Newbie art question.
Hugo Drax
nothing but a white canvas and some random splashes of paint or nothing but
some vertical or horizontal lines on them, an example I stumbled across that
will my my point clear is this site http://www.danfoxart.com/
I am not sure if this is a Joke/Spoof site or if this is for real but most
of the stuff looks like Elementary School student artwork or just someone
passing a brush a few times on a canvas. Why would someone pay money for
this style of art when all you need to do is get a canvas for a few bucks
and some paint and just draw some lines or drops some random splashes of
paint on it.
ie the Self Portraits??? a perfect example of dabbing a camelhair and
streaking across white canvas.
Miscellaneous is a perfect example of the minimal of work possible
Rio Series is the stuff I see in Parents refrigerator doors.
I also noticed the college and extensive gallery shows which is amazing,
Like I said either this is a spoof art site or this is for real??
I have seen similar stuff in museums though. Anyways I am real curious to
understand this since I find it hard to grasp the situation regarding this
type of art and how they display in galleries.
Dilettante
You are not obligated to like a piece regardless of its price,
exhibition location, or reputation among others. Choose art that
satisfies you, whether you are able to verbalise this feeling or not.
Many people feel as you do that they are not able to understand modern
art because the meticulous technique that seems to be evident in
classical realist art is missing from modern, especially abstract
expressionist, work.
A piece may look like a child or a dog could do it but with serious
good artists, most of the work goes on in the studio in working out
the vision and method and is not evident on the canvas. the important
thing is often the idea the work expresses rather than the materials
or the method. But if you think anyone could do it, then try to do it
yourself. Compare what you have done with other work that the art
community says is good.
To me, a lot of the pieces on the website you gave are old business,
and some of them are too much like Franz Kline, whom I can understand
but do not find very pleasant.
The value and reputation of pieces is given to them by other artists,
art critics, museum curators, and others working in the field. The
reason you see a piece in the media or a gallery is because other
professionals in the field have already said this is good piece.
In order to understand modern art it is important to know the theory
behind it. Fine art is like opera an acquired taste, unless you study
up you may never understand it. Modern art pieces, like all fine art,
are based on theories about expression and picture making that went
before. Sometimes artists will reject a certain style just because it
was a previous style and they wish to create new standards.
Two books you might look at are "Form, Space, and Vision" by Graham
Collier; and "The Art of Color" by Johannes Itten. Both of these were
written as textbooks for classes they taught, but they can show you a
lot about why artists today do what they do. They are not easy reading
though.
Dilettante
Dilettante
G*rd*n
It seems that you have already construed non-representational
art in a certain way ("random splashes of paint", etc.), and
this will make it difficult to understand that work in any
other way. It might not be worth the effort. There is
plenty of art out there which obeys the rules you apparently
desire artists to observe.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
John Llort
>
> It seems that you have already construed non-representational
> art in a certain way ("random splashes of paint", etc.), and
> this will make it difficult to understand that work in any
> other way. It might not be worth the effort. There is
> plenty of art out there which obeys the rules you apparently
> desire artists to observe.
>
> --
I never mentioned forcing any rules or ideas but it just seems like the
material that is being shown is devoid of any emotion or any form of passion
or effort whatsoever. I can buy a canvas and draw 8 black lines across it
and hang it up on the wall, In that case why not make the lines angled to be
a little different does this make me a valid artist now where I can put my
works up at the MOMA? since I did the same thing without putting a bit of
thought into it. For example looking at Bernard Buffet's Femme au verre de
vin 1955 for example I can feel the emotions jumping out of that picture but
looking at Dan Foxes self portrait (stripes of paint) it does nothing for
me, totally devoid of anything, no passion no feeling not a bit of anything
it is just an inert image of a few lines of paint. I like art I can connect
with an feel emotions with, almost like a connection with the artists state
of mind or whatever he was thinking. Random scribbles and blank canvases
mean nothing why not get a computer and connect it to a paintbrush and have
it do fractal and other random works It is the same thing in my book.
John Llort
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.04012...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for the detailed answer, I guess you are correct. I was never trained
in the visual arts or come from high society where maybe this stuff does
well as room decoration etc.. I do think the working class (me included)
will never "Get" this kind of art since it just does nothing for me in
particular emotionally and intellectually.
