Art is objective
John Ng
coming out of the dark ages of Modern Art into a new renaissance of
Classic art. May be we can continue from where the 19th C left off
before we were so rudely interrupted by the search for a new
definition in the last 100 years. Now, we know that there really is
no new definition. Art is as it always was and will everr be -- an
objective thing.
“Art” is objective? Definitely.
Give you an example. Let’s take a beautiful girl… well
like Meg Ryan as in “Sally Met Harry” days. The
evaluation of her beauty ranges from "very hot" to "moderately hot"
amongst men, and "very good" amongst women. You will never be able to
please everybody so a small group will end up with an opinion of
“OK” at the worst. Absolutely nobody can give a thumbs
down. Conversely nobody can really label Rosanna as Venus.
So the same with painting. Nobody can convincingly say that a
Bouguereau is nonsense or a Picasso is beauty (except that it goes
well the colour of the walls).
nw
human race (or at least Americans) are sewing up the last century. For
example, VH1 has been playing non-stop Behind the Music shows for the last
few months. Most of these episodes cover entire decades or at least a few
highlighted years ('69, and '70 and different genres of '80s music). At the
same time Bravo has spent a lot of time covering jazz through the years. I
have noticed that these shows have picked up a lot (and I watch them more)
since the events of 9/11. The thought I had was that 9/11 ushered in the
new century, as it was the first defined moment of and catalyst for change
of the new era, and we are trying to make sense of, and move forward from
the 1900's. I may be the only one reacting this way, but I have felt the
pull of finding the "next thing" and been especially conscious of society...
watching how it is moving and to what direction(s). I have also noticed
(and definitely not alone here) that corporate culture and class separation
has grown at almost the same increase as technology. Are the Bill Gates of
the world the new kings? Are we moving to a more feudal mentality? If we
are and our thoughts are becoming more earth-based, I predict the following:
1) The rise of country music again.
2) Art will move back toward realism and become more political and relevant
to the "common man".
Of course these are just my thoughts and I could be totally off-base and
change my mind tomorrow, but I would appreciate your comments as well.
-Rand
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.01111...@posting.google.com...
Edward
All this QUEST for newer art, newer forms, this poignant attempt of
self-expression (where there was nothing worthy to express at all) was
nothing but just an agony of
poorly educated people with enormous lust for fame and success...
Absence of true vision, no aesthetic background, lack of talent... but
all that multiplied and powered by envy, vanity or even greed
resulted in horrible regress over last 100 years.
Now, as it was actually, anticipated, culture fell into such a crisis,
that people are bound to turn to something less decrepit and hopeless -
something that bore a touch of spiritual attitude or at least deeper
social appeal.
Old rock is better than contemporary; fusion & jazz is better that
techno-crap; serious jazz & jazz-rock is better than disco, classical
music is better than jazz...
Just depends on person, who is ready for what.
Some would still like to listen to acid music and surf porno sites or
play dumb computer games. Others, as if often happens, are sick of it
and look for something more substantial.
So it goes for everything, but slowly. People got pretty much defiled
and lazy. It's still impossible to convince an average person than
reading nice books are better and nicer than gazing at TV with stupid
sitcoms on.
Music and visual arts are easier - because it requires LESS personal
BRAIN WORK from an individual.
BTW,
There is one thing which surprises me (and maybe some others as well):
Meg Ryan.
She is in NO WAY beautiful. Far from it. Neither by contemporary
standards, nor by classical canons.
Is she hot? Maybe. Depends on personal taste.
Cute? - No doubt !
Sweet? - Definitely !
But 'beautiful'??? - NO WAY !!!
By American standards, it's quite possible, though.
But in Europe her so-called "beauty" will be lost without a trace.
-= Edward =-
nw
news:3BEFA1A0...@yahoo.com...
> There is no doubt about it.
> All this QUEST for newer art, newer forms, this poignant attempt of
> self-expression (where there was nothing worthy to express at all) was
> nothing but just an agony of
> poorly educated people with enormous lust for fame and success...
I disagree. I belive some people paint or draw because they must. I am one
of those people. I think the problems occur when an "artist" refuses
training to enhance their tallent and desire or (worse) that there is
nothing of note to go into the piece. It is dificult to create great work
if you live in the subberban upper-midle class and have never had to strugle
and where the worlds problems stop just short of touching you.
Then again, maybe we agree on the result if not the route there.
> Absence of true vision, no aesthetic background, lack of talent... but
> all that multiplied and powered by envy, vanity or even greed
> resulted in horrible regress over last 100 years.
I'm not sure about "regress". Granted a lot of bad art has come through,
especially in the last 40 years, but it is through that exploration that
artists can learn all that is out and posible and grow. Untill about 100
years ago art was very clearly defined and attempted to capture photo-like
precision with idealic imagery. While that's great in and of itself, I am
quite happy to have other options available. However I choose to paint is
my decision including the style and level of reality versus abstraction. I
think this has proven to open the doors for some truely great works by many
artists.
> Now, as it was actually, anticipated, culture fell into such a crisis,
> that people are bound to turn to something less decrepit and hopeless -
> something that bore a touch of spiritual attitude or at least deeper
> social appeal.
>
> Old rock is better than contemporary; fusion & jazz is better that
> techno-crap; serious jazz & jazz-rock is better than disco, classical
> music is better than jazz...
Well... I agree about the disco and old rock, but you're way off about
techno. I personaly don't feel one is better than the other, just
different. Unless you are talking about modern "smooth" jazz which is
soulless and dull. And classical is "greater" than jazz, but not really
better. It's just different... both forms work on different scales.
> Just depends on person, who is ready for what.
> Some would still like to listen to acid music and surf porno sites or
> play dumb computer games. Others, as if often happens, are sick of it
> and look for something more substantial.
>
> So it goes for everything, but slowly. People got pretty much defiled
> and lazy. It's still impossible to convince an average person than
> reading nice books are better and nicer than gazing at TV with stupid
> sitcoms on.
Absolutely true.
> Music and visual arts are easier - because it requires LESS personal
> BRAIN WORK from an individual.
I'm not sure I understand this. Music is difficult to compose as is visual
work. Or are you speaking of those who recieve the information?
> BTW,
> There is one thing which surprises me (and maybe some others as well):
> Meg Ryan.
> She is in NO WAY beautiful. Far from it. Neither by contemporary
> standards, nor by classical canons.
> Is she hot? Maybe. Depends on personal taste.
> Cute? - No doubt !
> Sweet? - Definitely !
> But 'beautiful'??? - NO WAY !!!
> By American standards, it's quite possible, though.
> But in Europe her so-called "beauty" will be lost without a trace.
Meg Ryan is cute and has a nice... rack. I think her attitude and outlook
is what makes her so appealing. She strikes me as someone who I would like
to hang out with and maybe do some partying with but wouldn't really date.
Of course, I've never actually met her...
> -= Edward =-
-Rand
Bob & Dale Ford
nw wrote:
> "Edward" <dx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3BEFA1A0...@yahoo.com...
> > There is no doubt about it.
> > All this QUEST for newer art, newer forms, this poignant attempt of
> > self-expression (where there was nothing worthy to express at all) was
> > nothing but just an agony of
> > poorly educated people with enormous lust for fame and success...
>
> I disagree. I belive some people paint or draw because they must. I am one
> of those people. I think the problems occur when an "artist" refuses
> training to enhance their tallent and desire or (worse) that there is
> nothing of note to go into the piece. It is dificult to create great work
> if you live in the subberban upper-midle class and have never had to strugle
> and where the worlds problems stop just short of touching you.
Really? Tell that to many great artists of the past ( the Impressionists) who
were exactly that. Starving for art is a myth. No one paints well when they are
starving. You are more likely to paint the great masterpiece being part of the
upper middle class and having the luxury of time to train, and create. As well
as being able to afford the materials to do so.
Dale
nw
news:3BF04CAB...@mb.sympatico.ca...
I don't know how many of them were upper-midle class. But I do know they
were not the norm for their time of society. How many died of depresion or
disease? How many had a long sheltered life with litle or no suffering?
Which doesn't really matter since I was speaking of modern midle class,
though I suppose I should have specified. Even most adults today have not
experianced much of what was common life durring the period of the
impresionists. Disease is generally under control, at least to the point is
does not get oportunity to run rampant as it did. The quality of life has
improved, our poorest poor live better than many of the then midle class
did. My point was that modern upper midle class artists have little life
experiance to put into their creations. Their artwork is decorative and
often very nice and technically good, but rarely pushes the envelope for art
of deep emotional impact.
-Rand
Bob & Dale Ford
nw wrote:
Aids? Cancer?
> The quality of life has
> improved, our poorest poor live better than many of the then midle class
> did.
True
> My point was that modern upper midle class artists have little life
> experiance to put into their creations. Their artwork is decorative and
> often very nice and technically good, but rarely pushes the envelope for art
> of deep emotional impact.
And my point is you have made a gross generalization about a vast amount of
people which is very incorrect. I made my way through university cleaning
pools of very rich people. They had just as many problems as any one else.
Actually some of the most pathetic sad people where from that upper and middle
class, not from the poorer classes if we must use such terminology. As in trophy
wives drunk by 10:00am and having no friends and no life so they look forward to
the pool cleaner coming for some one to talk to. Or how about a twenty two year
old son having to deal with his father replacing his mother with a twenty year
old model and expecting him to call her mom or be disinherited? Their life
experience may be very different from yours but to say they have no life
experience or pain is just classicist BS. Money does not give happiness. It buys
things and can make life easier materially but it can also be a great burden.
You and I can always say hey if only I had a couple of million dollars then I
would be happy. We have hope. What happens when you have that money and your
life sucks????? No hope.
Pain, child abuse, domestic assault, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, rape,
murder, love, hate, "life experience" do not distinguish by class.
Dale
>
>
> -Rand
Edward
> My point was that modern upper midle class artists have little life
> experiance to put into their creations. Their artwork is decorative and
> often very nice and technically good, but rarely pushes the envelope for art
> of deep emotional impact.
That is what we call 'SHALLOW':
Devoid of everything but some relative decorative value. Even though,
not always...
-= Edward =-
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>
>I don't know how many of them were upper-midle class. But I do know they
>were not the norm for their time of society. How many died of depresion or
>disease? How many had a long sheltered life with litle or no suffering?
>Which doesn't really matter since I was speaking of modern midle class,
>though I suppose I should have specified. Even most adults today have not
>experianced much of what was common life durring the period of the
Umm... Are you aware of how extensive a problem clinical depression
is, particularly in the middle class? Don't you wonder why
anti-depressive drugs are some of the most heavily prescribed? This
viewpoint is remarkably narrow-minded. How about a little commentary
on which races, religions, and nationalities produce the best artists?
You're not trying to say that modern artists experience life like the
impressionists did, are you? I'm confused about the point you're
trying to make. Should we have seen more insanely creative art from
the American West frontier? Lots of pain, suffering, and disease
there, and a limited middle class during the early years.
>impresionists. Disease is generally under control, at least to the point is
>does not get oportunity to run rampant as it did. The quality of life has
Dewd! Do heart disease and cancer not count? Any idea where these
are in the causes-of-death-in-the-middle-class list?
>improved, our poorest poor live better than many of the then midle class
Don't know much about the poorest poor in the western world, do you?
You might visit them sometimes (I bet some live pretty near you,
wherever you are), and read up on the middle class of whatever magic
century you're comparing to. Empathy is a wonderful thing.
>did. My point was that modern upper midle class artists have little life
>experiance to put into their creations. Their artwork is decorative and
>often very nice and technically good, but rarely pushes the envelope for art
>of deep emotional impact.
>
Yawn... Read some more first-hand accounts of life in the past few
centuries (don't forget the most recent one). Look hard for
exceptions to your own rules (hint - there will be many many). Attack
your own ideas as if you strongly disagreed with them. Rigorous
thinking is its own reward.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
nw
news:3bf1672e....@news.or.intel.com...
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 20:31:18 -0800, "nw" <rmcc...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >I don't know how many of them were upper-midle class. But I do know they
> >were not the norm for their time of society. How many died of depresion
or
> >disease? How many had a long sheltered life with litle or no suffering?
> >Which doesn't really matter since I was speaking of modern midle class,
> >though I suppose I should have specified. Even most adults today have
not
> >experianced much of what was common life durring the period of the
>
> Umm... Are you aware of how extensive a problem clinical depression
> is, particularly in the middle class? Don't you wonder why
> anti-depressive drugs are some of the most heavily prescribed? This
> viewpoint is remarkably narrow-minded. How about a little commentary
> on which races, religions, and nationalities produce the best artists?
The shelter of Mother's little helper? Please. The fact that drugs are
prescribed intended for clinical depresion does not mean people actually
need them. Ridalin is heavilly prescribed to children who are just being
children as well. People have such sheltered lives they can't cope with
normal life. I think that strengthens my arguement in and of itself. I
mean if your big problem is that you can't keep up with the kids soccer
schedule and Johny is getting a "D" in math and your Lexus is making a wierd
pinging noise... well, you DO have problems, just not where you think they
are. This is actually an epidemic. And the silence around it is scarry.
