Bouguereau
mdeli
finest I have ever seen. When I visited Paris in the 70's he was not
to be seen. This show had his greatest large pieces. They are unique,
entirely original, and technically unmatched by anybody.
What you see of B's work on the web or in books is a mere indication
of the quality of his work. Unfortunately looking at detail is out of
fashion. If books or the net showed detail one would get some sense of
the painterly quality in his and much of the best 19th cent. work. At
last a fine book on B. came out some time ago by F. E. Wissman
(Pomegranate Art Books, 96) Also there is the catalog to the B. show.
Also check B. in search engines and you will be surprised how much
there is, Unfortunately no details.
The best of B. is in his amazing detail. Nobody, and this can only be
seen in the original, painted flesh like B. Not Rubens, Ingres, David,
Raphael, etc..
Look at his masterly drawings or the preliminary studies for his
paintings (many are pure impressionism) Compare them to Picasso and
Matisse.
The student of modern art learns to rant about the awfulness of B. and
19th cent academic art by seeing a slide and listening to some utter
nonsense about academic evil and the lurking dangers of kitsch in
politically correct art history courses. Few can name ten academic
painters or have ever seen any of their work. About all they learn is
that it was evil and the Impressionists revolted against it and held
seperate shows. Little known to artzy fartzies is that many academics
also took up Impressionism and exhibited in these show.
As I indicate in my book, the present view of nineteenth cent. art
history carefully avoids mentioning about 98% of its artists. It is as
if a history of this century contained one paragraph each about Hitler
and Stalin and only got into detail about America's triumphs over
communism.
It is no wonder Picasso and Matisse hated B. By the way a load of
Academic paintings were found among Picasso's art collection. Dali
also owned a B. and admired the finest of 19th cent. technique.
There are hundreds of very fine Academic painters. Among the best are
Gerome, Bonheur, Meissonier, Bargue. Vibert. Detaille, Fortuney. There
are so many more. They are hidden away and are as hard to find as
originals by Norman Rockwell or Leyendecker's are in any museum. The
artzy fartzy curaters of most major musuems keep these artists out of
eyes reach lest the viewer stray from Modern Academic Art or
Impressionism.
B. is a kind of immortal zombie of modern art. He keeps popping up.
Book covers, post cards, puzzles, posters, etc.; (On stuff that sells)
and an occasional well attended show. He is popular without a well
known name. His paintings haven't earned a Modern critic's word in his
favor. They don't need one.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
scottvdv
Bouguereau (including Dali I believe, could be wrong). In my art school's
library there's not a Bouguereau book to be found, only random
acknowledgements in other art 'collectives'. The human figure is one of the
most complex and daunting forms to conquer, and there have been few to
completely control it, a few that come to mind would be Michaelangelo, Dali,
Singer-Sargent, and Bouguereau.
scottvdv
Chris
scottvdv wrote:
[...]
> acknowledgements in other art 'collectives'. The human figure is one of the
> most complex and daunting forms to conquer, and there have been few to
> completely control it, a few that come to mind would be Michaelangelo, Dali,
> Singer-Sargent, and Bouguereau.
>
> scottvdv
Scottvdv:
I'm curious as to what you mean by "control[ling] the human form".
Michelangelo - superb as he was in expression - ran into real
difficulties whenever he strayed away from lithe young men and rugged
old ones - his women (when they weren't thoroughly draped) tend to look
like young men with their male genitalia removed and melons attached to
their chests.
As for Bouguereau, certainly (as Mani points out) he was wonderfully
precise in his rendering. But these were, for the most part, highly
iconic forms of young women & cherubs. In his own school - according to
Hilary Spurling's book on Matisse, at least - he actively discouraged
representations of reality - i.e. of all the bumps & lumps that
differentiate us one from another. One has to wonder if he was capable
of doing it himself. Perhaps Mani can fill us in on whether he extended
himself much beyond the decorative work for which he is known.
Some favorites for human form: Leonardo, Holbein, Rembrandt, Cassatt
(there's lots of others..)
Cheers;
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
http://www.gammarat.com
scottvdv
scottvdv wrote in message ...
>I agree. It seems a lot of moderns had a strong fear and dislike of
>Bouguereau (including Dali I believe, could be wrong). In my art school's
>library there's not a Bouguereau book to be found, only random
the
>most complex and daunting forms to conquer, and there have been few to
>completely control it, a few that come to mind would be Michaelangelo,
Dali,
>Singer-Sargent, and Bouguereau.
>
>scottvdv
>
>
Rodin
lake
of painters had a good handle on it, besides the ones you mentioned.
Bouguereau was flashy, after the manner of his time, and more than
competant. But as for ideas? Spirit? Substance, soul? Ahem.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
scottvdv
Broad generalization, bad choice of words.
scottvdv
>of painters had a good handle on it, besides the ones you mentioned.
>Bouguereau was flashy, after the manner of his time, and more than
>competant. But as for ideas? Spirit? Substance, soul? Ahem.
It is THAT complex, when speaking in relation to what Bouguereau, or Rodin
achieve.
CO
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hilary Spurling's book on Matisse, at least - he actively discouraged
> representations of reality - i.e. of all the bumps & lumps that
> differentiate us one from another. One has to wonder if he was capable
> of doing it himself. Perhaps Mani can fill us in on whether he extended
> himself much beyond the decorative work for which he is known.
Oh yes he could. You should see his sketchbooks.
C.
Chris
Ok, I'm game. Are reproductions available anywhere? (FWIW, I find
looking at sketchbooks, and preliminary work, quite fascinating).