Another question who decides who is considered a good artist and gets the
displays at MOMA and other galleries? is there like some sort of weeding out
process a committee that decides what is accepted as art (certified?) and
what is not. How do they prevent the galleries and the market from being
flooded by others getting blank canvases throwing some paints or drawing
some lines and calling it art? I would imagine there is a system that
determines who gets recognition and who does not. This would I imagine
prevent a market flood and depreciation/price crash of existing works.
Andy Dingley
<hugo...@viiphoto.com> wrote:
>I noticed art in galleries that have large pricetags on them and the work is
>nothing but a white canvas and some random splashes of paint
As Warhol said, "If you think technique is meaning, you may find me
very simple". One of my favourite recent abstract pieces is "The
Rhythm of the Trees". Interesting artist too - I'm sure you can google
for the work.
But the existence of good abstract art doesn't excuse the unimportance
of some not-so-good.
Iluvbirdys
material that is being shown is devoid of any emotion or any form of passion
or effort whatsoever. I can buy a canvas and draw 8 black lines across it
and hang it up on the wall, In that case why not make the lines angled to be
a little different does this make me a valid artist now where I can put my
works up at the MOMA? since I did the same thing without putting a bit of
thought into it. For example looking at Bernard Buffet's Femme au verre de
vin 1955 for example I can feel the emotions jumping out of that picture but
looking at Dan Foxes self portrait (stripes of paint) it does nothing for
me, totally devoid of anything, no passion no feeling not a bit of anything
it is just an inert image of a few lines of paint. I like art I can connect
with an feel emotions with, almost like a connection with the artists state
of mind or whatever he was thinking. Random scribbles and blank canvases
mean nothing why not get a computer and connect it to a paintbrush and have
it do fractal and other random works It is the same thing in my book.>>
Hey there,
I understand where you're coming from definitely.. but hopefully, there is a
reason behind them for doing what they do. I think if they are able to prove
themselves as proficient painters beforehand, then doing work they do now, i.e.
the "splashes of paint" can be acceptable. Kind of like how a band has to make
a name for themselves first, and once they have the respect, they can either
get away with making a song that isn't as good, or, a song that isn't as good
can be understood that maybe there was a reason behind it for doing it, for
example, more simply. But they're accepted, because there is the knowledge
there that the band isn't only capable of mediocre works. I'm not saying that
the painter's work because it looks simple is only mediocre.. actually there
may just be a very deep, thoughtful meaning behind it. And maybe, even if they
hadn't otherwise proven themselves technically efficient, it's still ok. As
for me, I would feel I needed the skills and the thought to feel successful.
But here's another question: How do we ever know if it is just merely splashes
of paint, or if there is strong meaning behind the painting?
DNALJM
>in the visual arts or come from high society where maybe this stuff does
>well as room decoration etc.. I do think the working class (me included)
>will never "Get" this kind of art since it just does nothing for me in
particular emotionally and intellectually.
A lot of people who are educated feel that these works have devolved
into obtuse jokes whose aim is to defraud the gullible and line the coffers of
the manipulators who make them. Suppport a working figurative artist of today
by visiting a tranditional gallery or perhaps buying an inexpensive drawing or
study. These works function on many levels, using a set of skills that have
evolved over centuries to inspire feeling and thought. There are plenty of
people who have graduated from the Yale school of Art and the academies who
think modern art is garbage. The worst thing that modern artsts do is to play
the elitist card. They will tell you that their streaks and smears have
composition and feeling but traditional works have these too-with a lot more to
hang your hat on.
Jane
Hugo Drax
> A lot of people who are educated feel that these works have
devolved
> into obtuse jokes whose aim is to defraud the gullible and line the
coffers of
> the manipulators who make them. Suppport a working figurative artist of
today
> by visiting a tranditional gallery or perhaps buying an inexpensive
drawing or
> study. These works function on many levels, using a set of skills that
have
> evolved over centuries to inspire feeling and thought. There are plenty
of
> people who have graduated from the Yale school of Art and the academies
who
> think modern art is garbage. The worst thing that modern artsts do is to
play
> the elitist card. They will tell you that their streaks and smears have
> composition and feeling but traditional works have these too-with a lot
more to
> hang your hat on.