> You're not trying to say that modern artists experience life like the
> impressionists did, are you? I'm confused about the point you're
> trying to make. Should we have seen more insanely creative art from
> the American West frontier? Lots of pain, suffering, and disease
> there, and a limited middle class during the early years.
No, my point is that modern artists do not experiance anything like the
impresionists did. And as one living in the American West, I can say that a
lot of artwork did come from the frontier. The reason most don't see it is
the education wasn't very good so most of it sucks on technical merrits, but
the ideas behind it are either very lively or very dark-- the kind of manic
energy one would expect from that environment. Oh and there were some
succesful artists such as Albert Bierstadt and Ansel Adams.
> >impresionists. Disease is generally under control, at least to the point
is
> >does not get oportunity to run rampant as it did. The quality of life
has
>
> Dewd! Do heart disease and cancer not count? Any idea where these
> are in the causes-of-death-in-the-middle-class list?
Sure, they count. But not untill one has lived long enough to be considered
near ancient to those of previous eras. My point was that the black plague
doesn't really swoop down on us any more. Smallpox, measles, and a dozen
other fast-spreading, lethal diseases are firmly in our past. In fact we
had to create new ones (antherax) just to keep life interesting.
> >improved, our poorest poor live better than many of the then midle class
>
> Don't know much about the poorest poor in the western world, do you?
> You might visit them sometimes (I bet some live pretty near you,
> wherever you are), and read up on the middle class of whatever magic
> century you're comparing to. Empathy is a wonderful thing.
In the world, no. In the US, yes. I have very good friends who are nothing
but poor. They live less than half a mile away. They've owned the same
clothes for years, eat what they can when they can. I have also been
involved in many community support charities. I do see it and challenge it.
Empathy is not a word used easilly on me. But the point remains, today's
poor (in the US) are the richest poor the world has ever seen with the most
options for advancement.
> >did. My point was that modern upper midle class artists have little life
> >experiance to put into their creations. Their artwork is decorative and
> >often very nice and technically good, but rarely pushes the envelope for
art
> >of deep emotional impact.
> >
> Yawn... Read some more first-hand accounts of life in the past few
> centuries (don't forget the most recent one). Look hard for
> exceptions to your own rules (hint - there will be many many). Attack
> your own ideas as if you strongly disagreed with them. Rigorous
> thinking is its own reward.
There are exceptions to anything. Usually lots. Why don't you try reading
and contemplating what is before you rather than attack one on the grounds
that they can't have a different experiance and outlook than you. My points
are not only valid but true. I invite you to revisit them.
-Rand - I speak for whoever I want.
Bob & Dale Ford
Dan Fox wrote:
> Dale -
>
> You get my vote as cool person of the year. I've had experiences close to
> yours, and believe me, folks, every word is true. You said it far better
> than I could've.
>
> (But - how many people have pools in Winterpeg????)
Not many :-)
We only have two seasons here winter and mosquito.
My pool cleaning days where in Toronto where the climate is almost liveable.
Dale
>
>
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > And my point is you have made a gross generalization about a vast amount
> > of people which is very incorrect. I made my way through university
> > cleaning pools of very rich people. They had just as many problems as any
> > one else. Actually some of the most pathetic sad people where from that
> > upper and middle class, not from the poorer classes if we must use such
> > terminology. As in trophy wives drunk by 10:00am and having no friends
> > and no life so they look forward to the pool cleaner coming for some one
> > to talk to. Or how about a twenty two year old son having to deal with
> > his father replacing his mother with a twenty year old model and
> > expecting him to call her mom or be disinherited? Their life experience
> > may be very different from yours but to say they have no life experience
> > or pain is just classicist BS. Money does not give happiness. It buys
> > things and can make life easier materially but it can also be a great
> > burden. You and I can always say hey if only I had a couple of million
> > dollars then I would be happy. We have hope. What happens when you have
> > that money and your life sucks????? No hope.
> > Pain, child abuse, domestic assault, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide,
> > rape, murder, love, hate, "life experience" do not distinguish by class.
> > Dale
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Rand
>
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
Neil Maxwell
below. I've also expanded on the other points inline. Sorry if my
first response came off as an attack, as I usually try not to do that
on usenet. While the tone may have been a tiny bit harsh, I stand by
the content.
Ultimately, the question of what environment/background/lifestyle
makes a good artist vs. an uninspired artist is as complex and
unresolvable as the "what is art" question. I don't believe that it's
possible to make any generalization regarding social status, hardship,
or whatever, as there will always be many exceptions to every rule.
Every person is a unique combination of genes, upbringing,
social/cultural influence, and circumstance, with a strong helping of
random chance modulating it.
For an individual artist, yes, you can say that this combination of
(for instance) mental illness, poverty, and social mores made them
what they are, but you can't say that another person exposed to the
same circumstances would have also become a great artist. The western
world of the twenty-first century is still turning out excellent,
inspired artists from all walks of life (as are the parts of the world
that we ignore). Will some be considered better than the
impressionists (or whomever)? Yes, without a doubt. Can you predict
what their upbringing and training will have been? Absolutely not.
Any attempt to say "This circumstance leads to great art" is, IMO,
doomed to failure.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:00:11 -0800, "nw" <rmcc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxw...@nosp-mintel.com> wrote in message
>news:3bf1672e....@news.or.intel.com...
>>
>> Umm... Are you aware of how extensive a problem clinical depression
>> is, particularly in the middle class? Don't you wonder why
>> anti-depressive drugs are some of the most heavily prescribed? This
>> viewpoint is remarkably narrow-minded. How about a little commentary
>> on which races, religions, and nationalities produce the best artists?
>
>The shelter of Mother's little helper? Please. The fact that drugs are
>prescribed intended for clinical depresion does not mean people actually
>need them. Ridalin is heavilly prescribed to children who are just being
>children as well. People have such sheltered lives they can't cope with
>normal life. I think that strengthens my arguement in and of itself. I
>mean if your big problem is that you can't keep up with the kids soccer
>schedule and Johny is getting a "D" in math and your Lexus is making a wierd
>pinging noise... well, you DO have problems, just not where you think they
>are. This is actually an epidemic. And the silence around it is scarry.
>
Again, I invite you to exercise your empathy and look at it from
someone else's perspective. How many of these people do you know?
How many kids on prescription drugs have you lived with? People don't
put their kids on drugs just for the fun of it. It's easy to analyze
other people's lives and motives from the armchair, where it all seems
so simple and obvious (and why can't THEY see this?).
Just because a problem doesn't seem important to you, doesn't make it
unimportant to the person who has it. You are welcome to your
lifestyle and priorities, but saying that other's issues are not as
important as they think is a bit egocentric. "Normal life" means
something totally different to each of us, and my life is no less
normal to me than their life is to my Chinese fundamentalist Christian
neighbors. Each of us thinks the other is sadly misguided and feels
quite sorry for the other's kids...
Here's a thought to work on: You've got a kid, and he's having
trouble coping in school, both socially and academically. You know
that allowing him to have a miserable high school experience may cause
him to grow up as a troubled outcast, which is a good starting point
to become an inspired artist, or at least not a cultural sheep. On
the other hand, you want him to be happy and successful, and your
doctor (whom you trust, hopefully) suggests that a drug regimen and
therapy may help with this. What do you do? It may not make a
difference either way, but do you try something, or not? How many
things do you try? How much money do you spend? How far do you go?
If you conclude that these are difficult questions to answer, even if
you're not in the shoes of an anguished parent, you're right.
>> You're not trying to say that modern artists experience life like the
>> impressionists did, are you? I'm confused about the point you're
>> trying to make. Should we have seen more insanely creative art from
>> the American West frontier? Lots of pain, suffering, and disease
>> there, and a limited middle class during the early years.
>
>No, my point is that modern artists do not experiance anything like the
>impresionists did. And as one living in the American West, I can say that a
>lot of artwork did come from the frontier. The reason most don't see it is
>the education wasn't very good so most of it sucks on technical merrits, but
>the ideas behind it are either very lively or very dark-- the kind of manic
>energy one would expect from that environment. Oh and there were some
>succesful artists such as Albert Bierstadt and Ansel Adams.
>
I agree with the education aspect, but general education of the masses
is very much a middle class phenomenon. Artistic development often
requires exposure to art, which you are unlikely to see in a culture
that has a limited middle class, as the American western frontier did.
My point is that, despite the hardships and lack of middle-class
comforts in the American western frontier, it's hard to identify a
great artist who was raised in these specific circumstances. I may be
missing someone...
For what it's worth, Adams is a 20th century artist, and was raised in
a strongly upper class family, though they had their (relatively) hard
times too. Bierstadt was alive during the heyday of the Wild West,
but was lived in Boston and the north-east much of his life and
studied painting in Germany. I don't know much about him, but he
sounds quite upper class as well.
>> >impresionists. Disease is generally under control, at least to the point
>is
>> >does not get oportunity to run rampant as it did. The quality of life
>has
>>
>> Dewd! Do heart disease and cancer not count? Any idea where these
>> are in the causes-of-death-in-the-middle-class list?
>
>Sure, they count. But not untill one has lived long enough to be considered
>near ancient to those of previous eras. My point was that the black plague
>doesn't really swoop down on us any more. Smallpox, measles, and a dozen
>other fast-spreading, lethal diseases are firmly in our past. In fact we
>had to create new ones (antherax) just to keep life interesting.
>
Well, anthrax was around then too. It's still a wild disease in a
portion of Texas and Mexico (called the anthrax triangle), and
ranchers are routinely treated for it there. I'm still a bit unclear
on the point, as someone killed by disease will not become a great
artist, while someone who was a great artist before became such
without the help of the disease. If pain and suffering is the key,
I'd propose that automobile accidents are a modern equivalent to these
diseases, as they kill and maim quite a few people every year, causing
grief both to the immediate victim and to their families. I agree
that this kind of hardship can contribute to artistic depth, but it
still crosses all class lines, as does disease.
>> >improved, our poorest poor live better than many of the then midle class
>>
>> Don't know much about the poorest poor in the western world, do you?
>> You might visit them sometimes (I bet some live pretty near you,
>> wherever you are), and read up on the middle class of whatever magic
>> century you're comparing to. Empathy is a wonderful thing.
>
>In the world, no. In the US, yes. I have very good friends who are nothing
>but poor. They live less than half a mile away. They've owned the same
>clothes for years, eat what they can when they can. I have also been
>involved in many community support charities. I do see it and challenge it.
>Empathy is not a word used easilly on me. But the point remains, today's
>poor (in the US) are the richest poor the world has ever seen with the most
>options for advancement.
I would agree with that, and it points up the risk of comparing
lifestyles out of context.
Classism is a relative thing, and the 18th century middle class lived
quite comfortably, relative to the 18th century poor (substitute any
time frame desired here). The same is true now, and the poor are
little comforted knowing that they have it better in many ways than
people who lived a hundred years ago.
>> >did. My point was that modern upper midle class artists have little life
>> >experiance to put into their creations. Their artwork is decorative and
>> >often very nice and technically good, but rarely pushes the envelope for
>art
>> >of deep emotional impact.
>> >
>> Yawn... Read some more first-hand accounts of life in the past few
>> centuries (don't forget the most recent one). Look hard for
>> exceptions to your own rules (hint - there will be many many). Attack
>> your own ideas as if you strongly disagreed with them. Rigorous
>> thinking is its own reward.
>
>There are exceptions to anything. Usually lots. Why don't you try reading
>and contemplating what is before you rather than attack one on the grounds
>that they can't have a different experiance and outlook than you. My points
>are not only valid but true. I invite you to revisit them.
>
Heh... You seem to be missing my point, which is that the variety of
outlooks and experiences leading to the creation of art are far
broader than yours and mine put together, and can't be pigeonholed
into some narrow concept of class and hardship. I used to think along
fairly rigid class lines when I was young, but have learned through
experience that people are exceedingly difficult to generalize about.
I don't want to read too much into your agenda, but it appears that
you've developed a theory regarding the relative influence of social
and class structure on development of artistic skills, and are
marshalling specific examples of support for this theory. I don't
believe that such a focused theory is applicable or possible, and
exceptions need to be accounted for. While your points may have a
localized truth, I don't think they hold up to the broader exposure to
the exceptions. Apologies if I've misinterpreted this.
>-Rand - I speak for whoever I want.
(but not for me!)
RBrac53660
>nothing but just an agony of
>poorly educated people with enormous lust for fame and success...
>
Bull shit
RBrac53660
>were exactly that. Starving for art is a myth. No one paints well when they
>are
>starving. You are more likely to paint the great masterpiece being part of
>the
>upper middle class and having the luxury of time to train, and create. As
>well
>as being able to afford the materials to do so.
>Dale
Not so much truth to that. When Picasso and Braque were painting together they
were starving even after Stien started writting them. And Stien had a tremdous
amout of influence.
Chris
>
> Not so much truth to that. When Picasso and Braque were painting together they
> were starving even after Stien started writting them. And Stien had a tremdous
> amout of influence.