Chris
mdeli
A visit to the museum with its comforts and implications of glory
deeply affects some people, especially those more sensitive romantic
souls aspiring to a profession. When such a soul passes through the
museum's Modern Academic section and sees all those large colorful
abstractions and minimal sculptural concoctions along with earlier
incompetent realism he is often deeply inspired. In some, a small
tickle in the back of the mind fires off a revelation. "By god I can
learn to do THAT." When he sees art books on the creators of this
stuff it makes him feel ecstatic. When he learns what prices Blue Chip
modern paintings go for, he is bowled over. "By god, I'll be rich."
A percentage of those who have had this experience go on to study at
some Modern Art academy convinced they can fulfill their dreams. Here
they are assured that skill and craft count for little by teachers who
have nearly none. They are then encouraged to imitate those who
created THAT kind of stuff which originally inspired them. All the
while this dominating theme runs through their naive minds, "I can do
THAT," and indeed, most can.
In school they study the most famous Modern Academic paintings in some
detail and their confidence overflows. The incompetent drawings of
their favorite masters now assure them that competence at this
difficult pursuit is of little necessity. This comes as a great
relief. The only slightly negative thing these now aspiring geniuses
learn is the starving artist myth. Armed by a learned creed and with
an almost religious enthusiasm, their art school period eventually
comes to a close and they head out to the real world. What do they
have to fear, for doubtlessly they and their teachers know that they
can do THAT.
They now venture off into the real world with their imagined abilities
and set off to professionally do THAT. For some the starving artist
myth becomes a reality, but most go on to other professions. Most of
those remaining are indeed able to do THAT just as well as their
successful mentors, yet they never understand why THAT hasn't gained
them their desired glory and riches. A few with the right connections
and personality take up the profession of teaching the next generation
of failures while a very small handful win the Modern Academic Art
Lottery and become the next generation of Blue Chip modern artists.
Keith O'Connor
Take a Bouguereau put it beside a
playboy center fold and it's the same
stuff. It seems that mdeli has always
had a problem separating erotica from
art. No skill no erotica is realy what
he is talking about.
have fun boys and girls: tinman
Joseph C.A. Bennett
Henry...may I call you Henry?...
You and I are almost scary-close in our view of The Boog in the world of art.
I agree with your
entire post, with a single exception. You called him a "bad painter who turned
out crap." No.
He was a good painter who turned out crap. Pretty crap, but crap nonetheless.
But he was
good at it, really good!
What we have here is a resonance of the frequent argument of the separation of
"art" and "skill."
Boog chased the bucks, pursuing the most commercial art of his day. Today he
would be doing
stuff in the Rothko vein, or some such, whatever happens to be the "art du
decade." That does
not make him a bad painter, just a non-artist.
His paintings, however, are relentlessly pleasurable if seen for themselves,
without analysis vis a
vis any theoretical concept of "art", what it is, what it should be. This is
what tickles me about
any discussion of Boog's work: without exception, he provokes rage from today's
children, is
condemned as some kind of anti-Christ, and thus is elevated to a position in
art history far above
anything he ever earned! He was a hack. A damned good hack! Take him or
leave him, but
let's neither condemn him nor cannonize him.
I will take a moment in this post, so as to spare all of us an additional
effort, to respond to
Keith's snarky little remark about "smart ass comments that have no thoughtful
foundation." I
think long and hard about my smart ass comments. Other than umbrage at his
petulant little dig, I
agree with the substance of his post, as well. Hell, Keith, I was just having
some fun. Lighten
up!
Really, I must spend less time reading this stuff, and more time painting.
Regards to all.
Bennett
Alison A Raimes
<joseph...@mediaone.net> writes
>Really, I must spend less time reading this stuff, and more time painting.
Why don't you just do it, instead of talking about it. Practise what you
preach loser.
mdeli
century academics and probably has never even seen a Bouguereau is
fast to mouth the slanted bullshit doled out in fashionable modern art
courses in which the academics are barely mentioned. Here a few slides
which usually show a Cabanel and perhaps a B. along with a short
lecture on its evils is about all the average student gets on this
matter. It is as if a history of the 20th century made a brief mention
of Hitler and went on to discuss show biz.
Condemning Bouguereau for painting sexually disturbing pinups nudes is
hypocritical. Especially when critics unflinchingly accept pictures
like Picasso's comic book style erotic works, which abound in hairy
protuberances and erotic naughtyisms, as great art.
A derisive quotation from Kenneth Clark's important and very silly
book on THE NUDE should further indicate the flavor of this
contemporary and very fashionable viewpoint.
"For the paintings of Ary Scheffer, Cabanel, Bouguereau, and Henner
are no longer exhibited in public galleries and must be sought in
provincial mairies or the saloons of midwestern hotels. Each of these
had his own recipe for success ranging from the lubricity of
Bouguereau to the high minded sexlessness of Lord Leighton; but all
had one characteristic in common: they glossed over the facts. They
employed the same convention of smoothed?out form and waxen surface."
The "facts" indeed! This "smoothed out surface" can be found in
painting since its very beginnings. What Clark really objects to is
the degree of refinement and finish which reached such great heights
in the nineteenth century. Clark, it seems, favors the rough
unfinished looking surface. Had he researched academic art a bit more
thoroughly, he would have seen that very quality he favors is found in
the detail of the academic paintings and many of the preliminary
sketches for them. It is ironic that sketches and preliminary work by
academic and Victorian painters are an ignored subject.
B. painted far more than nudes, the perfection of which rarely fails
to upset fifth rate patzers. He did Portraits, religious and
historical subject matter, all of which are totally unfamiliar to an
indoctrinated Modern Art buff.
Well, I wouldn't really expect more. When the Modern Artzy Fartzy is
faced with technically superior work containing politically incorrect
subject matter he runs off and seeks relief from subject matter on a
level ranging between decorative floor covering and third rate
cartoons.
