with Turner and others. This is where some artists get their ideas. Many
modern artists have haunted the old master sections of galleries. It's not
what you do (I painted a tree) but how you do it that becomes the question
to which artists seek the answer - for every serious work of art is a system
of relationships hidden from the viewer.
keith
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:slrrou882ep98d75n...@4ax.com...
Thur
to questions then let them trek off to Nepal or keep their navel
musings to themselves.
The "series of relationships hidden from the viewer" are of no
importance to anyone.
Art goes through fashions and fads and that is right, because it
serves the source of art that makes art of any importance. That is,
the attention of society, and the funds made available by sales or
direct funding to museums and other institutions that promote it.
After those fads and fashions have aged enough for them to be
viewed more critically, say long enough for their promotors to
have died out, then a more sensible and objective view may be
made. Mani's concerns regarding the current population of
art critic and commentator will be taken care of by the Grim Reaper.
--
Thur
x-no-archive: yes
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:BXqj9.81690$8b1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
importance to anyone.) snip from below
These are obviously the words of a man maybe woman who has gained immense
expertise in the field of the composed painting and has declared that
composition in the art of painting is of no importance.
I disagree with you - I think composition is an important component in art
work.
keith
Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:aeAj9.939$Pu4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Andrew D
<ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
+When classical or contemporary works employ techniques other than
+those not generally used by the MODERN ARTIST, the critic very often
+denigrate these qualities as mere "gimmicks."
Or worse. One Perth critic dismissed one of our most recognised landscape
artists as employing "amateurish square brushstrokes". This is the same
critic who, when describing a local abstractionist, wrote: "He pours and
dribbles his paint with great energy and control, making, in effect, grand
gestural musings, which are decorative but also very much images of the
actual act of creation"
The realist/impressionist artist produces large works, usually seasides,
with water you could almost dip your toe in. It is beyond real. The
abstractionist produces work which looks like someone poured and dribbled
paint on canvas. Yet according to our local newspaper critic, the former
is amateurish while the latter is a veritable artistic God.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Mani Deli
>After those fads and fashions have aged enough for them to be
>viewed more critically, say long enough for their promotors to
>have died out, then a more sensible and objective view may be
>made.
This is quite historically true. Fashions pass and interest its
artwork diminishes. After a passage of time work of the finest quality
is revived and set aside to reside among the classic..
> Mani's concerns regarding the current population of
>art critic and commentator will be taken care of by the Grim Reaper.
The grim reaper comes quite suddenly for most modern art. One need
only look in 10 year old art magazines for the names of corpses of
both artists and critics.
>"keith o'connor
>> Mani this is old stuff that every serious artist knows - I look at a
>>square inch of Rembrandt's highlights and see an abstract composition - the same
>> with Turner and others.
Yes, but you fail to mention that the abstract compositions you
mention also forms an illusion of reality, usually in great detail
based on exceptional drawing and all necessary skills. Abstraction
by the Modern Academic artist becomes nothing more than abstract
pattern. That is why I find it on a level of floor covering and bed
sheets.and assorted decoration.
Indeed there is more fine abstraction in a few square inches in
Vermeer and Dali etc. than in most Modern Art and it all mixes
together to form an illusion of three dimensional hyper reality never
found in even the finest photographs.
>> This is where some artists get their ideas.
This is true for the insensitive clod who translates the painterly
effect in classic art into formless schmier.
>> Many
>> modern artists have haunted the old master sections of galleries.
They definitely are haunted. The finest artwork has the ability to
embed itself in the mind of the viewer.
>It's not
>> what you do (I painted a tree) but how you do it that becomes the question
>> to which artists seek the answer
Its how WELL you do it that counts.
>> for every serious work of art is a system of relationships hidden from the viewer.
If the painting is in front of you and you care to look, nothing is
hidden, serious or not.
Thur
suppose in one context could be called hidden, but to the
viewer with eyes, anything that is hidden is hidden.
I do not intend to give any such impressions about
myself, however if you insist..
--
Thur
x-no-archive: yes
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:pQPj9.27243$q41....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Andrew D
[snip]
+ I disagree with you - I think composition is an important component in art
+ work.
Not bad coming from someone who previously insisted that learning or
applying rules wrecks creativity.