>
Not really, Winston. Picasso's worst period (financially) was probably around
1904, after which he ran home to momma & pappa back in spain for a good feed. By
1910 he was doing relatively well, and moved from the Bateau-Lavoir to more
upscale digs.
BTW, bringing Picasso - and particularly Picasso & Braque - into this if anything
demonstrates Dale's point. Picasso was from a middle class family, and had access
to a good education. Braque, on the other hand, was working class, and starte4d
out as an apprentice housepainter. Who is better remembered?
Chris
Bob & Dale Ford
Picasso is the ultimate middle class product.
Picasso was given cash and free studios even while he was starting out and very
young. He refused to get a real "job" as he always considered himself a great
artist. If he was "starving" perhaps he shouldn't have spent all his donated money
on hookers and booze.
BTW Picasso liked to whine alot about starving for his art but he really had no
idea what the term meant. Guess that is what happens when you are spoiled middle
class baby. Miss a meal and you are starving. :-) But that doesn't mean you can't
create a masterpiece.
Bracque on the other hand would have created much more if he had the resources to
do so.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
Chris wrote:
My point exactly
Dale
nw
artist so Picasso himself grew up in a very creative environment, with the
tools to do what he wanted at his disposal. Second, Picasso had enormous
talent. There are pictures of the wall of his bedroom from when he was a
child which depict birds as three dimensional objects, with real parts.
They are greatly simplified, but the essence of the bird is there and it is
way more complex than the "v" shape normally used by children of a
comparable age. So if you mean to say Picasso is the ultimate middle class
product meaning that the middle class will likely never produce his equal,
you may be right (though will *any* class produce his equal?). But if you
mean his influence from a middle class upbringing is what made him who he
was... the talent that he was, I must disagree. There are too many factors
most middle class artists do not have to make that statement true. This is
proven by the simple fact that there is not a Picasso in every suburb.
-Rand
"Bob & Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3BF5F8D3...@mb.sympatico.ca...
Gaynor Gallagher
Picasso is better remembered because MOMA acquired the virtually unknown Les
Demoiselles d'Avignon in the 30's and from then on created the myth.
>
> My point exactly
> Dale
>
>
Lauri Levanto
Gaynor Gallagher wrote:
> (Snipped)
> ... Picasso was from a middle class family, and
> had access
> > > to a good education. Braque, on the other hand, was working class, and
> starte4d
> > > out as an apprentice housepainter. Who is better remembered?
> > >
> > > Chris
>
> Picasso is better remembered because MOMA acquired the virtually unknown Les
> Demoiselles d'Avignon in the 30's and from then on created the myth.
>
> >
> > My point exactly
> > Dale
> >
> In 1930, did MOMA have enough influence to create a myth, except locally.
-lauri
Gaynor Gallagher
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3BF6640A...@netti.fi...
I think so.
In "The Story Of Modern Art", Norbert Lynton raises the question whether the
sheer weight of publications on modern art from MOMA and particularly Alfred
Barr's chart of Modernism, that cubism was the main opening to abstraction.
then consider that MOMA bought the painting in 1937 and placed it at the
very centre of their (Alfred Barr's) view. This has influenced our
understanding of early 20th century art. The painting had not been widely
seen before it was acquired by the museum in 1937. It had only been
exhibited a few times before that date and Picasso had never wanted to sell
it and rolled it up in a corner of his studio.
Quote 'That art historians should have conscripted Les Demoiselles to serve
in such a strategic capacity might seem odd, however, if we take into
account that the cognoscenti resoundingly rejected the picture at the time
it was painted, and that it remained all but invisible to the public for
three decades thereafter.' from -
Chave Anna C. New Encounters with Les Demoiselles d'Avignon: Gender, Race,
and the origins of Cubism. Art Bulletin. December 1994, Vol. LXXVI Number 4.
Pgs. 596- 611. PG. 597.
So there is the possibility that Les Demoiselles has reached iconic status
due to it being made to fit Alfred Barr's story of modernism and this was
achieved by the sheer weight of material from MOMA since it's acquisition.
the most interesting Question is posed by Hal Foster in his essay "The
Primitive Unconscious of Modern Art" how was it that 'A crisis in
phallocentric culture was turned into one of its greatest monuments?'
gaynor
>
>
>
Bob & Dale Ford
nw wrote:
> You are forgetting a couple of points. First, Picasso's father was an
> artist so Picasso himself grew up in a very creative environment, with the
> tools to do what he wanted at his disposal. Second, Picasso had enormous
> talent.
Still middle class.
> There are pictures of the wall of his bedroom from when he was a
> child which depict birds as three dimensional objects, with real parts.
> They are greatly simplified, but the essence of the bird is there and it is
> way more complex than the "v" shape normally used by children of a
> comparable age.
Still middle class.
> So if you mean to say Picasso is the ultimate middle class
> product meaning that the middle class will likely never produce his equal,
> you may be right (though will *any* class produce his equal?). But if you
> mean his influence from a middle class upbringing is what made him who he
> was... the talent that he was, I must disagree.
Of course being middle class doesn't make you an artist but it gives you the
time, money and education to pursue that path. In short it makes it easier to
become an artist. Talent aside. What use is talent if you do not have the money
to by the art supplies to paint? Or the time to paint because you have to work
12 hours a day 7 days a week in some factory to feed your family.
> There are too many factors
> most middle class artists do not have to make that statement true.
Like what?????
> This is
> proven by the simple fact that there is not a Picasso in every suburb.
Nor in every ghetto.
The point is you made a very negative generalization against artists who stem
from the middle class and you do not have any evidence to back your statement
up.
My other statement to you would be if you can afford the luxury to have a
computer and to be on line you are probably of the same middle class that you
are slagging.
>
>
> -Rand
This is the old environment vs genetics, sociology vs psychology argument and
the fact is we don't know what would of happen to Picasso. However even in his
child hood his parents/aunts provided him with the best art supplies, and
lessons. If they had been busy foraging for food they could not of spared the
money. Benefit of middle class. Or if he had to go work as a child labourer to
support himself and family (very common at the time) then I would bet the farm (
not that I have one) that he would not have become a famous artist. Another
benefit awarded to him by family and connections.
Dale
BTW I live downtown.
RBrac53660
How many people here have quit there day job to make art?
Question 2:
How many people have quit there day job for the second time to make art and
then gotten there third day job?
As far as the arguement of Braque being proletariat and Picasso being being
bourgeoisie I could care less right now since I am living living the life and
have been for several years. And right now life stinks baaa haaa poor me.
They both made very important contributions to art and art history. And when
thet were friends and living together they were broke.
Question 3:
How many people have had the oppurtunity to quit there day job for art?
(Dan your not included since some already know)
>No one paints well when
>> they
>> > > >are
>> > > >starving. You are more likely to paint the great masterpiece being
>part
>> of
>> > > >the
>> > > >upper middle class and having the luxury of time to train, and create.
Bacon was a drunk
Henery Miller was hungry in Brooklyn and Paris
Karaouk (sp?) was high on speed in Queens bumming money
Stieglitz starved to keep the gallery open
Pollock traded paintings for food.
I don't know I'm grouchy these days. I think I'll become a shaman or something
else. Or god save me a catalog photographer.
Bob & Dale Ford
Yeah life sucks.
My only point was that great art is created by all different types of people from
all different classes, including the middle class. Talent does not discriminate.
Also we CHOOSE to quit our day jobs and then get new ones. We choose our own
paths because we have the freedom to do so....like all the examples you gave. ( I
Love Bacon BTW) Some people don't have that luxury of choice. The world's
greatest, most talented artists may be living in a cave in Afghanistan right now,
or about to have both his/hers arms hacked off in Sierra Leone. With out the
practical ability to actually create, what does ones talent or potential mean?
SQUAT. Now this practical ability may be lack of ability/skill/inspiration/what
have you, but it may also be that the survivalistic needs of one's environment
prevents them from reaching their potential as an artist or even creating a single
piece of art.
Dale
BTW Brace broke Picasso's nose when he stole Braque's ideas about cubism.
RBrac53660
>BTW Brace broke Picasso's nose when he stole Braque's ideas about cubism.
I heard a different story that Picasso had painted a realistic nail in one of
Braques paintings and Braque had a hissy fit resulting in there departure. ohh
well history is malliable (sp?) to the living.
>or about to have both his/hers arms hacked off in Sierra Leone.
Your tawlkin' about a very horrible thing that does happen and should not. How
do you propose situations like that to a world that is use to sugar and candy?
Could the solution be in the question?
nw
> Oh Winston
> Yeah life sucks.
> My only point was that great art is created by all different types of
people from
> all different classes, including the middle class.
I never claimed otherwise. My original point was that art from the midle
class tends to have less meaning or value than either poor or rich artists.
Middle class seems to equal mediocre art. Midle class artists also tend to
be a lot more trendy and thus have a shorter shelf life than those from
other classes.
> Talent does not discriminate.
No it doesn't. But tallent without need/desire makes for lousy paintings.
And tallent without abillity makes no paintings at all. But tallent with a
fucked up life, mental problems and a drug habbit? Now that's art, baby.
> Also we CHOOSE to quit our day jobs and then get new ones. We choose
our own
> paths because we have the freedom to do so....like all the examples you
gave. ( I
> Love Bacon BTW) Some people don't have that luxury of choice. The world's
> greatest, most talented artists may be living in a cave in Afghanistan
right now,
> or about to have both his/hers arms hacked off in Sierra Leone. With out
the
> practical ability to actually create, what does ones talent or potential
mean?
> SQUAT. Now this practical ability may be lack of
ability/skill/inspiration/what
> have you, but it may also be that the survivalistic needs of one's
environment
> prevents them from reaching their potential as an artist or even creating
a single
> piece of art.
Or lack of life experience. Hardship does seem to bring out the best in
artists of all fields. The emotional release makes the art more exciting...
It has more depth and meaning.
RBrac53660
>
>I never claimed otherwise. My original point was that art from the midle
>class tends to have less meaning or value than either poor or rich artists.
>Middle class seems to equal mediocre art. Midle class artists also tend to
>be a lot more trendy and thus have a shorter shelf life than those from
>other classes.
>
> "nw" rmcc...@hotmail.com
>
BTW I am proud of my efforts however I'm open to criticism.
nw
news:20011118035829...@mb-ca.aol.com...
> Would you please critique me?
>
>
> www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
>
I like your pictures. They are pretty dark and somewhat edgy. They remind
me a lot of what's coming out of the bay area (San Francisco, Oakland,
etc.), though more organic. Your compositional skills are excellent as far
as balance, economy and negative space. Your use of color helps to push a
dark somewhat manic energy, which is similar to my own style. It looks like
you have been at it for a while and found your niche. Stay with what you're
doing.
-Rand
RBrac53660
>me a lot of what's coming out of the bay area (San Francisco, Oakland,
>etc.), though more organic. Your compositional skills are excellent as far
>as balance, economy and negative space. Your use of color helps to push a
>dark somewhat manic energy, which is similar to my own style. It looks like
>you have been at it for a while and found your niche. Stay with what you're
>doing.
>
>-Rand
Most of those are published images, toot toot yes that is my horn. Thanxs I'm
glad you like the work. On the website most of those images were produced in
New York, but I often hear the San Fransico scene are doing images like that.
Hmmmm who knows I might in CA soon.
Great earthquakes is that any better then race riots? Never mind.
Bob & Dale Ford
RBrac53660 wrote:
Oh the sugar is there, problem is people don't know how to share, don't want to
share, and the value of human life is very cheap in some countries.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
nw wrote:
> "Bob & Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BF744A0...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > Oh Winston
> > Yeah life sucks.
> > My only point was that great art is created by all different types of
> people from
> > all different classes, including the middle class.
>
> I never claimed otherwise. My original point was that art from the midle
> class tends to have less meaning or value than either poor or rich artists.
> Middle class seems to equal mediocre art. Midle class artists also tend to
> be a lot more trendy and thus have a shorter shelf life than those from
> other classes.
Oh I think you would be surprised of who is middle class and who isn't. The
majority of people fall into that category. But quite frankly I hate the idea of
classifying people by class. It really bothers me and always leads the way for
over generalization. Human are remarkably individualistic. And personally one's
income bracket has never mattered to me. ( I believe we are using the North
American terms that are based on income and not bloodlines.)
>
>
> > Talent does not discriminate.
>
> No it doesn't. But tallent without need/desire makes for lousy paintings.
> And tallent without abillity makes no paintings at all. But tallent with a
> fucked up life, mental problems and a drug habbit? Now that's art, baby.
>
I know a tonne of really fucked up middle class people, some with mental
problems, lots with habits. I think your view is different than mine. Lots of
crazy stuff happens in those manicured homes no one wants to admit it though.
>
> > Also we CHOOSE to quit our day jobs and then get new ones. We choose
> our own
> > paths because we have the freedom to do so....like all the examples you
> gave. ( I
> > Love Bacon BTW) Some people don't have that luxury of choice. The world's
> > greatest, most talented artists may be living in a cave in Afghanistan
> right now,
> > or about to have both his/hers arms hacked off in Sierra Leone. With out
> the
> > practical ability to actually create, what does ones talent or potential
> mean?