Get on your search engine and type Bouguereau. There is lots of
information on the web to See and read! At last the suppressed work of
the 19th century by the French salon and English schools is becoming
available through the net. Even an occasional derogatory comment
against our esteemed idiot museum administrators is creeping through.
At last we can begin to see and compare skilled work and no
Artzy-fartzy can prevent it.
mdeli
<joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>Henry...may I call you Henry?...
>
>You and I are almost scary-close in our view of The Boog in the world of art.
>I agree with your entire post, with a single exception. You called him a "bad painter who turned
>out crap." No. He was a good painter who turned out crap. Pretty crap, but crap nonetheless.
Unlike Picasso and Matisse who were bad painters who turned out mostly
ugly crap
>But he was
>good at it, really good!
This is a terrrible fact for Modern Artzy fartzies have to face.
>What we have here is a resonance of the frequent argument of the separation of
>"art" and "skill."
>Boog chased the bucks, pursuing the most commercial art of his day.
-like Picasso and Matisse.
>His paintings, however, are relentlessly pleasurable if seen for themselves,
Gee we don't want any of that these days do we?
>without analysis vis a
>vis any theoretical concept of "art", what it is, what it should be.
without Artspeak.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>The Modern Artzy fartzy who most likely can't even name five 19th
>century academics and probably has never even seen a Bouguereau is
>fast to mouth the slanted bullshit doled out in fashionable modern art
>courses in which the academics are barely mentioned. Here a few slides
>which usually show a Cabanel and perhaps a B. along with a short
>lecture on its evils is about all the average student gets on this
>matter. It is as if a history of the 20th century made a brief mention
>of Hitler and went on to discuss show biz.
>
>Condemning Bouguereau for painting sexually disturbing pinups nudes is
>hypocritical. Especially when critics unflinchingly accept pictures
>like Picasso's comic book style erotic works, which abound in hairy
>protuberances and erotic naughtyisms, as great art.
>
>A derisive quotation from Kenneth Clark's important and very silly
>book on THE NUDE should further indicate the flavor of this
>contemporary and very fashionable viewpoint.
Mani missed out some important aspects of that paragraph, and seeing as
we know how much he hates quotes out of context ......
" To justify the epithet heroic, which I have applied to him [Courbet],
one must look for those representations of the subject which during
Courbet's lifetime and for another forty years won official favour at
the Salon.
>"For the paintings of Ary Scheffer, Cabanel, Bouguereau, and Henner
>are no longer exhibited in public galleries and must be sought in
>provincial mairies or the saloons of midwestern hotels. Each of these
>had his own recipe for success ranging from the lubricity of
>Bouguereau to the high minded sexlessness of Lord Leighton; but all
>had one characteristic in common: they glossed over the facts. They
>employed the same convention of smoothed?out form and waxen surface."
"; and they represented the body as existing solely in twilight groves
or marble swimming baths. It was this grateful acceptance of unreality
in both texture and circumstance which was to receive so painful a shock
from the Olympia of Manet." p152 [Pelican 1960]
>
>The "facts" indeed! This "smoothed out surface" can be found in
>painting since its very beginnings. What Clark really objects to is
>the degree of refinement and finish which reached such great heights
>in the nineteenth century. Clark, it seems, favors the rough
>unfinished looking surface. Had he researched academic art a bit more
>thoroughly, he would have seen that very quality he favors is found in
>the detail of the academic paintings and many of the preliminary
>sketches for them. It is ironic that sketches and preliminary work by
>academic and Victorian painters are an ignored subject.
>
What Clark objects to, is the representation of the human body as
unreal. Perfection where perfection does not exist. What he advocates s
the true rendering of the human body. For someone like you who draws
Barbie dolls, I would imagine this concept extremely problematic.
>B. painted far more than nudes, the perfection of which rarely fails
>to upset fifth rate patzers. He did Portraits, religious and
>historical subject matter, all of which are totally unfamiliar to an
>indoctrinated Modern Art buff.
>
>Well, I wouldn't really expect more. When the Modern Artzy Fartzy is
>faced with technically superior work containing politically incorrect
>subject matter he runs off and seeks relief from subject matter on a
>level ranging between decorative floor covering and third rate
>cartoons.
>
>
>Get on your search engine and type Bouguereau. There is lots of
>information on the web to See and read! At last the suppressed work of
>the 19th century by the French salon and English schools is becoming
>available through the net. Even an occasional derogatory comment
>against our esteemed idiot museum administrators is creeping through.
>
>At last we can begin to see and compare skilled work and no
>Artzy-fartzy can prevent it.
Or we can live in dream cuckoo land with the man who is still looking
for that perfect body to take him closer to the gods.
Alison A Raimes
http://artlives.homestead.com
http://www.egroups/groups/artlives
terk
Or we can suspend the egocentrist tendentiousness on all sides and begin
to investigate the nature of 'validity' of aesthetic expression.
--
"If ignorance is bliss, then why aren't we in
paradise?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joseph C.A. Bennett
my humanity!
Cheers, or whatever it is they say over there, in the Old Country.
Bennett
T. Cassioppi
Miller)henry...@africana.com wrote:
> Yes, he is irrelevant to the art world - always was. I would be annoyed if
> his work took up space in a major show or retrospective, taking space away
> from real artists (much like the Rockwell show at the Guggenheim - a
> different person entirely - a first-rate illustrator with no pretentions to
> art).
I was outraged at the Rockwell show realizing some Twombly chicken
scratches could have been hanging where those hideous Rockwells were. All
those uncouth commoners were really duped looking at Rockwell garbage.
Rockwell was almost as worse than that great satan BoogerO. Oh the
humanity!!!.......
May there be another disastrous Boug show like there was in the eighties
that poisoned our children's minds. All those dupes walking around
pretending they liked and understood that so called art.
T.