>
> Jane
>
> http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
I see the point, now how long before someone catches on?
Bob C
> I'm not saying that
> the painter's work because it looks simple is only mediocre.. actually there
> may just be a very deep, thoughtful meaning behind it. And maybe, even if they
> hadn't otherwise proven themselves technically efficient, it's still ok. ...
> How do we ever know if it is just merely splashes
> of paint, or if there is strong meaning behind the painting?
I paint landscapes both realistically and abstract, usually of the same
scenes. The realistic ones take more time to complete the painting and
more clearly demonstrate my craftsmanship skills, but are in most ways
easier than the abstract versions.
With the realistic one, it's fairly easy to visualize what I want to
accomplish and if I put enough time and concentration into it, I can
predictably accomplish it. When I abstract the landscape, I'm trying to
figure out how to turn mood and feeling into image, which is much more
difficult and nothing for me to compare it to when trying to adjust it
and get it where I want. It would be easy if I were just trying to make
a pleasing combination of shapes and colors, but that is never my goal
(although it is a requirement, since the landscape was chosen in the
first place largely because of those characteristics).
I sometimes do as many as 40 or 50 preliminary sketches and small quick
paintings trying to work the abstract composition out. I rarely do more
than 2 or 3 for a realistic one. I often have to abandon a work because
it just doesn't work out. That almost never happens with realistic ones.
The abstract ones may look like the paint was crudely applied, but I
have to fall back on all of my experience to know what type of crude
application will create the affect I need, and how to make it say what I
want it to say and not just be a meaningless crude mark.
A person looking at the final results will only see a realistic
landscape which may have taken 10-20 hours using very controlled
brushwork and an abstract one which may have taken only 3-4 hours with
crude brushwork. They will see a realistic painting which readily
satisfies there expectations with no effort at all on there part. The
abstract painting may require a bit more effort on the part of the
viewer to see the beauty and read the message which is being
communicated. In other words, it requires more effort to see the hours
and hours which went into the work but are not physically a part of it.
The more abstract the work, the more effort required.
Naturally, we don't want to put in that effort unless we think there is
going to be a pay off. So we rely on the world of professional critics
and curators and jurors to try to recognize those artists who are truly
putting hard work and thought into their works, and those who are just
using avant-garde ideas as an excuse for avoiding that. It takes much
more than just one work to do this, and this is why it requires the
artist to build up a body of their work and demonstrate their dedication
in order to be accepted. An artist who from the very beginning is only
showing the last few hours of work put into any piece is not giving the
art world much to go on. Personally, I think the art world does a pretty
good job of weeding out most of the pretenders, with the exception of a
few who happen to be excellent self-promoters - and that's a problem
experienced by virtually every area of human endeavor.
- Bob C.
Dilettante
> > A lot of people who are educated feel that these works have
> devolved
> > into obtuse jokes whose aim is to defraud the gullible and line the
> coffers of
> > the manipulators who make them.
Just because "there are a lot of people, etc.," who feel this way or
that does not mean that it is true or that you have to believe it.
Ansel Adams never thought the street or candid photography done by
people like Cartier-Bresson or Leonard Frank was art, but now it is an
accepted form of art. Any art form has to be defended by its
supporters as a way to convey feelings and a fun thing to think about
and do. Fine art, including abstract art, is a form of adult fun.
Some people never accepted Rock and Roll as a form of music. Some
people never accepted jazz. Do you want to side with such people who
simply hate modern art forms and continually run back to the past.
Just because classical art shows you recognizable objects from the
real world does not mean it is good. There is plenty of junk realism
out there--painters like Alma Tadema and Maxfield Parrish. There is a
whole industry catering to people who wish we could go back to some
golden age in the past that never really existed. Second-rate artist
who have learned realist technique grind out nostalgic scenes of
farmhouses, and sunsets and wagon wheels.
All art forms evolve. Rock has evolved in several styles since
Elvis. Jazz has evolved. Painting has evolved into the styles we have
now partly as a response to what is going on in society.