> > SQUAT. Now this practical ability may be lack of
> ability/skill/inspiration/what
> > have you, but it may also be that the survivalistic needs of one's
> environment
> > prevents them from reaching their potential as an artist or even creating
> a single
> > piece of art.
>
> Or lack of life experience. Hardship does seem to bring out the best in
> artists of all fields. The emotional release makes the art more exciting...
> It has more depth and meaning.
Again class has nothing to do with life experience, and hardship.
Lauri Levanto
But a question remains. Did Picasso have established some reputation before,
f.ex. in Europe. It is not so easy to sell to MOMA.
-lauri
Gaynor Gallagher
> Thanks for information.
> But a question remains. Did Picasso have established some reputation
before,
> f.ex. in Europe. It is not so easy to sell to MOMA.
>
> -lauri
>
iconic status he acquired later and especially the status given to this
painting as the pivotal point of abstraction. perhaps Braque was the better
artist?
gaynor
nw
>
> Again class has nothing to do with life experience, and hardship.
>
Do you really believe that? That statement contradicts itself.
-Rand
Mark Webber
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, nw wrote:
(snip)
> I never claimed otherwise. My original point was that art from the midle
> class tends to have less meaning or value than either poor or rich artists.
> Middle class seems to equal mediocre art. Midle class artists also tend to
> be a lot more trendy and thus have a shorter shelf life than those from
> other classes.
>
Even with terms like "tends to" and "seems to" this is a mistaken
generalization. There are obviously artists from the middle class who
create art with great meaning and without trendiness, just as there are
artists from lower and upper classes who create trendy, vapid art.
Art is made by individuals not classes. Individuals within a class have
hugely varied experiences and sensiblilities.
best,
Mark
http://www.princestreetgallery.com
Chris
I guess the only thing you've managed to convince me of is that a sure sign of
being middle class is trying like hell to disavow it. It's a luxury not permitted
the poor.
As for self destructive habits, you should take a lesson from the clique that hung
around Gauguin, for whom it became quite fashionable to catch syphilis. It didn't
turn them into great artists, just diseased followers.
As for judging one's work -in the arts and otherwise - on the basis of their 'day
jobs'- on that basis you'd have to get rid of Leonardo (who supported himself to
some extent by working in civil and military engineering), Newton (Royal Mint),
Eistein (patent reader during his work on special relativity), Rubens (diplomat),
van Leeuwenhoek (in 'real life' a haberdasher ), Spinoza (a lens grinder),
Charles Ives (insurance salesman), and of course the classic "Douanier" Rousseau.
Along with a host of others. One might be better off asking what these 'day jobs'
gave back to them, and how those insights furthered their work.
And of course, we can't forget those who, by the accident of birth, never really
had to support themselves, coming as they did from wealthy of moderately wealthy
families - e.g. Cassatt, Cezanne, Bazille; or even Picasso,for whom poverty meant
the ignomy of spending time with your parents, rather than starvation, which was
the lot of far too many Parisians at the time. Ditto for Kerouak.
Personally speaking, I think long after drunks like Henry Miller have disappeared
from from the stage, we will still be listening to Bach, who earned his keep as a
choirmaster and organist, and who is in many ways the great example pf what a
middle class outlook can achieve. After all, it was he who pointed out that the
quality of his work sprang from his own piety, and his willingness to work
incredibly hard, and that anyone willing to do the same could do just as well.
Cheers;
Chris
PS - as for me, I'm perfectly happy to admit to splitting my time between my kids,
my 'day job' (naval sonar research and my art. Doesn't leave much time for drink &
drugs, though (thank goodness).
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
Rand,
You really do need to get out and meet more people. Dramatic life
experiences and horrible things can and do happen to everyone,
regardless of social/economic class.
At the risk of pigeonholing, you aren't in your early 20s, are you?
Bob & Dale Ford
Lauri Levanto wrote:
> Thanks for information.
> But a question remains. Did Picasso have established some reputation before,
> f.ex. in Europe. It is not so easy to sell to MOMA.
Yes he was rather established, promoted and funded by dealers in Europe way before
Moma.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
nw wrote:
> "Bob & Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BF876A1...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > Again class has nothing to do with life experience, and hardship.
> >
>
> Do you really believe that?
I KNOW THAT. In fact one could argue quite successfully that the middle
and upper classes have a richer life experience because they have more
doors open to them. They can afford to take a year off and tour Europe.
They can afford to join the peace corps and build schools in some down
trodden place. They can afford to go to school and get the training
needed to become a better artist. They can afford to travel to distant
lands and connect and study under other artist to improve their skills.
They can afford to waste canvas and paint in experimentation, and
practise. Stuff you can't do when you are busy driving a cab to feed
yourself.
But in reality I don't believe that classisists crap. No one class has a
better life experience. Driving a cab can be a worthy joining the peace
corps in terms of life experience. My point is the experience may be
radically different but just as worthy just as valid. Not to mention one
persons heaven is anthers hell. Ever lived in the burbs? Comes with it's
own set of problems just has nicer window dressing..
> That statement contradicts itself.
Really??? NO.........I think you need better ventilation in your studio.
I explained this before and you ignored all those comments and
examples. Not to mention you now say that the rich produce better art.
How does that fit in you flawed logic. It doesn't, it can't. If the poor
suffer more because they lack money and therefor produce better art ( A
lovely myth that helps to keep artists poor BTW.) Then logically the
middle classes would produce better art then the rich. Personally, you
are full of crap. All you are doing is ranting and putting forth
baseless accusations against the vast majority of western civilization.
Not to mention the vast majority of artists who if are not part of the
middle class are mostly products of it. Hell you probably are trashing
your self but don't even know it. Get a grip on your biases. People are
people, shit happens. Suicide is a favourite occupation of the middle
class. Abuse rates don't differentiate. Ivy league school have higher
rape stats then less prestigious institutions. Mental illness crosses
all boundaries, but it happen to love the middle. Drug abuse is as
rampant in the middle as any where else. AIDS isn't some ghetto disease.
Not to mention stroke, heart attack, cancer. And unless you have the
bank statements of every artist you think is worth their weight in salt
( as well as their parents) then you and your assumptions do not have a
leg to stand on.
Then again maybe you have never been part of the middle class and have
no knowledge of it. This is probably the best description I can give to
you. (Actually from a U2 song, hope I get all the lines right.)
Sweet the sin but bitter the taste in my mouth
I see seven towers but I only see one way out.
You've got to talk with out speaking,
Cry with out weeping
Scream with out raising your voice.
You know I took the poison from the poison stream then I floated out of
here.
That Rand is the curse of the middle.
Dale
>
>
> -Rand
RBrac53660
hopefully a artist, can walk in there and offer work for them to aquire for
there collection. And the person can ask a price for the work but most times
the word donation comes up. The Met also has the same policy.
nw
> > news:3BF876A1...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > > Again class has nothing to do with life experience, and hardship.
> > >
How can class not have anything to do with life experience? Or hardship?
The class one lives in has an effect of every aspect of their view on life.
"That's a neat car, I wish I could buy one" is a lot different from "That's
a neat car, I'll take two". People who grow up in extreme circumstances
tend to have more solid personalities, gained from the experience derived
from their class.
Both the rich and poor developed strong attitudes of "don't mess with me".
The poor because if they don't, they will get rolled and the rich to protect
their money and to get away with what they need to do to get more money (I
realize this is a broad statement and poorly written, but I hope you get the
point).
In the middle class things happen to other people. They are the Green
Kangaroo. Often overlooked and doomed to mediocrity. They don't have
enough to sail around the world, but enough to keep fed. Big dreams and
rarely the courage and strength to act on them because they have *just
enough* to loose.
I have lived as rich and poor and through various stages between. Currently
I am on the low end of the middle class structure. These are the
observations I have had from my life experience which changed dramatically
when my class did. And my best work comes out when I am at one extreme or
the other... I have noticed that trend in others as well.
But my initial statement was just that, the middle class produces more
mediocre art than the rich or poor. The reasons for which you stated
yourself. The wealthy can burn through 20 canvases in a day on an
experiment. And they can take the time and expense of learning. The poor
have more raw energy and it shows. The middle class is somewhere between
the two.
-Rand
Patsy Kaik
says...
>But my initial statement was just that
And one has to ask just how much of life
you've ever experienced. Your "assumptions"
are preposterous to those of us who have
more than "half a century" of living and
observing life behind us. I've tried to
restrain myself from entering this thread
but it just keeps going, going, going like
that dumb rabbit...and it makes just about
as much sense!
discussion
For example, when art is produced that in some way represents
images understood by almost everyone, one expects that it tells
a story, and manages to varying degrees of success to express the
artist's vision.
I see many images which appear to fall into the "Modern Art"
description which could not tell a story because the image is either
too simple eg.Mondrian(abstraction into incomprehensibility) or so
obscure eg. Jackson Pollock , that literally any interpretation can be
taken, without an accompanying explanation from the painter. You
might as well call the flames of a fire or the random collections of
clouds a work of art.
I once heard this called encoded messages from one intellectual to a
few others.
Finally, how modern is "Modern"? Some of what has been talked about is
getting on for a hundred years old.
N.H
Todd Strickland
> Is "Modern Art" a separate art from all that has gone before?
> For example, when art is produced that in some way represents
> images understood by almost everyone, one expects that it tells
> a story, and manages to varying degrees of success to express the
> artist's vision.
> I see many images which appear to fall into the "Modern Art"
> description which could not tell a story because the image is either
> too simple eg.Mondrian(abstraction into incomprehensibility) or so
> obscure eg. Jackson Pollock , that literally any interpretation can be
> taken, without an accompanying explanation from the painter. You
> might as well call the flames of a fire or the random collections of
> clouds a work of art.
> I once heard this called encoded messages from one intellectual to a
> few others.
> Finally, how modern is "Modern"? Some of what has been talked about is
> getting on for a hundred years old.
> N.H
To take your last point first, "Modern art" refers to a specific era
in art, not to "new" art. I agree it is an unfortunate and confusing
choice of name for a period. "Postmodern" is even more confusing.
Is Modern art a separate art from all that's gone before? Definitely
not. If you compare Picaso directly to Delacroix it does seem so
radically different as to be unconnected. But if you look at each
intermediate step the connections become more clear; from Romanticism
to Courbet; from Courbet to Impressionism; from Impressionism to
Gaugin; from Gaugin to Cezanne; and from Cezanne to Picasso. Looked
at in this way, there is a lineage from the art of the past up to (and
beyond) Modernism.
Fundamentally, artists are not storytellers but "image-makers."
During the Renaissance, painting and literature were called "sister
arts," the purpose of painting being to give visual form to the
stories of the bible or mythology. But over time many artists began
to see the relationship of painting to literature as more of a shotgun
wedding than a natural affinity. A story (drama) is action in time,
whereas a painting is static. One image can never "tell" a story; at
best, it can only suggest one. We can clearly see the strain at least
as far back as the Mannerist period, for example, in Carravagio. His
paintings are often over-dramatic, or melodramatic. This dramatic
aspect of his art does have a certain popular appeal, but it also
shows the limitations of storytelling in painting.
This paring away of all that is not essential to painting (drama,
representation), leaving the visual elements of line and color to be
exploited unhindered, is one aspect of Modernism. Clement Greenberg
saw this as *the meaning* of Modernism (though his views have come
under attack recently).
As to intellectuals spouting a bunch of hot air to explain Pollock, I
can only say this problem isn't limited to Modern art. Stick around
this newsgroup long enough and you'll see that people can say the most
ridiculous things about any artist or period.
Todd Strickland
Mark Webber
Let me ask you all something. Why is it that art - mankind's greatest
offering - can become the topic of expertise for so many people without
the slightest inclination towards education?
Every 19 year old who can copy a pin-up thinks he can go on the internet
and announce the astoning revelation that everything he doesn't understand
is bullshit.
Go to school, dip-shit.
Webber
Mark Webber
I replied to the wrong post (I've gotten rusty at usenet - but not flaming
onviously) when I sent this in. The post I had in mind follows:
But I apologize to "discussion" (Neil?) for (mis)using his post.
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Mark Webber wrote:
> How long has this idiot been around?
>
> Let me ask you all something. Why is it that art - mankind's greatest
> offering - can become the topic of expertise for so many people without
> the slightest inclination towards education?
>
> Every 19 year old who can copy a pin-up thinks he can go on the internet
> and announce the astoning revelation that everything he doesn't understand
> is bullshit.
>
> Go to school, dip-shit.
>
> Webber
>
> www.princestreetgallery.com
>
Original post (which I intended to ridicule):
From: John Ng (pigsm...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Art is objective
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Date: 2001-11-11 15:41:12 PST
"It seems to me, from reading random articles in this NG, that we are
coming out of the dark ages of Modern Art into a new renaissance of
Classic art. May be we can continue from where the 19th C left off
before we were so rudely interrupted by the search for a new
definition in the last 100 years. Now, we know that there really is
no new definition. Art is as it always was and will everr be -- an
objective thing."