T. Cassioppi
nos...@mindspring.com (T. Cassioppi) wrote:
May there NEVER be another disastrous Boug show like there was in the eighties
mdeli
>What Clark objects to, is the representation of the human body as
>unreal.
Nonsense!
WHat about, El Greco, Bosh, Bronzino, Gainsborough, Poussin, Picasso
etc.
>Perfection where perfection does not exist. What he advocates s
>the true rendering of the human body. For someone like you who draws
>Barbie dolls, I would imagine this concept extremely problematic.
For someone who can't draw a damned thing I presume you believe that
that a slob like Courbet or Manet Cezanne, Picasso or Matisse did a
TRUE rendering of the human form.
And I repeat :
>> When the Modern Artzy Fartzy is
>>faced with technically superior work containing politically incorrect
>>subject matter he runs off and seeks relief from subject matter on a
>>level ranging between decorative floor covering and third rate
>>cartoons.
>>
>>
>>Get on your search engine and type Bouguereau. There is lots of
>>information on the web to See and read! At last the suppressed work of
>>the 19th century by the French salon and English schools is becoming
>>available through the net. Even an occasional derogatory comment
>>against our esteemed idiot museum administrators is creeping through.
>>
>>At last we can begin to see and compare skilled work and no
>>Artzy-fartzy can prevent it.
Not even Alison
>Or we can live in dream cuckoo land with the man who is still looking
>for that perfect body to take him closer to the gods.
---or one can remain stupid, praising ignorance and draw and paint
repetitive abstract drivel like Alison who hasn't the ability to draw
a Barbie doll's shoe.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
>>What Clark objects to, is the representation of the human body as
>>unreal.
>
>Nonsense!
>
>WHat about, El Greco, Bosh, Bronzino, Gainsborough, Poussin, Picasso
>etc.
Why are you taking Clark's passage out of context ? Go back and read the
chapter - its called Venus II. It discusses Titian, Correggio, Rubens
and Ingre in particular. Are you trying to manipulate Clark's words to
strengthen your very weak point ? Well sorry, sucker - this time you
have been ousted. Perhaps you imagined that everyone would bow down at
your feet at such wisdom - wisdom that is a lie.
>
>For someone who can't draw a damned thing I presume you believe that
>that a slob like Courbet or Manet Cezanne, Picasso or Matisse did a
>TRUE rendering of the human form.
What does my drawing have to do with Clark ? Do you think that your
*point* will be strengthened by showing that an abstract artist, who is
dealing with anything but human form, is going to make your *case* look
better. My opinion on the above drawings has no relevance here other
than I agree with Clark that a world in which we no longer believe in
gods and goddesses, other than in Hollywood, should be drawing the
perfect human form, which does not, and has never, existed.
>
>---or one can remain stupid, praising ignorance and draw and paint
>repetitive abstract drivel like Alison who hasn't the ability to draw
>a Barbie doll's shoe.
Or would want to. Now go back and show where I praised ignorance, as you
say. I simply showed that you had taken Clark's words and manipulated
them for your own gain. Something you are a master at.
mdeli
attract a large audience when his works are actually shown. This
presents MAA critics with some insurmountable problems. How can
someone whose paintings are so skilled and attractive be a very bad
artist? The most MAA can offer as an answer is that his painting is
academic, slick and kitsch and even erotic.
Like knowing parents, these critics feel obliged to warn viewers about
"attractive dangers" in tones similar to that of a prude warning the
young about sex. Much serious criticism of Bouguereau amounts to
saying he's so good that he's bad, beware of cheap thrills, this
artist is tricky. In the following example an important critic reveals
why most everybody's rather sensitive libido is sickened.
"Let us admit right away that Bouguereau made further progress in the
direction of representational accuracy??beyond Raphael, whom he
exploits, and beyond Titian. "
Gee what an admission.
"Aided by the successive conquests of appearance made during two
centuries and by the mechanical device of photography, he places
before us a most convincing image of a nude model."
Interestingly there is no evidence that B. used photos. Unlike
Picasso.
"Why, then, does he make us rather sick?"
Poor guy actually gets sick and imagines everybody does. That takes a
powerful artist.
" I think the reason is obvious. This is a pin?up?girl rather than a
work of art. By this we mean that the erotic appeal is on the surface?
is not compensated for by this sharing in the artist's imaginative
process."
Whatever that means
"The image is painfully easy to read, and we resent being taken for
such simpletons. "
I guess he prefers Blut und Scheisse.
"We feel somewhat insulted that we are expected to fall for such cheap
bait??good enough to attract the vulgar, but not such sophisticated
sharers in the artist's secrets as we pride ourselves on being. . . .
We could hardly feel so ill at ease if we did not have to put up a
certain amount of resistance against the methods of seduction
practiced on us."
This pompous idiot also imagines that he speaks for everyone. It also
sounds like he's a prude.
mdeli
I mention this because it should interest some of the students here.
I've written reviews of their work but haven't got into a comparison
that may be informative, as they typify opposite ends of the
abstractionist spectrum.
Alison's work relies almost solely on the accidents of physics and
chemistry. This results in an image which has random beauty but is
close to many similar images used for decorating pencils to floor
covering. Alison has some talent and an eye for color but she is
unlikely to go beyond accidental patterns which look attractive. I
believe this is due to the screwed up philosophy and creed she learned
in art school to which she is religiously attached. She has been led
to imagine that anyone who knows there craft and has a basis in
classical rote (drawing perspective painting technique etc.) ends up
doing little more than candy boxes and portraits of Barbie dolls. This
prevents her from taking a close critical look at fine work and forces
her to praise work which is on or below her level while read endless
tomes on theoretical nonsense instead of learning her craft. In other
word the usual for today's talented art students.