Luna Tuna
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>The realist/impressionist artist produces large works, usually seasides,
>with water you could almost dip your toe in. It is beyond real. The
>abstractionist produces work which looks like someone poured and dribbled
>paint on canvas. Yet according to our local newspaper critic, the former
>is amateurish while the latter is a veritable artistic God.
Will it forever after be thus?
WoN ereH
>...no skill no art!
>
>Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions
>of the modern art establishment?
>
>Check out my web page
Yippee! A refreshing alternate medley of semantic extrapolation.
Debra
Andrew D
Tuna) wrote:
+In article <right-24090...@i172-147.nv.iinet.net.au>,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
+
+
+>The realist/impressionist artist produces large works, usually seasides,
+>with water you could almost dip your toe in. It is beyond real. The
+>abstractionist produces work which looks like someone poured and dribbled
+>paint on canvas. Yet according to our local newspaper critic, the former
+>is amateurish while the latter is a veritable artistic God.
+
+Will it forever after be thus?
To this and other art critics, yes. To the non-elites who appreciate
genuine skill and ability, no.
John Ng
Are you from Perth Australia? I am here.
I know exactly what you mean because Perth's (or for that matter
Australia's) art critics are appalling. They have the poorest taste
imaginable... seems that they are bloated with too much
arty-fartiness.
I just attended the Victoria Park art competition, and there were some
entries which were surprisingly good but the winner was a child-like
drawing by an art student! I took pictures of some entries and showed
it around and everyone's jaws dropped to the ground when they saw the
winning entry... just couldn't believe it was possible!
John Ng
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Andrew D
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
+> Or worse. One Perth critic dismissed one of our most recognised landscape
+
+Are you from Perth Australia? I am here.
+I know exactly what you mean because Perth's (or for that matter
+Australia's) art critics are appalling. They have the poorest taste
+imaginable... seems that they are bloated with too much
+arty-fartiness.
From comments made in this group, it appears it's a worldwide trend.
+I just attended the Victoria Park art competition, and there were some
+entries which were surprisingly good but the winner was a child-like
+drawing by an art student! I took pictures of some entries and showed
+it around and everyone's jaws dropped to the ground when they saw the
+winning entry... just couldn't believe it was possible!
Same happens at a lot of exhibitions. Joondalup tops the lot for elevating
the weird and meaningless. I understand Rockingham employs judges with
some sense of artistic taste.
(BTW, you shouldn't photograph other people's art without their permission)
Andrew D
+pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
[SNIP]
++I just attended the Victoria Park art competition, and there were some
++entries which were surprisingly good but the winner was a child-like
++drawing by an art student! I took pictures of some entries and showed
++it around and everyone's jaws dropped to the ground when they saw the
++winning entry... just couldn't believe it was possible!
Perhaps we should encourage fellow artists to avoid those exhibitions
which regularly ignore skilled art in favour of childish scrawls. Over
time these exhibitions will be shunned by the general public then wither
and die (as will probably happen to the Melville Award if comments in the
visitors book are any indication). However, whilst talented, experienced,
skilled artists continue to pay hanging fees the organisers remain happy
regardless of the judging outcomes.
Give the weird exhibitions to the weird artists and find out before
entering whether a particular exhibition is for you or not. If you can
find out who the judges are beforehand, this might save you some money.
Also, if you hope to sell your work at the exhibition, find out if the
organisers see this as part of the exhibition service. In at least two
recent exhibitions it appears selling was a secondary consideration and
little effort was put into it.
Having said that, you can also consider the exhibition as advertising and
if your work is good enough, you may find yourself invited to better
exhibitions whether you win awards or not and you may find people tracking
you down to see what else you do.
Andy.
Luna Tuna
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>From comments made in this group, it appears it's a worldwide trend.
Right you are! I was once in an exhibition
where someone entered a "Made in Mexico"
purchased mirror that had a frame
made from recycled aluminum cans. These
mirrors are commonly found in Mexican markets
along the USA border. As an entry in this exhibit it
was awarded the blue ribbon in the craft division.
And in that same exhibition, filled with
paintings in all sizes and mediums, the blue
ribbon for painting went to a postage-stamp
sized work with a mark on the paper that
"resembled" a butterfly - done in watercolor.
Probably done in one fell swoop of the
brush by the artist and entered in the show
as a joke.