If anyone tells you classical realism can do exactly the same thing
that modern art can do should look at Blue Poles by Pollock, or a
Kandinsky piece, or a Picasso piece, then find a classical piece that
says the same thing. Gorgione's "The Storm
The way to know if people are blindly prejudiced or just screaming
out of fear is to look at either group. You don't hear the modern art
people condemning the classical artists. but you do hear some of the
latter constantly ranting about the former. modern art people
recognise, if they have any brains, the genius of Giotto and Leonardo.
Saying one is good and the other is a fraud is like saying
everything since Impressionism was created by a bunch of con men. That
is very unlikely.
An example of second rate classical painting are some of the
paintings by Rubens. All the women look alike, all the same fat
bodies. One of his works on Hercules is an exact copy of another he
did or perhaps many because this work obviously sold so he did one
after another. The brushwork is so bad it you can see through it.
Rubens developed an easy technique. He was a commercial painter with a
gimmick.
Dilettante
G*rd*n
> > It seems that you have already construed non-representational
> > art in a certain way ("random splashes of paint", etc.), and
> > this will make it difficult to understand that work in any
> > other way. It might not be worth the effort. There is
> > plenty of art out there which obeys the rules you apparently
> > desire artists to observe.
"John Llort" <jll...@aol.com>:
> I never mentioned forcing any rules or ideas but it just seems like the
> material that is being shown is devoid of any emotion or any form of passion
> or effort whatsoever. I can buy a canvas and draw 8 black lines across it
> and hang it up on the wall, In that case why not make the lines angled to be
> a little different does this make me a valid artist now where I can put my
> works up at the MOMA? since I did the same thing without putting a bit of
> thought into it. For example looking at Bernard Buffet's Femme au verre de
> vin 1955 for example I can feel the emotions jumping out of that picture but
> looking at Dan Foxes self portrait (stripes of paint) it does nothing for
> me, totally devoid of anything, no passion no feeling not a bit of anything
> it is just an inert image of a few lines of paint. I like art I can connect
> with an feel emotions with, almost like a connection with the artists state
> of mind or whatever he was thinking.
It does appear that certain rules about art could be derived
from what you say, e.g. it should at least be somewhat
representational. As I said, if you feel that way, there is
plenty of art in the world, including work being done this
very day, which satisfies this requirement. There are other
people, for example the fans of Barnett Newman, who are
profoundly moved by his work, which consists of not much more
than a flat stripe or two straight up and down a flat background.
I don't see much in it, either, but we may be missing something.
See the thread at
groups.google.com/groups?selm=f6243c1f.0301150050.197e3a3%40posting.google.com
"John Llort" <jll...@aol.com>:
> Random scribbles and blank canvases
> mean nothing why not get a computer and connect it to a paintbrush and have
> it do fractal and other random works It is the same thing in my book.
In fact I saw a construction not long ago which randomly moved
a paintbrush around. However, instead of applying paint to
a canvas or board, it was innocent of paint, faced the viewer,
and moved across a transparent plastic or glass pane, so that
the viewer had the experience, I suppose, of "being" the
canvas. Very clever, but a bit dry in more ways than one, I
think.
Marc Sabatella
> material that is being shown is devoid of any emotion or any form of
passion
> or effort whatsoever. I can buy a canvas and draw 8 black lines across
it
> and hang it up on the wall, In that case why not make the lines angled
to be
> a little different does this make me a valid artist now where I can
put my
> works up at the MOMA? since I did the same thing without putting a bit
of
> thought into it. For example looking at Bernard Buffet's Femme au
verre de
> vin 1955 for example I can feel the emotions jumping out of that
picture but
> looking at Dan Foxes self portrait (stripes of paint) it does nothing
for
> me, totally devoid of anything, no passion no feeling not a bit of
anything
> it is just an inert image of a few lines of paint. I like art I can
connect
> with an feel emotions with, almost like a connection with the artists
state
> of mind or whatever he was thinking.
This may all well be true, but realize it says as much about you as it
does the art. Inanimate objects like paintings have no inherent passion
to them. The fact that you perceive passion in some art and not in
others is a reflection of the communication between the artist and you,
using the painting as a medium, and if you fail to get something out of
what the artist is saying, that isn't necessarily his fault. If others
*do* get something out of this art, then why not simply accept that your
tastes differ from theirs and move on?