<I'll snip the absurd Meg Ryan drivel.>
"So the same with painting. Nobody can convincingly say that a
Bouguereau is nonsense or a Picasso is beauty (except that it goes
well the colour of the walls)."
<End of original post>
RBrac53660
>
>Let me ask you all something. Why is it that art - mankind's greatest
>offering - can become the topic of expertise for so many people without
>the slightest inclination towards education?
>
>Every 19 year old who can copy a pin-up thinks he can go on the internet
>and announce the astoning revelation that everything he doesn't understand
>is bullshit.
>
>Go to school, dip-shit.
>
>Webber
>
>www.princestreetgallery.com
>
>
WOW that is the most well thought out reply I have never read. Whats the
matter with you Mr Prince street the GAP moveing in and takeing over. Yikes
gentrifacation? BTW the GAP was there in SoHo over tens ago.
And the Arts where dead there with the arrival of certian galleries
Mary Boone
Fawbush gallery had a heart.
discussion
art has to be a medium between the creator and the creator's
projected audience. Even if the 'story' is "look, here are 3
primary coloured rectangles bordered with a thin black line"
or "here is the random accumulation of a mass of dribbled
paint". You don't have to be a Renaissance master to create
a narrative worthy of an intelligent audience, neither is there
any credit to be gained by deliberately making the image
intelligible to only a couple of friends.
Whether to message is a lengthy intellectual exploration of say,
religion, mythology and new ideas of form and painting mediums,
or something that catches ones emotions with an easily understood
composition, such as a Constable landscape, there does have to be
a message. Ok, not necessarily a story, as you say.
Interesting, your reference to Caraviggio. I have a copy of "Doubting
Thomas" in front of me. Depends upon your take upon the story or
message(s) in each painting whether it is over-anything. If art cannot
touch on an emotional level- even if blatantly, then are talking about
two separate meanings for the same word?
Incidentally, I have here a description of the Mannerist movement,
which includes "it is characterised by bright, almost garish colours,
elaborate compositions, exaggerated forms, and dramatic movement"
".... the word has developed a variety of meanings over the centuries,;
however, it is generally associated with art and artists who openly
demonstrate excessive skill, virtuosity and caprice"
N.H
William Barkin
What is it about his post that you find so objectionable?...not that I am
entirely in agreement with it...just curious as to what set you off...(is he
really 19?)...what do you mean by: "copy a pin-up" ?...pardon my ignorance;
what's a "pin-up"? is that like a pin up girl as drawn by Vargus? calendar
photos, etc... I'm not being flippant here...
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Mark Webber" <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.PMDF.4.21L.0111261...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU...
Marilyn Welch
Don't hold back - tell us what you really think.
MW
Xena
Mattison "get out of my way!" Fitzgerald?
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1011127124934.6880C-100000@vtn1...
Jay C
> It seems to me, from reading random articles in this NG, that we are
> coming out of the dark ages of Modern Art into a new renaissance of
> Classic art. May be we can continue from where the 19th C left off
> before we were so rudely interrupted by the search for a new
> definition in the last 100 years. Now, we know that there really is
> no new definition. Art is as it always was and will everr be -- an
> objective thing.
I do believe that the reason why classical and more
'realistic&representative' art survived because of the commercial
demand, and I don't think that's not a bad thing. Nowdays some studios
and workshops offer truly classical academic art trainings.
Well, I am not hard on abstract art as long as they are not like 'red
dot on a white canvas thing.' I am from a school of more modernized
approach on realistic art, emphasizing on color theory and seeing
objects with solid faceted forms ala Chicago Art Institute style.
I am not sure if art is entirely an objective thing. The word art
itself covers a vast fields of works. Maybe we will have to use more
specific terms to describe more 'representative and realistic' art.
>
> “Art” is objective? Definitely.
>
> Give you an example. Let’s take a beautiful girl… well
> like Meg Ryan as in “Sally Met Harry” days. The
> evaluation of her beauty ranges from "very hot" to "moderately hot"
> amongst men, and "very good" amongst women. You will never be able to
> please everybody so a small group will end up with an opinion of
> “OK” at the worst. Absolutely nobody can give a thumbs
> down. Conversely nobody can really label Rosanna as Venus.
Jay C
> There is no doubt about it.
> All this QUEST for newer art, newer forms, this poignant attempt of
> self-expression (where there was nothing worthy to express at all) was
> nothing but just an agony of
> poorly educated people with enormous lust for fame and success...
>
Uhh... not really. You can be both well-trained and work on
self-expression.
Harvey Dinnerstein is one of the very few classical academic painter
in America. Many of his artworks contain social commentaries,
especially anti-war sentiment back in 70s. probably he is one of
'virtually non-existent' artists who incorporated the marvelous
classical art and contemporary social reaction on Vietnam. How many
'classically realistic paintings' dealing with anti-war sentiment? He
was one of those few.
They might be a few minorities, but there are artists who incorporate
their tremendous talents on drawing and painting with self-expression.
Others try, and their results often end up as 'low-brow' arts with Mad
magazine treatment.
Jay C
extreme early achiever. Yes, a child prodigy. Like most of child
prodigies he got burnt out so quickly and became a lil bit
experimental... ^^;
"nw" <rmcc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<05qJ7.1430$m_4.1...@nntp2.onemain.com>...
> You are forgetting a couple of points. First, Picasso's father was an
> artist so Picasso himself grew up in a very creative environment, with the
> tools to do what he wanted at his disposal. Second, Picasso had enormous
> talent. There are pictures of the wall of his bedroom from when he was a
> child which depict birds as three dimensional objects, with real parts.
> They are greatly simplified, but the essence of the bird is there and it is
> way more complex than the "v" shape normally used by children of a
> comparable age. So if you mean to say Picasso is the ultimate middle class
> product meaning that the middle class will likely never produce his equal,
> you may be right (though will *any* class produce his equal?). But if you
> mean his influence from a middle class upbringing is what made him who he
> was... the talent that he was, I must disagree. There are too many factors
> most middle class artists do not have to make that statement true. This is
> proven by the simple fact that there is not a Picasso in every suburb.
>
> -Rand
>
> "Bob & Dale Ford" <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BF5F8D3...@mb.sympatico.ca...
> > Winston
> > Picasso is the ultimate middle class product.
> > Picasso was given cash and free studios even while he was starting out and
> very
> > young. He refused to get a real "job" as he always considered himself a
> great
> > artist. If he was "starving" perhaps he shouldn't have spent all his
> donated money
> > on hookers and booze.
> > BTW Picasso liked to whine alot about starving for his art but he really
> had no
> > idea what the term meant. Guess that is what happens when you are spoiled
> middle
> > class baby. Miss a meal and you are starving. :-) But that doesn't mean
> you can't
> > create a masterpiece.
> >
> > Bracque on the other hand would have created much more if he had the
> resources to
> > do so.
> > Dale
> >
> > RBrac53660 wrote:
> >
> > > >Really? Tell that to many great artists of the past ( the
> Impressionists) who
> > > >were exactly that. Starving for art is a myth. No one paints well when
> they
> > > >are
> > > >starving. You are more likely to paint the great masterpiece being part
> of
> > > >the
> > > >upper middle class and having the luxury of time to train, and create.
> As
> > > >well
> > > >as being able to afford the materials to do so.
> > > >Dale
> > >
> > > Not so much truth to that. When Picasso and Braque were painting
> together they
> > > were starving even after Stien started writting them. And Stien had a
> tremdous
> > > amout of influence.
> > >
> > > www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
> >
> >
Peter H.M. Brooks
Jay C <shin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Well, I am not hard on abstract art as long as they are not like 'red
> dot on a white canvas thing.'
>
stand some feet back quite a few paintings look like rdoawct - Mucha
painted a brilliant scene of a peasant woman preparing for death as the
wolves gather in the distance that looks just like a rdoawct, would you
exclude that?
Incidentally, since the Japanese flag as a rdoawct is an abstract
rendition of a sunrise, in other words a genuine abstract, why is it
that you are so particularly against it?
--
"My own opinion - which I may as well indicate at the outset - is
that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which
society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible.."
- Bertrand Russell
Xena
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20011127220939.038$I...@newsreader.com...
> "Xena" <nom...@never.com> wrote:
> > It's so nice to read a heartfelt flame again. BTW, what ever happened to
> > Mattison "get out of my way!" Fitzgerald?
>
>
> Mattison hasn't been heard from on usenet (except for a very occasional
> blip) since she accused yours truly of 'stalking her on the web' a long
> time ago. She said I was 'Dan Fox Harrington' or some such, an engineer on
> the west coast who 'shut down her newsgroups' and 'harrassed her through
> dozens of websites.' Her mistake was giving my website (which then had my
> pic) and telling people 'you can see the stalker!!', which was actionable.
Yes! I remember at the time that she had a different ISP than from when she
flamed me! She accused you of being some stalker guy from a Bay Area singles
usenet group (not TOO pathetic!!!)
> And a mistake. A BIG fucking mistake, if you know what I mean.
I don't have a clue, I'm a blonde.
> And what about Alison? Gone too, except for a couple of posts apropos
> September 11.
Ah, everytime someone posts something anti-female and rude from the UK it's
her.
Poor thing wants to be in a pissing contest without the equiptment.
>Even Mani had a brief spurt (cf. panties) and has been pretty
> much silent.
I've got them blocked but that's good news.
> Where Have All the Netkooks Gone? (sing to the tune of 'where have all the
> flowers gone?')
They quit giving out weekend passes? I'm certain they are giving some other
internet group grief. Either that or are holding the entire artworld in awe.
Maybe making art?
Nah
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
Xena
(snip)
> Well, I am not hard on abstract art as long as they are not like 'red
> dot on a white canvas thing.' I am from a school of more modernized
> approach on realistic art, emphasizing on color theory and seeing
> objects with solid faceted forms ala Chicago Art Institute style.
>
I doubt if you've ever set foot in the Chicago Art Institute. I know for
certain you aren't a student there.
Anyone see the van Gogh/Gauguin show?
Marilyn Welch
> Edward <dx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3BEFA1A0...@yahoo.com>...
> > There is no doubt about it.
> > All this QUEST for newer art, newer forms, this poignant attempt of
> > self-expression (where there was nothing worthy to express at all) was
> > nothing but just an agony of
> > poorly educated people with enormous lust for fame and success...
> >
>
> Uhh... not really. You can be both well-trained and work on
> self-expression.
>
> Harvey Dinnerstein is one of the very few classical academic painter
> in America. Many of his artworks contain social commentaries,
> especially anti-war sentiment back in 70s. probably he is one of
> 'virtually non-existent' artists who incorporated the marvelous
> classical art and contemporary social reaction on Vietnam. How many
> 'classically realistic paintings' dealing with anti-war sentiment? He
> was one of those few.
Ever heard of LEON GOLUB?
But then maybe his work is too modern,
contemporary, relevant, heroic and GREAT
to be considered
"classically realistic paintings."
Whatever you mean by that.
>
> They might be a few minorities, but there are artists who incorporate
> their tremendous talents on drawing and painting with self-expression.
> Others try, and their results often end up as 'low-brow' arts with Mad
> magazine treatment.
>
>
It might be too early in your art career to start becoming elitist.
Categorize image making into genres first. I like Mad Magazine images,
especially the one of Dubya looking like "Wot-me-Worry?"
Marilyn
Todd Strickland
>Ok Todd, not badly explained, although I would counter that
>art has to be a medium between the creator and the creator's
>projected audience. Even if the 'story' is "look, here are 3
>primary coloured rectangles bordered with a thin black line"
>or "here is the random accumulation of a mass of dribbled
>paint".
I agree with you that art is a medium between the artist and audience,
and I think Mondrian and Pollock would have also agreed. But trying
to understand their art by looking for its narrative structure just
isn't going to be fruitful. Mondrian and the Abstract Expressionists
explicitly rejected any narrative content in their paintings, yet
insisted (much more strongly than most Modernists) that their
paintings had meanings.
Mondrian admired the compositional balance of Classical art, and its
ability to convey a sense of stability and timelessness. But at the
same time he saw the narrative aspect of Classical art as a hindrance
to its "true beauty," which he believed lies in its formal (visual)
structure. Also, in keeping with his Theosophist religious
inclinations, he wanted to create art which calmed the mind and
spirit, art which expressed "truth stripped bare." The various
stories of religion express (through symbol, metaphor and allegory)
basic human truths; if one could reveal this truth directly, the
narrative would become unnecessary. Mondrian attempted to do just
that. Now, we may disagree over how successful his program was, but
he did intend for his art to convey these kinds of ideas to his
audience.