Fox who has no artistic talent or ideas has figured out how to schmier
around and create a surface somewhat beyond flat color. Fox who relies
on his mind, hand and eye in an attempt to create something new
unfortunately never got beyond doing imitations of 1950's Modern
Museum fodder. Even the names of his paintings, which he imagines are
creative, are pathetic. However, unlike Alison he is desperately
searching for the main requirement of Modern Academic Artistic
success, namely a new even uglier put-on.
I suspect Fox will probably have better luck than Alison. Although Fox
is 30 years behind the times as far as originality is concerned, his
stuff still in fashion. While Alison produces pretty patterns that
have appeal, Fox is wisely on to producing a steady stream of
fashionable ugliness. Fox also knows the market and has connections.
All Fox really needs is a fashionable space to hang and some
nincompoops with a bit of money who have missed out on the last thirty
years. If he manages to beat his fellow schmierer at this game he's in
as long as the fashion holds. Alison doesn't realize that her brand of
furniture store modern doesn't make it with artzy fartzies who have
money to blow. It's too attractive. Nor does she have the phony
manners necessary to impress any artzy fartzy who really counts. Her
short fuse will almost guarantee her no end of failure in trying to
cultivate a paying clientele.
Read some of their messages and Take a good look at their web sites
and compare their work. Look at other web sites and decide for
yourself whether Alison's or Fox's work shows any superiority beyond
average art student. Then ask yourself are any of your teachers any
better?
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Alison vs. Fox
>
>I mention this because it should interest some of the students here.
>
>I've written reviews of their work but haven't got into a comparison
>that may be informative, as they typify opposite ends of the
>abstractionist spectrum.
I wasn't aware that you had ever written a *review* of my work, Mani -
apart from the *this is crap* ones. Can you direct me to it, or post it
again. As to putting me versus Fox, I find that very strange. Why would
he and I be in *competition* ? we live in very different worlds.
>
>Alison's work relies almost solely on the accidents of physics and
>chemistry. This results in an image which has random beauty but is
>close to many similar images used for decorating pencils to floor
>covering. Alison has some talent and an eye for color but she is
>unlikely to go beyond accidental patterns which look attractive. I
>believe this is due to the screwed up philosophy and creed she learned
>in art school to which she is religiously attached. She has been led
>to imagine that anyone who knows there craft and has a basis in
>classical rote (drawing perspective painting technique etc.) ends up
>doing little more than candy boxes and portraits of Barbie dolls. This
>prevents her from taking a close critical look at fine work and forces
>her to praise work which is on or below her level while read endless
>tomes on theoretical nonsense instead of learning her craft. In other
>word the usual for today's talented art students.
>
It is incorrect to say that my work relies solely on the accidents of
physics and chemistry. The work of the last year which is on my web page
at http://www.alisonraimes.com is most certainly investigating this
concept, but if you look back an overall view of my work at
http://raimes.homestead.com you will find that primarily I was a
figurative artist and also did some landscapes. The series of work on
the website at the moment was very much reliant on discovering the
properties of the materials being used and the process, particularly the
resin that I mix with the oil paint. Since then, the work which is in
the studio now and ready to be photographed, has attempted to bring the
tendency to geometric structures that you will see in my earlier work,
alongside the pouring and accidental. Somehow the recent abstract
drawings and the paintings were sitting in different camps and I wanted
to investigate their relationship. It hasn't been an easy task and I am
not convinced that this series is working but am now ready to push the
idea further.
As to my art education, I doubt very much that I was affected by it on
what and who I am other than realising that art was a land of
discoveries which I soon got hooked on. Abstraction was a natural and
necessary process before I knew anything about art. I was 33 when I
started at art school and 35 when I started my degree and have always
been a strong and independent figure - stubborn as my tutors would say.
Most of my teachers were of the old school - Royal College or Royal
Academy students from the fifties when classical drawing was an integral
part of the structure of the schools. In fact it is only very recently
that has started to change. At university, I used the time to constantly
experiment and push ideas to their limit. In addition to that I spent a
great deal of time studying art history and soaking up every lecture
that came along. Including classical art. One of my online mentors is
Ben Mahmoud http://benmahmoud.com who was the first person to direct me
to philosophy. He has had a remarkable influence in my way of thinking -
you can hardly say that being interested in his work supports your idea
about my views on classical painting. In fact take a look in my links
page and see some of the artists who I admire along with Ben and I think
you will find I am just interested in good art.
>Fox who has no artistic talent or ideas has figured out how to schmier
>around and create a surface somewhat beyond flat color. Fox who relies
>on his mind, hand and eye in an attempt to create something new
>unfortunately never got beyond doing imitations of 1950's Modern
>Museum fodder. Even the names of his paintings, which he imagines are
>creative, are pathetic. However, unlike Alison he is desperately
>searching for the main requirement of Modern Academic Artistic
>success, namely a new even uglier put-on.
I don't understand the last sentence, though I agree with your
assessment of Fox. What is it that you think I am *desperately
searching* for ?
>
>I suspect Fox will probably have better luck than Alison. Although Fox
>is 30 years behind the times as far as originality is concerned, his
>stuff still in fashion. While Alison produces pretty patterns that
>have appeal, Fox is wisely on to producing a steady stream of
>fashionable ugliness. Fox also knows the market and has connections.
>All Fox really needs is a fashionable space to hang and some
>nincompoops with a bit of money who have missed out on the last thirty
>years. If he manages to beat his fellow schmierer at this game he's in
>as long as the fashion holds. Alison doesn't realize that her brand of
>furniture store modern doesn't make it with artzy fartzies who have
>money to blow. It's too attractive. Nor does she have the phony
>manners necessary to impress any artzy fartzy who really counts. Her
>short fuse will almost guarantee her no end of failure in trying to
>cultivate a paying clientele.