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
keith o'connor
question a representational work no matter how badly done. You bring up
Rubens as an example of poor quality art. But ask the average person to
choose between Rubens and a half dozen black stripes and we know what the
response will be.
Like it or not modern art is difficult if not impossible to defend. I like
some of it but not all of it. I like some representational but not all.
I agree with most of Jane's position. In my lectures I try to introduce
modern art (Hoffmann in particular) in conjunction with representational art
as part of style categories which have common application to what appears
different but is structurally similar in composition.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.04012...@posting.google.com...
Mani Deli
>It is easier to question the value of a work having a number of stripes than
>question a representational work no matter how badly done.
--or how well its done.
> You bring up
>Rubens as an example of poor quality art. But ask the average person to
>choose between Rubens and a half dozen black stripes and we know what the
>response will be.
Any artzy fartzy here ever wonder why?
>Like it or not modern art is difficult if not impossible to defend.
So what's the million miles of pseudo-intellectual gas defending it
all about?
>I like
>some of it but not all of it. I like some representational but not all.
So does most every abody.
>I agree with most of Jane's position. In my lectures I try to introduce
>modern art (Hoffmann in particular)
Sounds like art school failures are into another boring hour.
>in conjunction with representational art
>as part of style categories which have common application to what appears
>different but is structurally similar in composition.
---whatever that means.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Paul Mesken
wrote:
> "keith Tinhorn o'connor" wrote:
>
>>It is easier to question the value of a work having a number of stripes than
>>question a representational work no matter how badly done.
>
>--or how well its done.
>
>> You bring up
>>Rubens as an example of poor quality art. But ask the average person to
>>choose between Rubens and a half dozen black stripes and we know what the
>>response will be.
>
>Any artzy fartzy here ever wonder why?
Yes, Rubens used more colors :-)
Dilettante
> Like it or not modern art is difficult if not impossible to defend.
The art community, like many fields, is garrisoned by its own history
and technology. The average person cannot manage a space exploration
program, but many average people support space exploration. Western
art cannot return to a previous style: return to them would simply
mean evolving out of them again. This does not deny the fact the
representational work is now in vogue again.
Jane defeated her argument by saying the much classical realism does
the same thing as much modern art. If this is true then why would the
former be preferable to the latter?
Dilettante
Dilettante
>
> I never mentioned forcing any rules or ideas but it just seems like the
> material that is being shown is devoid of any emotion or any form of passion
> or effort whatsoever.
You could probably do a passable copy of a Jackson Pollock drip and
action painting now but at the time it was a breakthough in painting.
His movement attempted to express emotion more directly in painting.
No classical realist painting can possibly achieve this, just as no
symphonic musician can do jazz improvisation.
The field of non-objective abstracts is so large that this description
is almost worthless. If we are talking about hard edge painting, then
try making a form on paper or canvas. Does the form sit there like a
rock or does it seem to float or fly? Does it move to the right or
left? Do you want it to? Could you make a blob on paper or canvas
move if you wanted it to?
What colour would you give it? Would you give it one colour or two?
What colour would the background be? Would the colours make you or
someone else feel good neutral or uncomfortable? How long would it
take you in studying colour theory and working on the painting to come
up with colours that made you and other people feel good when looking
at the painting?
What if you did not start with the lines or blobs on paper but with
the colours first? Would you use light or dark colours, red or blue,
warm or cool? How big an area would you give to the warm colour, and
the cool?
Do colours and forms hold any emotional connotation to you? How about
large dark heavy square form? Or a thin form? a horizontal form, or a
vertical one? These have no meanining to you?
Dilettante
Dilettante
>
> I sometimes do as many as 40 or 50 preliminary sketches and small quick
> paintings trying to work the abstract composition out.
I would say I do at least twenty preliminary line and colour sketches
for an abstract or expressionist piece. The style is irrelevant to the
amount of prep I do because I want to have explored as many of the
possibilities of the image before committing to a canvas, and I don't
want to start a canvas without having my plan worked out.
In doing the prelim sketches, one idea leads to another and another,
so that it can become a bottomless pit. At one point I will just
arbitrarily stop doing prelim sketches because something-- not my mind
--will tell me I have exhausted the idea. The canvas then ideally
should be the result but more working out actually goes on on the
canvas nevertheless.