Pollock seems to have been obsessed with getting his meaning across to
his audience. Looking at his entire career, he tried just about every
rhetorical structure of which one can think. His early paintings,
such as Going West (c.1934), were straightforward allegories along the
lines of his teacher, Thomas Hart Benton. The somber "Romantic" mood
of these paintings is of more interest than the allegory, and soon
Pollock dispensed with storytelling in favor of more "direct" forms of
expression. In works of the '30s and early '40s, such as Male and
Female (1942) , he explored the use of logic structures (language,
mathematics) as obscure vehicles for expressing meaning. In Guardians
of the Secret (1943), he returned to semi-recognizable imagery
(animals, human figures) as symbol and metaphor, but apparently
without the narrative of allegory. In one of his last works before
his "breakthrough" to pure abstraction, Eyes in the Heat (1946),
Pollock focused on one symbolic theme only, that of "eyes." The eyes
are everywhere, swirling in and out, above and below the pigment. The
brushwork has become frenetic, and it must have become clear to him
that the pure visceral quality of the paint was "expressing" more
"meaning" than the symbol of the eyes, the supposed subject of the
painting. In his "classic" paintings, Pollock rejects not only
narrative and allegory, but metaphor and symbol, as well. None of
these tools seemed useful to him for conveying the kinds of ineffable
meanings which lie at the very heart of myth, which is what Pollock
always claimed he was trying to get at.
>You don't have to be a Renaissance master to create
>a narrative worthy of an intelligent audience, neither is there
>any credit to be gained by deliberately making the image
>intelligible to only a couple of friends.
Again, I don't think Mondrian or Pollock was intentionally trying to
be obscure; they were simply dissatisfied with the traditional
approaches to conveying meanings. Does this make the job of
interpretation more difficult? Probably, but then again, try
explaining the incredible power of Rembrandt's The Mill (1645-1648) by
looking at its narrative content and you'll run into the same kinds of
problems. There is something beyond allegory and symbol in that
picture, something deeper, and its difficult to put your finger on
just "what makes that painting so powerful."
>Whether to message is a lengthy intellectual exploration of say,
>religion, mythology and new ideas of form and painting mediums,
>or something that catches ones emotions with an easily understood
>composition, such as a Constable landscape, there does have to be
>a message. Ok, not necessarily a story, as you say.
I think we're in agreement here.
>Interesting, your reference to Caraviggio. I have a copy of "Doubting
>Thomas" in front of me. Depends upon your take upon the story or
>message(s) in each painting whether it is over-anything. If art
cannot
>touch on an emotional level- even if blatantly, then are talking
about
>two separate meanings for the same word?
>Incidentally, I have here a description of the Mannerist movement,
>which includes "it is characterised by bright, almost garish colours,
>elaborate compositions, exaggerated forms, and dramatic movement"
>".... the word has developed a variety of meanings over the
centuries,;
>however, it is generally associated with art and artists who openly
>demonstrate excessive skill, virtuosity and caprice"
I knew I was walking into a minefield by bringing up Carravagio! I
didn't mean to single him (or Mannerism) out as anyhow inferior to
other periods, but just as one very clear example of art which
strongly emphasizes drama and narrative. The "narrative problem"
exists in all religious, mythological, and historical paintings, it
just stands out more in Mannerism than in, say, Byzantine art.
By "narrative problem" I mean the epistemological issue of how a
static image can convey a narrative. Different artists in different
periods have come up with different solutions to this "problem." I
don't mean to imply by my post that I believe narrative MUST be
rejected in painting, simply that artists should realize this issue
exists and not simply gloss over it. Many Modernists rejected
narrative; in the Postmodern era, narrative and figurative styles have
made a comeback (with a vengeance!). But attacking Modernism because
of its lack of narrative is not really a valid criticism, in my
opinion.
Todd Strickland
Here are some links to a few of the pictures I mentioned.
Male and Female (1942), Jackson Pollock
http://www.oir.ucf.edu/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.male-female.jpg
Guardians Of The Secret (1943), Jackson Pollock
http://www.kaliweb.com/jacksonpollock/images/art/guardiansofthesecret.jpg
Eyes in the Heat (1946), Jackson Pollock
http://www.oir.ucf.edu/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.eyes-heat.jpg
Autumn Rhythm: Number 30 (1950), Jackson Pollock
http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1zoom.asp?dep=21&full=0&mark=1&item=57%2E92
The Mill (1645-1648), Rembrandt van Rijn
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?1204+0+0
John Ng
I think it is never the intention of most artists at any era to "tell
a story" or "say a thing". I think most important in artists mind is
The Image, then when possible, put a little cleverness. The trouble
with today's art is that "say something" is more important than the
image. Let photography and graphics do that. I think artists should
just stick to beautiful images
Holly Daize
>Anyone see the van Gogh/Gauguin show?
I won't get to see the show but there is a
fine article with illustrations in the
latest issue of SMITHSONIAN magazine.
Holly Daize
pigsm...@mindless.com says...
>
>I think the problem is that people think that art must say something.
As a result of conversations in another thread,
I've temporarily put online some art that
"says something." Check it out at:
Xena
> > Anyone see the van Gogh/Gauguin show?
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
> envy, envy. Can you write about it?
>
> M.
No I can't. An alleged friend is going and called me to make me jealous. She
succeeded and is going to send me a catalogue of the show. I'd love to see
it! I'd love to see their various renditions of the same subjects such as
the chair, flowers, bedroom and self-portraits.
Grrrr.
Xena
"Holly Daize" <Ho...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3c057...@oracle.zianet.com...
disagree with your political stand) and am fearful I am complimenting an
actual REPUBLICAN,
I find your narratives very thought-provoking and well done. It has a strong
Southwestern (i.e. Southwest contemporary narrative art) essence and is on
par with works by Luis Jiminez, Alfred Quiroz and Robert Colescott. One
suggestion is you don't say "borrowed from" or whatever the heck you said,
but "appropriated" would put your right into the postmodern frying pan and
then Art in America would run to Rudioso, NM to interview you. Then again,
you could pay about $10k and buy a full page add like Matison in Art News
;-)
Though it is terribly sick, I do like the one that Jody Foster starred in
(movie) based on the event in Mass. (I think) about Gang rape. I've always
been veerrrry suspicious of those dwarfs and (underage) snow white. Not to
mention Sleeping Beauty. I mean, what where those damned princes?
Necrophiliacs??? Did they ask her permission to kiss her? They probably
copped a feel too!
But I'm getting off the subject... Beauty is something that some art
collectors look for in art. Be it narrative or non-representational, I want
to view art that will engage my intelligence and which begins a dialogue
within my mind. The best works are those that stay with me long after I've
left the image. I mean, Ed Keinholz certainly didn't choose to seek beauty
within his art but he certainly engaged dialogue!!!
So, good job.
Jay C
I never attended Chicago Art Institute, but the school I attended was
directly branched out from there.
I attended Art Center College of Design. My major was illustration. I
attended figure drawing workshop everyday. The method of drawing and
painting, as they claim, were directly from CAI.
In fact, the 'official Art Center style' was heavily inspired (no,
copied from)by Andrew Loomis, Willy Pogany and John Vanderpoel who
studied and later taught in CAI. All of them were prominent
illustrators and teachers.
AFAIK even Gil Elvgren graduated Chicago Art Institute, right? Many
prominent commercial illustrators who worked for pin-ups, magazines
and paperback covers are from that school and Art Student League in
NY.
Maybe CAI abandoned the whole '20th century realist' teaching method
after 50s....
Jay C
> Jay C <shin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Well, I am not hard on abstract art as long as they are not like 'red
> > dot on a white canvas thing.'
> >
> So, how do you distinguish the rdoawct from 'real' (tm) art? If you
> stand some feet back quite a few paintings look like rdoawct - Mucha
> painted a brilliant scene of a peasant woman preparing for death as the
> wolves gather in the distance that looks just like a rdoawct, would you
> exclude that?
>
> Incidentally, since the Japanese flag as a rdoawct is an abstract
> rendition of a sunrise, in other words a genuine abstract, why is it
> that you are so particularly against it?
Eh....what we can do is point a gun in the head of the artist and
make him/her fess up.
I don't despise abstract art. But I hate the fact that so many
(probably most of artists) just jump into abstract and conceptual art
even without trying to learn how to draw and paint. Not even giving it
a try and not even giving themselves some challenges that what they
are capable of.
I for myself did some abstract works as a PART of realistic painting
training. My instructor was a prominent artist who painted numerous
film posters and celebrity portraits. (he did the poster illustration
for 'Witches of Eastwick')
Doing abstract work is kinda fun, as long as I know what I am doing.
I did a couple of installation pieces and the instructor immediatly
pointed out the anger and rage behind my artworks.
No matter how much technical training one artist gets, it can't
really hide the personality behind the artworks he/she has done.
That's why I believe that working on more 'conceptual, abstract and
self-expressive' art can wait.
many people will disagree with me but I do believe that life
experience can affect one person's artist direction. I, for one, have
felt it from myself.
Great artists have prominent personalities, and it shows from their
artworks. Having a tremendous background in technique doesn't
necessarily means that he/she doesn't have the capability of
self-expression and experimentation through his/her art. Look at the
works of Harvey Dinnerstein, one of the few American classical
academic painter. See how many paintings regarding social commentary
and anti-vietnam war he did. One of his early self-portrait, a very
good one, during his time in the US Army shows his feeling and
reaction to the military machine and the death of individuality.
I think people tend to go foward abstract art nowdays because...1.
they can't draw and paint as well as some people do 2. believes that
self-expression and free-spirited self experimentation superceed
techniques, thus not bothering with learning techniques. 3 and 4,
suggested by Harley Brown, THERE'S ALWAYS A MARKET DEMAND FOR ABSTRACT
WORKS BY THE GALLERIES AND YUPPIE CUSTOMERS, AND ART SCHOOLS ONLY DO
BUSINESS, NOT THE ACTUAL TEACHING.
And yes, one big reason why people don't bother with representative
art is the 'matter of toughness'. Just think about it! It's just damn
hard! You will have to draw a truck full of figure studies during your
college years to draw people right!
Quite honestly, which way would you choose? Would you rather bust
your ass drawing and painting 12~15 hours a day, 7 days a week during
your college years to draw and paint realistically, just to get hired
by Walt Disney and become a background painter for 'Hunchback of Notre
Dame' and 'Atlantis' to earn 1500 bucks guild minimum per week? Or,
just weld some metal junks, splatter paints on the wall, paste letters
and pictures from magazines and newspapers on masonite board and seal
it with matte medium, then splatter pig blood on the board and call it
art, so that you can get critical acclaim and have your artworks
exhibited in major museums.
Which way would you choose?
Bob & Dale Ford
As a newbie I will be nice, especially because you are military:-)
There is a place in this world for comic book illustrators, commercial artist, graphic designers and
fine artists. Rarely do they mix well. Some fine artists dapple in artistic prostitution as a means
of eating, but the majority of artists aren't here for the money. With the amount of time I spent in
post secondary schools I could have been a doctor. Lawyer would have been quicker and the money is
much better. ( What money.) Many of the people here are fine artists who have spent their lives
studying and developing some of the styles you are trashing. Don't worry we have the abstract art
arguement/skill/training/illustration argument all the time. But to put it more graphically ya
walking in said hi and tossed a bunch of grenades. Unfortunately your aim is off, you forgot your
flack jacket, your standing in the crossfire and no one here is going to give you a medal.
Welcome to Boot camp soldier, now drop and give me 20.
Dale
Chris
with the philosophical relationship between these two artists, and how that
relationship, and their individual searches for meainng - were expressed in
paint - "Van Gogh and Gauguin - the Search for Sacred Art", by Debora
Silverman.
Chris
Peter H.M. Brooks
other
> internet group grief. Either that or are holding the entire artworld
in awe.
>
> Maybe making art?
>
> Nah
>
Xena
in the US and make a zillion stops for $100" fare?
Darned it! We never get great shows here in Awatookie, Iowa!!!
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20011128233752.912$0...@newsreader.com...
> "Xena" <nom...@never.com> wrote:
>
> No, but I caught the Giacometti show at MOMA. It's a stone killer -
> fly in if you have to (hotels are cheap now) - but see it. On until
> January 8. w
>
> >
> > Anyone see the van Gogh/Gauguin show?
>
Xena
(snip)
> I don't despise abstract art. But I hate the fact that so many
> (probably most of artists) just jump into abstract and conceptual art
> even without trying to learn how to draw and paint. Not even giving it
> a try and not even giving themselves some challenges that what they
> are capable of.
Though Dale Ford addressed this much better I CAN'T STAND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why in the world would you think realism is more of a challenge than
abstract? This is typical of art school drop-outs. Here is a formula for
realism. 2 options. Project image on canvas. Simple. Another way (Chuck
Close) is to divide the canvas and the photo you will copy into a grid
(squares) and the grid will make a \ or a ) which may be a little bitty part
of a nose or whatever. This is really quite simple. Honest, absolutely
anyone can do it. Another advantage of realism is that you don't have to
bother with brains. Your average redneck with a 6th grade education can say
"That sure is a perdy barn, looks like my mawmaw's."
Typically, you dismiss what you don't understand and it comes through loud
and clear. FYI, I know plenty of non-representational artists who have an
excellent capability of realistic rendering. But, they claim it is bores
them.
> I for myself did some abstract works as a PART of realistic painting
> training. My instructor was a prominent artist who painted numerous
> film posters and celebrity portraits. (he did the poster illustration
> for 'Witches of Eastwick')
I'm so incredibly impressed!