>
I think you are wrong. Fox has been at it for 25 years so he says, but
his resume is thin and his work is nothing but imitations of other
artists. You will find images that could be Tapies, Twombly, Rothko and
Kline all sitting next to each other. I would imagine they sell well. I
also think that devoting the home page of your website to how successful
you were at the last show you had is a sign of someone desperate to make
sure everyone knows he is a success. Its the first artist i have ever
come across that would use his website to boast his success, but I think
Fox is far more interested in being a film star than making art.
As for me, I have *been at it* for less than three years and now have
gallery representation in West London; am part of a co-op gallery on the
South Bank in London where I sell work on a weekly basis; have three
agents working for me in London leasing and selling my work and am now
being invited to show on a regular basis by people I have never heard
of. And just to shatter your little picture, I sell regularly now and
make a living from it. I bored my friends with my sales talk for about
three weeks thinking it was a one off run of luck and wanting to wallow
in it. Crit Chaos 1 and 2 sold for the equivalent to 2,200 dollars each,
and Crit Chaos 4 is currently on lease to an office in the West End for
three months through my agent - I get paid the equivalent to 500 dollars
for that. I don't need to put on any false airs and graces, people want
to buy my work - my work sells at three times the price of last year. I
am lucky in that and intend to exploit that in order that I can work
daily on the thing I love best. But I could easily have chosen to do
installation work and not have a product to sell. Luck, I believe, is on
my side - especially if I keep working all the time. None of this has
anything to do with success - success is something that only the
individual can experience and it is not something I feel. I haven't yet
made one painting I can say is a success - I can say that it has lead me
further into an investigation. That's what is important.
>Read some of their messages and Take a good look at their web sites
>and compare their work. Look at other web sites and decide for
>yourself whether Alison's or Fox's work shows any superiority beyond
>average art student. Then ask yourself are any of your teachers any
>better?
>
>
>Mani DeLi
Thanks for the plug, Mani. Your reviews always generate interest in the
site.
Alison A Raimes
http://www.alisonraimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Scarlett
mdeli wrote in message <392ef5d6...@news.psi.ca>...
:Alison vs. Fox
:
:I mention this because it should interest some of the students here.
:
:I've written reviews of their work but haven't got into a comparison
:that may be informative, as they typify opposite ends of the
:abstractionist spectrum.
:Alison's work relies almost solely on the accidents of physics and
:chemistry. This results in an image which has random beauty but is
:close to many similar images used for decorating pencils to floor
:covering. Alison has some talent and an eye for color but she is
:unlikely to go beyond accidental patterns which look attractive. I
:believe this is due to the screwed up philosophy and creed she learned
:in art school to which she is religiously attached. She has been led
:to imagine that anyone who knows there craft and has a basis in
:classical rote (drawing perspective painting technique etc.) ends up
:doing little more than candy boxes and portraits of Barbie dolls. This
:prevents her from taking a close critical look at fine work and forces
:her to praise work which is on or below her level while read endless
:tomes on theoretical nonsense instead of learning her craft. In other
:word the usual for today's talented art students.
This is a great synopsis of you total ignorance of art. Now I'll give one,
being far more qualified than you:
Alison's work shows excellence in all fields as well as a natural
progression that has led her into her current abstraction. She has done
figurative works, postmodernist works (has anyone here seen the "Alice"
series? these are magnificent works!) and is currently integrating her
investigation into the philosophical prosesses with aesthetics - a "thinking
man's/woman's art". This further evolution of her art is only sucessful
because she has already mastered color, form and composition which she
exhibits in all phases of past work.
:Fox who has no artistic talent or ideas has figured out how to schmier
:around and create a surface somewhat beyond flat color. Fox who relies
:on his mind, hand and eye in an attempt to create something new
:unfortunately never got beyond doing imitations of 1950's Modern
:Museum fodder. Even the names of his paintings, which he imagines are
:creative, are pathetic. However, unlike Alison he is desperately
:searching for the main requirement of Modern Academic Artistic
:success, namely a new even uglier put-on.
You take a lot of space here to make no specific point at all, Mani.
:I suspect Fox will probably have better luck than Alison.
I suspect you've already been proven wrong. Alison has been picked up by a
major London Gallery, makes her living as an artist and is one of the most
prolific artists I know.
Although Fox
:is 30 years behind the times as far as originality is concerned, his
:stuff still in fashion.
????????
While Alison produces pretty patterns that
:have appeal,
You are so incredibly dumb about art, Mani. You are describing the
"decorative & pattern" arts movement. Alison's work is nothing like theirs
though you wouldn't know because that too is post-1950s.
Fox is wisely on to producing a steady stream of
:fashionable ugliness. Fox also knows the market and has connections.
Really???? I wasn't aware of any. How do you know this? Did you buy the
story about his teaching at Harvard? With an M.A.? Do you even know the
requirements of University teaching you twit?
:All Fox really needs is a fashionable space to hang and some
:nincompoops with a bit of money who have missed out on the last thirty
:years.
This sounds like a description of you.
If he manages to beat his fellow schmierer at this game he's in
:as long as the fashion holds. Alison doesn't realize that her brand of
:furniture store modern doesn't make it with artzy fartzies who have
:money to blow. It's too attractive.
Yes, it does indeed make it with the artzy fartzies. She is likely the most
successful artist here Bozo!
Nor does she have the phony
:manners necessary to impress any artzy fartzy who really counts.
Alison is very cultured and only bars her teeth in this mire of muddied
waters. You have no idea how to conduct yourself and you have no idea how
she does (when it counts, unlike here.)
Her
:short fuse will almost guarantee her no end of failure in trying to
:cultivate a paying clientele.
She ALREADY has a paying clientele! She is ALREADY successful! And, she
doesn't sit on her ass. She produces!