Dilettante
G*rd*n
> > material that is being shown is devoid of any emotion or any form of passion
> > or effort whatsoever.
hu...@myself.com (Dilettante):
> You could probably do a passable copy of a Jackson Pollock drip and
> action painting now but at the time it was a breakthough in painting.
> ...
Before saying that, first try it. Some of that sort of thing
can be a lot more difficult to imitate than you may realize. As
it is, you're confirming John's impression that such work is
merely a intellectual exercise, a trick someone thinks of
before someone else.
Throwing or dripping paint on a canvas was not invented by
Pollock, by the way.
Dilettante
> Before saying that, first try it. Some of that sort of thing
> can be a lot more difficult to imitate than you may realize. As
> it is, you're confirming John's impression that such work is
> merely a intellectual exercise, a trick someone thinks of
> before someone else.
I have been trying it for several decades now. Whether one can copy
the thing exactly is not really the point, but the poster to whom I
responded (not you by the way, take note for next time) might benefit
from the exercise.
The point about modern art is precisely that it is about concepts
rather than execution. A concept is a bit more complex and profound
and hard to arrive at much less communicate than a mere trick.
>
> Throwing or dripping paint on a canvas was not invented by
> Pollock, by the way.
Not really important to my point, but I would be curious as to the
true inventor of "action painting" although Hofmann might be in the
list, as would Still definitely.
D.
Mani Deli
>"John Llort" <jll...@aol.com> wrote in message news:<bup7a0$klta7$2...@ID-155262.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>> I never mentioned forcing any rules or ideas but it just seems like the
>> material that is being shown is devoid of any emotion or any form of passion
>> or effort whatsoever.
Artzy fartzies whose artwork is a failure endlessly refer to emotion,
passion and double talk about composition because one can't clearly
refute vacuous babble. Its an excuse for at least four years of Modern
Academic Art instruction.
>You could probably do a passable copy of a Jackson Pollock drip and
>action painting now but at the time it was a breakthough in painting.
It wasn't, floor covering and depictions of marble preceded it. The
only breakthrough was to try to make the public believe that it was
great art.
>His movement attempted to express emotion more directly in painting.
Has no more to do with emotion than any design work.
>No classical realist painting can possibly achieve this, just as no
>symphonic musician can do jazz improvisation.
-not true
>The field of non-objective abstracts is so large that this description
>is almost worthless.
Its totally worthless.
Lets see the emotion and passion in your long awaited elephant
masterpiece here.
Mani Deli
>>the (Dilettante):
>> You could probably do a passable copy of a Jackson Pollock drip and
>> action painting now but at the time it was a breakthough in painting.
>> ...
>Before saying that, first try it. Some of that sort of thing
>can be a lot more difficult to imitate than you may realize.
-to someone who doesn't know anything about technique
Apparently even the Dilattante knows this.
> As
>it is, you're confirming John's impression that such work is
>merely a intellectual exercise, a trick someone thinks of
>before someone else.
Which in terms of salesmanship exactly that.
>Throwing or dripping paint on a canvas was not invented by
>Pollock, by the way.
Tell this unmentionable fact to the Modern Academic fundamentalists
G*rd*n
> > Before saying that, first try it. Some of that sort of thing
> > can be a lot more difficult to imitate than you may realize. As
> > it is, you're confirming John's impression that such work is
> > merely a intellectual exercise, a trick someone thinks of
> > before someone else.
hu...@myself.com (Dilettante):
> I have been trying it for several decades now. Whether one can copy
> the thing exactly is not really the point, but the poster to whom I
> responded (not you by the way, take note for next time) might benefit
> from the exercise.
I'm not talking about copying, I'm talking about imitating
the technique and getting a similar effect.
hu...@myself.com (Dilettante):
> The point about modern art is precisely that it is about concepts
> rather than execution. A concept is a bit more complex and profound
> and hard to arrive at much less communicate than a mere trick.
Do you mean Modernistic art? Some contemporary art embodies
extremely sophisticated, very slick technique.
When I look at the conceptual art on display here in New York,
I don't see much that rises to the level where it could be
called "complex and profound and hard to arrive at". Many
artists, I think, are far less brilliant intellectually than
they think they are, and would do well to keep to intuitive
and emotional expression, and leave conceptualism alone.