Prominent artist? The prominent artists I know would never admit to actually
doing film posters or celebrity portraits. Not a fine artist. Or, to be
fair, not a contemporary fine artist.
> Doing abstract work is kinda fun, as long as I know what I am doing.
Please explain to me how you know what you are doing. Since you aren't an
abstract artist, are hung up on illustration and reality (which really
bites, by the way), how can you even claim to do abstract art?
> I did a couple of installation pieces and the instructor immediatly
> pointed out the anger and rage behind my artworks.
Which is likewise relflected in this group. Hey, you can point the finger at
me too, but I like anger and rage in art!
> No matter how much technical training one artist gets, it can't
> really hide the personality behind the artworks he/she has done.
> That's why I believe that working on more 'conceptual, abstract and
> self-expressive' art can wait.
Why????????
> many people will disagree with me but I do believe that life
> experience can affect one person's artist direction. I, for one, have
> felt it from myself.
I hate to get personal here, but are you a serial killer? Not to pry, but
you fit the profile I saw on a TV show.
> Great artists have prominent personalities, and it shows from their
> artworks. Having a tremendous background in technique doesn't
> necessarily means that he/she doesn't have the capability of
> self-expression and experimentation through his/her art.
Please shoot me!!!
> I think people tend to go foward abstract art nowdays because...1.
> they can't draw and paint as well as some people do
See my instructions above and you will be able to do a nice realistic work,
preferably on black velvet.
2. believes that
> self-expression and free-spirited self experimentation superceed
> techniques, thus not bothering with learning techniques.
What did you base this really, really STUPID assertion on???
3 and 4,
> suggested by Harley Brown, THERE'S ALWAYS A MARKET DEMAND FOR ABSTRACT
> WORKS BY THE GALLERIES AND YUPPIE CUSTOMERS, AND ART SCHOOLS ONLY DO
> BUSINESS, NOT THE ACTUAL TEACHING.
Tell Harley Brown to kiss my big white ass that has a red dot on it.
> And yes, one big reason why people don't bother with representative
> art is the 'matter of toughness'. Just think about it! It's just damn
> hard! You will have to draw a truck full of figure studies during your
> college years to draw people right!
If it is hard for you, keep practicing. It is very simple. Maybe you need
some art history, basic color theory, design elementals, etc. Don't give up.
And yes, art school grads HAVE INDEED done a truckload full of figure
studies.
> Quite honestly, which way would you choose?
Nothing pretty or that my Aunt Ethel could do.
Would you rather bust
> your ass drawing and painting 12~15 hours a day, 7 days a week during
> your college years to draw and paint realistically, just to get hired
> by Walt Disney and become a background painter for 'Hunchback of Notre
> Dame' and 'Atlantis' to earn 1500 bucks guild minimum per week? Or,
> just weld some metal junks, splatter paints on the wall, paste letters
> and pictures from magazines and newspapers on masonite board and seal
> it with matte medium, then splatter pig blood on the board and call it
> art, so that you can get critical acclaim and have your artworks
> exhibited in major museums.
The last one. I would wait tables, clean out public vomitoriums or hang out
with a sign "Will work for art supplies" before I worked for Disney or the
like.
> Which way would you choose?
Since this is rec.arts.fine and not alt.illustration.get.a.clue, what do you
think?
Is Mani your Daddy?
Xena
department. It was on the 2nd floor, sculpture and installation/new genre
was on the first, painting/printmaking/drawing on the third.
Students on the first floor had some classes on the third and vice-versa. No
one ever stopped on the second floor and I never actually spoke to a second
floor person. I never saw a first/third floor student eat lunch, speak,
glance at or acknowledge the existence of a second floor student. We even
had different graduation ceremonies.
If there was a fire or something, the second floor students had to wait
until the first/third floor students had left the building first. They also
had to scrub out our toilets.
There *is* a hierarchy in art.
"Jay C" <shin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68959f53.0111...@posting.google.com...
Chris
> OK, here is my last post to you. In art school, we did have an illustration
> department. It was on the 2nd floor, sculpture and installation/new genre
> was on the first, painting/printmaking/drawing on the third.
> Students on the first floor had some classes on the third and vice-versa. No
> one ever stopped on the second floor and I never actually spoke to a second
> floor person. I never saw a first/third floor student eat lunch, speak,
> glance at or acknowledge the existence of a second floor student. We even
> had different graduation ceremonies.
> If there was a fire or something, the second floor students had to wait
> until the first/third floor students had left the building first. They also
> had to scrub out our toilets.
>
> There *is* a hierarchy in art.
>
I think you only demonstrated that there's a hierarchy in (some) art schools,
as well as a lack of instruction in the use of reason.
Chris
Todd Strickland
>I don't despise abstract art.
Could've fooled me...
>But I hate the fact that so many
>(probably most of artists) just jump into abstract and conceptual art
>even without trying to learn how to draw and paint. Not even giving
it
>a try and not even giving themselves some challenges that what they
>are capable of.
That's a bit of an over-generalization, wouldn't you say? Do you know
so many hundreds of abstract artists who never "learn how to draw or
paint?" That comment in itself shows how little respect you have for
abstract art, despite your statements to the contrary; doesn't
abstract art also involve drawing and painting?
>I for myself did some abstract works as a PART of realistic painting
>training. My instructor was a prominent artist who painted numerous
>film posters and celebrity portraits. (he did the poster illustration
>for 'Witches of Eastwick')
>
>Doing abstract work is kinda fun, as long as I know what I am doing.
>I did a couple of installation pieces and the instructor immediatly
>pointed out the anger and rage behind my artworks.
I've just got to say, if you find representational (realistic) work
challenging but abstract work unchallenging and "kinda fun," this
shows YOUR lack of initiative regarding abstract work, not anything
about the nature of abstraction, in general. To each his own, and if
abstraction isn't your cup of tea, then hey, do what you love. But
art is as challenging as you make it; even abstract artists don't try
to make art that bores even themselves.
>No matter how much technical training one artist gets, it can't
>really hide the personality behind the artworks he/she has done.
>That's why I believe that working on more 'conceptual, abstract and
>self-expressive' art can wait.
Did anyone ever suggest to you that too much technical training would
cause the artist's personality to be "hidden" in a painting? Did they
also suggest this lunacy as an argument promoting abstract over
representational painting? If so, this shows only that person was an
idiot. It doesn't say anything about the merits or faults of
abstraction.
>many people will disagree with me but I do believe that life
>experience can affect one person's artist direction. I, for one, have
>felt it from myself.
>
>Great artists have prominent personalities, and it shows from their
>artworks. Having a tremendous background in technique doesn't
>necessarily means that he/she doesn't have the capability of
>self-expression and experimentation through his/her art. Look at the
>works of Harvey Dinnerstein, one of the few American classical
>academic painter. See how many paintings regarding social commentary
>and anti-vietnam war he did. One of his early self-portrait, a very
>good one, during his time in the US Army shows his feeling and
>reaction to the military machine and the death of individuality.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with this. Who are you
trying to convince that a strong technical background isn't a
hindrance to self expression? It sounds like you have the belief that
abstract artists feel this way, but I don't think that any serious
artists do.
>I think people tend to go foward abstract art nowdays because...
>1. they can't draw and paint as well as some people do
As if simply choosing to follow a representational style is PROOF of
talent? What if the artist DOES have a STRONG TRADITIONALLY ORIENTED
art background AND STILL CHOOSES TO PURSUE ABSTRACTION? Don't bother
telling me that you would accept that as "legitimate" art because,
honestly, how would you know? Would you see something in the
abstraction that made you say, "Ah! This artist could draw
realistically if he wanted to, therefore its OK?" Face it, you do
despise abstract art; you feel yourself to be superior to abstract
artists, because, I guess, you have good illustrative skills. Putting
down "talentless" and "lazy" abstract artists is just one way for you
to toot your own horn.
Ironically, the most artistically talentless people that I know are
all people who hate modern art and insist (as if they had thought
deeply about it) that abstract art is some kind of sick joke. The few
people I personally know who love abstract art tend to love ALL STYLES
OF ART; they also happen to be the ones who do have some talent (by
any definition of the word), not to mention open minds.
>2. believes that
>self-expression and free-spirited self experimentation superceed
>techniques, thus not bothering with learning techniques.
I guess you and I know different kinds of people. Again, sounds like
your own personal hang-up, not the true sentiment of legions of
abstract artists.
>3 and 4,
>suggested by Harley Brown, THERE'S ALWAYS A MARKET DEMAND FOR
>ABSTRACT WORKS BY THE GALLERIES AND YUPPIE CUSTOMERS, AND
>ART SCHOOLS ONLY DO BUSINESS, NOT THE ACTUAL TEACHING.
Ah! Now we come to it!
The fact that there is a demand for abstract art is proof that the
galleries and artists are duping the public; I suppose if there was
more demand for representational art this would show that the public
had better sense? Call me silly, but maybe there's demand for it
because people ACTUALLY LIKE IT, AND SEE MERIT IN IT... Geez! Could
you have any less faith in the art public's taste and appreciation of
fine art?
What do you have against yuppies, anyway? Would you refuse to sell
your work to one, on principle? Are you above having your work hang
in any gallery that would sell to a yuppie? If some very sensible
accountant buys a Kinkade does that show what a connoisseur he is?
And again, ironically, all the galleries in MY city show nothing but
very crappy still lifes and nature scenes! Whenever there's any kind
of art fair, the paintings are all seashores and sunsets! I can't
find any new abstract art in my city because I CAN'T FIND ANY
GALLERIES WHO SHOW IT! But I guess you live in Soho...
>And yes, one big reason why people don't bother with representative
>art is the 'matter of toughness'. Just think about it! It's just damn
>hard! You will have to draw a truck full of figure studies during
>your college years to draw people right!
Hypothetical question; suppose you met someone who mastered the skills
of traditional representation fairly easily, in a relatively short
amount of time. Would this fact make you respect his art any more or
less than another artist who had to slave away for decades to achieve
the SAME RESULTS? As for me, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. I
judge the finished work, not the effort that went into it. The
"matter of toughness" is just a way to impress people who don't really
know what to look for in a work of art. Its like a tour guide in the
Sistine Chapel saying, "It took Michelangelo ump-teen years to finish
the ceiling," and all the tourists say, "Wow! That's why it's great!"
Then they get back on the tour bus feeling that they really learned
something about art.
>Quite honestly, which way would you choose? Would you rather bust
>your ass drawing and painting 12~15 hours a day, 7 days a week during
>your college years to draw and paint realistically, just to get hired
>by Walt Disney and become a background painter for 'Hunchback of
>Notre Dame' and 'Atlantis' to earn 1500 bucks guild minimum per week?
>Or, just weld some metal junks, splatter paints on the wall, paste
>letters and pictures from magazines and newspapers on masonite board
>and seal it with matte medium, then splatter pig blood on the board
>and call it art, so that you can get critical acclaim and have your
>artworks exhibited in major museums.
>
>Which way would you choose?
I'd choose to follow my heart, mind, and artistic conscience. Sounds
to me like YOU would choose the splattered pig's blood, if you didn't
already have such hard won skills.
Anyway, your comment almost proves the point that having good
representational skills makes it easier to find work. It may be easy
to splatter pig's blood on masonite board (as if that's what abstract
art is all about); it may be easy (in some places...) to find SOME
gallery which will show it; but it's not so easy to sell it. Many
people in this group can attest to the fact that while its easy to
make abstract art for good grades in school, its not easy to make a
living selling it to the public.
Todd Strickland
Holly Daize
>I think you only demonstrated that there's a hierarchy in (some) art schools,
>as well as a lack of instruction in the use of reason.
Where I went to school, there were two basic paths
for undergrad students - fine art and commercial art.
I took courses in commercial art (called "Design")
because of the disciplined approach to design that
is required to satisfy a customer's needs for a
"milk carton logo" or whatever. It's much the same
as taking "mechanical drawing" which I've been
discussing in a separate running thread.
It's all about "discipline."
Learning to be inventive is just as important, IMO,
as memorizing slides for Art History tests. Design
courses, taught by a demanding instructor, can
discipline one's mind and generate inventive juices
that simply "doing one's thing" never accomplishes
in painting and drawing studio classes.
Jay C
commercial art as a whoring... (Norman Rockwell is a great artist, I
strongly believe.)
Yeah, I agree with much of your opinion. Maybe you and I have seen
different kind of people. And, of course, I hate to see all those
boring landscape and still life(poorly painted) paintings.
OK...I was a little bit anxious about 'not seeing enough
respresentative arts' because personally I think there are still so
much to be explored in representative art, GENRE and SUBJECT MATTER
wise...
Finally, I do want to see some active communications and
collaborations among different kind of artists...if it's not a bad
idea.
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp (Todd Strickland) wrote in message news:<910eb03.01112...@posting.google.com>...
Bob & Dale Ford
Jay C wrote:
> Uhh...sorry. Got carried away a lil bit because Xena labeled
> commercial art as a whoring...