She has some great contacts. And, the one thing you DON'T have she does - a
FUTURE!
:Read some of their messages and Take a good look at their web sites
:and compare their work. Look at other web sites and decide for
:yourself whether Alison's or Fox's work shows any superiority beyond
:average art student.
Who are you addressing this to Mani? To the many art-wannabees who despise
degree-holding artists because they never took the risk or bothered because
it was WORK? Or to actual artists who have don't the time, received
CREDIBILITY (a word you will never achieve) and earned their title and are
believed by those you dispise but who are the one's who control what is said
and about whom, who also are able to exclude you from ever being part of it?
Then ask yourself are any of your teachers any
:better?
Very few here have had teachers beyond highschool and an occasional parks &
recreation hobby teacher.
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
http://Artlives.homestead.com
:
:Mani DeLi
Scarlett
Dan Fox wrote in message <20000527112551.743$6...@newsreader.com>...
:
:MDELI:
:Fox is wisely on to producing a steady stream of
:> :fashionable ugliness. Fox also knows the market and has connections.
:
:SCARLETT:
:> Really???? I wasn't aware of any. How do you know this? Did you buy the
:> story about his teaching at Harvard? With an M.A.? Do you even know the
:> requirements of University teaching you twit?
:
:It's probably a waste of time to respond to these character-assassination
:posts, but I want to set the record straight on one point. I never taught
:at Harvard or claimed to. I do live about a mile from Harvard and may have
:mentioned that at some point.
:
:By the way, nearly all college and university teachers, both adjunct and
:regular faculty, in art, music, dance, etc., do not have doctorates, just
:MFA or MA degrees. Most adjunct faculty are working artists. You now must
:have an MFA or MA to get a tenure-track job at most schools, but this
:is a fairly recent development.
This fairly recent development was voted in by College Art Association in
the early 70s. The MFA/BFA degree has been offered since the 50s. An MA, at
this time is NOT offered as an art degree, unless it is Art History. An MA
in Art History (in the US) is 30 credit hours and to teach Art History in a
college or university one must have a PhD. degree and be published. In any
studio classes one must have an MFA degree which is 60 graduate level credit
hours and is a terminal degree.
This is required at any university I've ever been aware of, certainly those
that have accreditation. I was mislead. You did NOT say Harvard. I
apologize.
You said Yale. Perhaps it was a joke. I took it seriously.
(beginning of original message)
________________________________________
Subject: Re: Back to School
From: danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox)
Date: 1999/10/06
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> Your work doesn't even reach the hobby level. I suggest you teach at
> Yale.
I have.
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
(end of original message)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You can view this message and the related discussion by following this link:
http://www.deja.com/%5bST_rn%3dps,ST_cam%3dsearch.yahoo.none.slot%5d/dnquery
.xp?search=thread&svcclass=dnserver&recnum=%3c19991006163929.072$NG@newsread
er.com%3e%231/1
We hope to see you soon at Deja.com.
Before you buy.
http://www.deja.com/%5bST_rn%3dps,ST_cam%3dsearch.yahoo.none.slot%5d/
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>This fairly recent development was voted in by College Art Association in
>the early 70s. The MFA/BFA degree has been offered since the 50s. An MA, at
>this time is NOT offered as an art degree, unless it is Art History. An MA
>in Art History (in the US) is 30 credit hours and to teach Art History in a
>college or university one must have a PhD. degree and be published. In any
>studio classes one must have an MFA degree which is 60 graduate level credit
>hours and is a terminal degree.
That's interesting, Scarlett. We don't have those sort of restrictions
in Britain. You can teach with BFA, but the scale of pay would be
different to someone with post graduate teaching certificate. Actually
the head of department at the school I did my teacher training last year
always complained that because he didn't have any art qualifications he
was stuck on one scale of pay rate and could never get above it. He was
the best art teacher I ever met too.
>
>This is required at any university I've ever been aware of, certainly those
>that have accreditation. I was mislead. You did NOT say Harvard. I
>apologize.
>
>You said Yale. Perhaps it was a joke. I took it seriously.
>(beginning of original message)
In the context it was said, I doubt he was joking. So, are you saying
that Dan's MA is not a Fine Art degree ? He has always maintained it was
and that he taught art. Did he teach at Yale and if so, what ????? Oh
oh, starting to get that strange fraud whiff that lingers here so often
.....
Alison A Raimes
<danf...@yahoo.com> writes
>I taught a semester at Yale as an adjunct in the early 70's, filling in
>for an adjunct friend who had to take a semester off. Nothing much, really,
>but it made such a good smart-ass comeback for Mani that I couldn't resist.
>I had no idea my slightest posts were scrutinized, evaluated, saved, etc.,
>etc. What a joke!
Talking of jokes, I can't wait to hear Dan Fox's smart-ass comeback as
to why, after twenty five years as an artist, his work is nothing more
than a rip off, of past artists ... and probably current ones. What a
joke !
Alison
http://www.alisonraimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Scarlett
investigated, etc. your comments, but a Yale professor would indeed be
memorable simply because we don't get many here of that caliber! You
explained it perfectly and what I mistook for untruthfulness was simply a
time-warp. You did NOT ever say you were qualified to teach art NOW, which
is what I understood. I do know several college professors who had to go
back to school and earn their MFA degree in order to continue teaching, so
an MA in the US isn't much use today I guess, that's why I hadn't heard of
it. Luckily, I won't have to be faced with that problem for a while, since I
*did* get an MFA.
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Henry Miller wrote in message <20000528145720.893$3...@newsreader.com>...
:Well, let me finish this discussion. The details about degrees may be of
:interest to some.