Look if you like what you are doing then great. All work is prostitution at some level. Commercial art some times is
whoring by certain people. Other people, this is their life's work and that is what they want to do. I started in
graphic design and quickly switched, and yeah I made the rather sell my body than my soul remarks (in regard to
commercial art.) But hell if that's what you want to do, good on you. You can eat, buy a nice car, etc. The
prostitution part comes when a person who is obviously an artist sells out their ideals for commercial success.
Now that I am older I would not make the same comments I did when I gave up studying graphic design. The world isn't so
easy a place and we all sell ourselves in some way. ( I even went through a phase where I would not sell any art work
even when asked as I saw that as selling one of my babies. Now I have real babies I see how stupid that was. There is a
part of me in every painting I do, but they are still only paintings. For awhile I considered selling art as elitist
and limiting the knowledge of art to those who could afford to buy it, thus starving the lower income people of great
art. Ideas are such dangerous things. I also saw commercial galleries as a corrupting influence. So I went the teaching
route, but after teaching all day who has the energy to paint. In reality I sold my time instead of the art, but sold
is still the operative word.)
> (Norman Rockwell is a great artist, I
> strongly believe.)
>
> Yeah, I agree with much of your opinion. Maybe you and I have seen
> different kind of people. And, of course, I hate to see all those
> boring landscape and still life(poorly painted) paintings.
>
> OK...I was a little bit anxious about 'not seeing enough
> respresentative arts' because personally I think there are still so
> much to be explored in representative art, GENRE and SUBJECT MATTER
> wise...
>
> Finally, I do want to see some active communications and
> collaborations among different kind of artists...if it's not a bad
> idea.
Communication is always a good idea but expect some fire works if you are planning to press the illustration and
representational art angle.
Now......what's this trashing of landscapes.............??????????
Dale
Very true
>
> >
> > Todd Strickland
RBrac53660
>(probably most of artists) just jump into abstract and conceptual art
>even without trying to learn how to draw and paint. Not even giving it
>a try and not even giving themselves some challenges that what they
>are capable of.
>
In a art school say like Pratt or SVA or Parsons the student is required to go
threw a foundation year. Where that student is required to learn the basics
of visual representation in a 2-d medium and also a 3-d medium.
Jay C
> Communication is always a good idea but expect some fire works if you are planning to press the illustration and
> representational art angle.
>
> Now......what's this trashing of landscapes.............??????????
>
Ooops.
I meant....too many Joe Schmoes jump into landscape paintings because
they are the hottest selling items on galleries...? Well,
statistically that's true. People like to buy landscape paintings
simply for 'decorations'...
Not that I diss landscape painting as a whole... but Uhhh....uhh....
Nevermind. :)
Marilyn
"Most Art Sucks"
check out
http://www.coagula.com
Mat tells the truth.
--
Marilyn
> In article <68959f53.01113...@posting.google.com>, shinji69
> @hotmail.com says...
>
> > I meant....too many Joe Schmoes jump into landscape paintings because
> > they are the hottest selling items on galleries...? Well,
> > statistically that's true. People like to buy landscape paintings
> > simply for 'decorations'...
> >
> > Not that I diss landscape painting as a whole... but Uhhh....uhh....
>
> I suppose I'd like to try and understand why artists, alone among all
> those with talents they have been gifted with and have developed through
> years of hard work, should be reviled by their peers for feeling they
> deserve to make a comfortable living doing what they love. If meeting the
> demands of the marketplace is what it takes to do that, then why do we
> single out artists and accuse them of "whoring" when almost everyone else
> who has to work for a living does the same thing?
>
> Perhaps the artists who think producing work that people like and want to
> buy is "whoring" don't really have enough confidence in their own ability
> to go out actually do it.
Because painting to order is not the same as
being intensely original and creative, inspired
by the deep well-springs of intuition aided
by training and talent, painting something that
has not been painted before in a way that
has never been seen before.
--
Bob & Dale Ford
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn <spa...@islandnet.com> wrote in
>
> Because painting to order is not the same as
> being intensely original and creative, inspired
> by the deep well-springs of intuition aided
> by training and talent, painting something that
> has not been painted before in a way that
> has never been seen before.
>
a way that has never been seen before?
I would also argue that a well executed and beautiful representational
picture of a still-life or landscape can be fine art, even if it is not
particularly original at all.
Alison A Raimes
> > And what about Alison? Gone too, except for a couple of posts apropos
> > September 11.
>
> Ah, everytime someone posts something anti-female and rude from the UK it's
> her.
> Poor thing wants to be in a pissing contest without the equiptment.
Not like you, eh Scarlett? Still paranoid, I see ;-) Still running in
and posting your flames and then running out again. Still trying to be
someone you aren't! Didn't you once tell me not to post here because,
I quote, they are all *losers*?
Hey Scarlett, I've dropped in on your website a few times at
http://scarlettdecker.com to see how you are getting on these days (in
a caring way since you dropped me as a friend ;-) Anyway, your site
does not work good. The only thing showing is your resume and then
there is no link to the other pages (which don't work anyway). Not an
image to be seen since you set the site up several months ago. Do you
need help? I can do you a special offer from http://tearts.co.uk if
you want. Serious offer this!
Oh, I only drop in here once a month to check out artists websites as
potential Artlives members. Life is too busy doing an MFA, starting a
web design business, running Artlives and coping with studio life in
London - but I do miss my little jaunts through wannabee land here and
we do occasionally remind each other on Artlives that we used to hang
out here ;-)
Affectionately
Alison
http//raimes.com
Joseph Bennett
Read Xena's post again and look at the "plot construction." She has
built this narrative in an extraordinarily creative way to make her
personal point, that, as far as she is concerned, talk to your heart's
content, she ain't buying illustration as an ingredient in fine art.
But she did it in such an entertaining and completely enjoyable way.
Imagine how Mani or a Mani look alike might have expressed those
thoughts. If you back up and look at her (I am assuming Xena is a she)
other posts, they all possess this puckish approach to subjects that
others on this network take so seriously. Witness her sudden confession
regarding cinnamon. She may be the only person on earth who doesn't
like cinnamon on ham. Allspice, too?
She has been absent for some time, then suddenly took a break, popped
back in, and sprinkled her own thoughts on a variety of subjects, taking
not a single one as life threatening. I hope she sticks around.
Regards as always,
Joe Bennett
Joseph Bennett
Let's not get racist here! A big black ass is just as kissable as a big
white ass! Yellow asses, too. And red. I hope I didn't miss any.
And I would see a dermatologist about that red dot.
Regards...
Joe Bennett
(This is Saturday, and I am wasting time.)
Joseph Bennett
Peter Brooks, royal idiot of the UK, has written something with which I
completely agree!!!
Aaaaak. I need fresh coffee. Or a transfusion. Or something.
I must go and rest.
Joe Bennett
Chris
cloves though? Southern ham - smoked, with cloves & a honey glaze - was a staple in
our household when I was growing up; and I still consider it one of the most
detestable dishes ever created. So that's definitely a point in her favour. (I
think my dislike of ham, turkey, and apple pie were primary causes of my leaving
the States. I still like my mom though :)
Cheers;
Chris
Xena
You are missing my trying-to-keep-it-on-topic point ;-)
The poster was refering to his hero who said something which quite escapes
me but that was in keeping with pro-representational crapola and had
mentioned that he liked abstract art (wink, wink) except those with a white
canvas with a little red dot!
Sorry for the implied racism but I did admit to a "big" white ass. The dot
was included for aesthetics ;-)
"Joseph Bennett" <joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3C08F1DF...@mediaone.net...
Xena
"Alison A Raimes" shouted:
<alison...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f6243c1f.0112...@posting.google.com...
To quote one of your countrymen:
"I fart in your general direction"
Marilyn
I agree completely and I enjoy the way you write.
"puckish" good word.
Whatever we say about art/illustration it isn't life or death.
(but spices, that's another story.)
Marilyn
Joseph Bennett
You darned sight better still like your mom! After what she went
through with you!
I just can't see leaving the country over ham punctured with cloves and
smeared with a honey glaze, most likely with those bright red cherries,
sometimes pineapple slices too. I could eat that every other night for
a month and not get tired of it.
As to cinnamon vs. cloves, you were right, cloves it was in Xena's post.
and in that, she has something in common with my wife, who also
dislikes them. (Where does your mother live? Does she still do that
ham thing?)
Best to the Northland...
Joe Bennett
Holly Daize
>I hope she sticks around.
Ohhh, she's been around alright!
Just using different makeup these days,
so perhaps you didn't recogize her.
Joseph Bennett
And I am still laughing. I remember the red dot thing, so long ago, so
many posts ago, the flag of Japan and all that. And I threw in that
racist remark because it was patently ludicrous, which is where this
thread went a long time ago. John NG, who started it all, hasn't chimed
in for days. No wonder.
As a representational painter who happens to recognize that some of that
other stuff actually is art, even though most of it is crapola, I am
ever amazed at how many want to go to war over which is "better." Or
which is "right." That's like rerunning Northern Ireland or the
Israeli/Palestinian situation but in art terms. There are no answers,
since there is on neither side, good will. Without GW, there never will
be any answers.
Someday, perhaps, the people who make art in all its wondrous forms will
recognize that no one kind is right, or better, and that all of it has
the potential to be great.
But then, this news group won't be any fun.
Good night...sleep well.
Joe Bennett
Bob & Dale Ford
Dale
Dan Fox wrote:
> CAUTION: OFF TOPIC, OFF COLOR(!), AND POLITICALLY INCORRECT RESPONSE
> FOLLOWS:
>
> Joe -
>
> As an average white guy married to a totally hot blackchick (yes, it's
> one word), I must put in my vote for a big black ass over any other
> variety. You just haven't lived until .... well, I've said too much
> already.
>
> Joseph Bennett <joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > Xena...
> >
> > Let's not get racist here! A big black ass is just as kissable as a big
> > white ass! Yellow asses, too. And red. I hope I didn't miss any.
> >
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
will
> recognize that no one kind is right, or better, and that all of it has
> the potential to be great.
>
etchings on copper plate great, then I will be truly impressed.
>
> But then, this news group won't be any fun.
>
Xena
> Xena...
>
> And I am still laughing. I remember the red dot thing, so long ago, so
> many posts ago, the flag of Japan and all that. And I threw in that
> racist remark because it was patently ludicrous, which is where this
> thread went a long time ago. John NG, who started it all, hasn't chimed
> in for days. No wonder.
>
> As a representational painter who happens to recognize that some of that
> other stuff actually is art, even though most of it is crapola, I am
> ever amazed at how many want to go to war over which is "better." Or
> which is "right." That's like rerunning Northern Ireland or the
> Israeli/Palestinian situation but in art terms. There are no answers,
> since there is on neither side, good will. Without GW, there never will
> be any answers.
But we all don't hang out together in real life, agreed? I mean that people
who do nekkid performance art don't generally hang out with my Aunt Ethel
who paints cows and covered bridges. The galleries who sell each usually
stay within a specific *fit*. Likewise those wild and wacky Israelis
probably don't think a rocking good time is hanging around and cruising for
babes with some Palestinians. Agreed. Now we are all thrown together (sans
weapons) and an EXPLOSIVE situation may occur!
> Someday, perhaps, the people who make art in all its wondrous forms will
> recognize that no one kind is right, or better, and that all of it has
> the potential to be great.
Hey! That is profound! When I get to the question and answer segment on the
next Miss America contest I'll use that quote ;-) Better than my last quote
of "peace and harmony to all the world"
> But then, this news group won't be any fun.
>
> Good night...sleep well.
Thanks to my friendly doctor and new prescription :-D
a related post by Holly Daize:
>>I hope she sticks around.
>Ohhh, she's been around alright!
Who are you calling "easy"??? You sound like my Mom. Besides, that was over
a year ago. I've changed ;-)
Xena
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20011202000041.101$xk...@newsreader.com...
> CAUTION: OFF TOPIC, OFF COLOR(!), AND POLITICALLY INCORRECT RESPONSE
> FOLLOWS:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe -
>
> As an average white guy married to a totally hot blackchick (yes, it's
> one word), I must put in my vote for a big black ass over any other
> variety. You just haven't lived until .... well, I've said too much
> already.
>
female ass? I can't be too objective about white/black ass comparisons which
would involve myself because then I would actually have to do a close study
which I really would rather not. Maybe they get wrinkles? I'll have to ask
someone. More importantly, let's not be racist or SEXIST and now is the time
to open a topic that has been on my own mind for quite a few years as I've
observed the {former} male hot babes of all colors. When they get older,
what in the world happens to a man's ass? I mean where does it go to??? This
is amazing that a woman can grow hers to 2 or 3 times the original size
(huh? maybe more?) but a man loses the entire thing! How does that happen?
You don't believe me? It is a fact! I've looked at the old babes like Paul
Newman, Clint Eastwood, heck, even John Travolta is putting on some major
weight but his formerly luscious butt is gone!!!!
WHERE??????
HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN???
(and does it bother you men out there)
Curious for aesthetic reasons only, of course.