:
:"Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
:
:Dan Fox:
:> :By the way, nearly all college and university teachers, both adjunct and
:> :regular faculty, in art, music, dance, etc., do not have doctorates,
:> :just MFA or MA degrees. Most adjunct faculty are working artists. You
:> :now must have an MFA or MA to get a tenure-track job at most schools,
:> :but this is a fairly recent development.
:
:Scarlett:
:> This fairly recent development was voted in by College Art Association in
:> the early 70s. The MFA/BFA degree has been offered since the 50s. An MA,
:> at this time is NOT offered as an art degree, unless it is Art History.
:> An MA in Art History (in the US) is 30 credit hours and to teach Art
:> History in a college or university one must have a PhD. degree and be
:> published. In any studio classes one must have an MFA degree which is 60
:> graduate level credit hours and is a terminal degree.
:
:You are correct. At the time I got my masters (West Virginia University,
:1971), not all colleges and universities offered an MFA. Some offered MA
:degrees in art, dance, music, etc. I don't know if there were formal
:differences in the degrees. Since that time, the MFA has become the
:standard. I doubt if any institutions offer an MA in art now. Art History,
:as you pointed out, has an entirely different degree structure and set of
:requirements for teaching. Things have changed in 30 years.
:
:> This is required at any university I've ever been aware of, certainly
:> those that have accreditation. I was mislead. You did NOT say Harvard. I
:> apologize.
:>
:> You said Yale. Perhaps it was a joke. I took it seriously.
:
:I taught a semester at Yale as an adjunct in the early 70's, filling in
:for an adjunct friend who had to take a semester off. Nothing much, really,
:but it made such a good smart-ass comeback for Mani that I couldn't resist.
:I had no idea my slightest posts were scrutinized, evaluated, saved, etc.,
:etc. What a joke!
:
:
:
:> (beginning of original message)
:> ________________________________________
:>
:> Subject: Re: Back to School
:> From: danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox)
:> Date: 1999/10/06
:> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
:> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
:>
:> > Your work doesn't even reach the hobby level. I suggest you teach at
:> > Yale.
:>
:> I have.
:>
:> --
:> Dan
:>
:>
:
:--
:Henry
Alison A Raimes
Hahahaha ! you can stop being Henry Miller now, Dan. You were spotted on
the first post anyway. I love the way you are cancelling your posts, but
sometimes the newsreader picks up before it's cancelled - we got your
mistake when you posted your reply by Henry Miller writing as Dan Fox.
Good try though. It wouldn't be *truth* you are trying to depart from by
any chance ?
Erik A. Mattila
Just peeked at your web site - I think an update is due. And you still
haven't done anything with 'writings.' Are you a procrastinator? (like me?)
"Hey Ma, I think I'll fix the steps this year!"
I'm curious -- what paper are you using for your acrylics?
Anyway, hope all is well with you.
Hey, a PhD in Art History is more work than (I'll bet) you would care to do,
old age or no. It can be awfully distracting. Think of it this way:
Fairfield Porter settled for a MA.:-)
Best regards,
Erik
Dan Fox wrote:
> "Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> > My sincerest apologies Dan, Henry, etc.
>
> Accepted.
>
> and no, I haven't saved,
> > investigated, etc. your comments, but a Yale professor would indeed be
> > memorable simply because we don't get many here of that caliber! You
> > explained it perfectly and what I mistook for untruthfulness was simply a
> > time-warp. You did NOT ever say you were qualified to teach art NOW,
> > which is what I understood.
>
> It was an honest misunderstanding. I'd forgotten the post, to tell you the
> truth. My teaching days do seem like yesterday, so I probably gave the
> impression that I'd taught recently. I have taught privately since then,
> but it's not the same thing.
>
> I do know several college professors who had
> > to go back to school and earn their MFA degree in order to continue
> > teaching, so an MA in the US isn't much use today I guess, that's why I
> > hadn't heard of it. Luckily, I won't have to be faced with that problem
> > for a while, since I *did* get an MFA.
>
> Yeah, I've heard that, too, and it's a shame. I doubt that the substance of
> the degrees are different (would appreciate hearing from anyone who knows
> the differences between the old MA in art and the MFA). You're lucky to
> have the right degree. I have no need or desire to teach now, so it would
> be a lot of time and money for nothing for me. Maybe a PhD in art history
> for my old age (grin).
Jaxart
>Yeah, I've heard that, too, and it's a shame. I doubt that the substance of
>the degrees are different (would appreciate hearing from anyone who knows
>the differences between the old MA in art and the MFA).
The difference is in the studio courses required for the MFA.
MA degrees are conferred on those who are taking the teaching
route for K12 in the USA. And for those who are following
other than studio art routes such as art historians, conservators,
curators, musicology, theater, etc. Most schools conferring MFAs want
professors or instructors who have similar studio experience.
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
Scarlett
credit hours. I don't know what is studied.
MFAs require 45 graduate credit hours in studio and 15 graduate credit hours
in art history. The thesis is a solo exhibition. Some schools (the one I
went to) require also a published written work for the art history segment.
It is a terminal degree and enables one to a tenure-track position at any
university. (Not that that happens....)
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Jaxart wrote in message <39367...@oracle.zianet.com>...
:In article <20000531165417.408$0...@newsreader.com>, danf...@yahoo.com
:
tra...@pipeline.com
Are you one of those Goodart people? No, I think you may even have
been one of those involved in the catalogue, no?
Are you also an Ayn Rand type?
Tracy
mdeli
Doesn't interest me
>
>Tracy
I suspect you are a bore who has nothing much to say.
Ulrich Mayring
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:41:24 GMT, tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >Are you also an Ayn Rand type?
> Doesn't interest me
>
> >
> >Tracy
>
> I suspect you are a bore who has nothing much to say.
Pretty powerful contribution there, mdeli.
Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring
u...@123.org