It's like free verse: it looks very easy, but it turns out
to be extremely difficult to do anything memorable in, and
the worst thing is that those who are treating us to gabble
or clichés are largely unaware that that's what they're
doing.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > Throwing or dripping paint on a canvas was not invented by
> > Pollock, by the way.
hu...@myself.com (Dilettante):
> Not really important to my point, but I would be curious as to the
> true inventor of "action painting" although Hofmann might be in the
> list, as would Still definitely.
In the realm of throwing stuff at the canvas, I have seen a
painting by Picasso, dated I think before 1910, of which the
top 2/3 or 3/4 is a rather delicate, ghostly fin-de-sičcle sort
of portrait of a woman; on the lowest part of the painting,
however, the artist has thrown something like turpentine, more
or less at random, although most of it is in one splash.
Since Picasso seems to have proceeded by imitating techniques
and styles of other people, I'd guess that he saw someone else
do it first and wanted to show that he could do it better.
I have heard that sometimes Van Gogh would throw paint at
the canvas, or squeeze it on the canvas directly out of
tubes, and then smear it around with his hands, but he was
supposed to be a bit overwrought at times so maybe that
doesn't count. Of course, we could account his severed ear
to be a bit of conceptual art not fully appreciated at the
time. There's a concept for you!
If you go back to the birth of depiction, such as cave and
sand paintings, you find that the pictures were part of
religious or magical practice which probably also involved
ritual movements and gestures.
Chris
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:1012rih...@corp.supernews.com...
> This may all well be true, but realize it says as much about you as it
> does the art. Inanimate objects like paintings have no inherent passion
> to them. The fact that you perceive passion in some art and not in
> others is a reflection of the communication between the artist and you,
> using the painting as a medium, and if you fail to get something out of
> what the artist is saying, that isn't necessarily his fault. If others
> *do* get something out of this art, then why not simply accept that your
> tastes differ from theirs and move on?
>
Because art goes beyond just being a matter of taste. Art is visual
language, and as such says a good deal about the philosophy and culture of
the artist in not just what is expressed, but how it was expressed.
I find a good deal of abstract art simply distasteful, celebrating, as it
does, incompetence, a lack of vision, and above all intellectual timidity.
It is a retreat from logic and humanism and the willful abandonment of the
acceptance of risk involved in communicating intelligently with other
people.
In terms of a language, I'd say it lies somewhere between Esperanto (in its
essential inorganicness, and divorcement from everyday reality) and newspeak
(in that as it is by and large deliberately meaningless, so that meaning
imported to a work becomes an issue of politics and power ).
And for those who feel similarly, a good deal of modern art needs to be
ridiculed; that's an active defense against an intellectual canker. It's the
vitamin-C of the art world.
Cheers;
Chris
Marc Sabatella
> > If others
> > *do* get something out of this art, then why not simply accept that
your
> > tastes differ from theirs and move on?
>
> Because art goes beyond just being a matter of taste.
I don't believe that, and am quite certain you cannot prove it.
> Art is visual
> language, and as such says a good deal about the philosophy and
culture of
> the artist in not just what is expressed, but how it was expressed.
Well, this I do agree with - or would, if you amend the first clause to
say "art is a set of visual languages". This fits my point well - just
because a given viewer does not respond to a piece of art does not mean
there is not something valid being expressed. It could well be simply
that the viewer does not understand the particular language employed.
> I find a good deal of abstract art simply distasteful, celebrating, as
it
> does, incompetence, a lack of vision, and above all intellectual
timidity.
> It is a retreat from logic and humanism and the willful abandonment of
the
> acceptance of risk involved in communicating intelligently with other
> people.
To someone who does not understand the language being used, I can see
how it might appear that way. But this is my point. Again, I see this
as being a reflection of the observer not understanding the type of
competence required to make the art.
I would agree that much abstract art emphasizes creativty over technical
mastery, in the same way the reverse tends to be true for realistic art.
Usually, the best art is that which has both attributes, but still,
different genres reward the different skills differently. Just because
abstract art does not require the exact same skill set as realistic does
not mean it is celebrating incompetence, retreatuing from logic, or
abandoning risk. That's just plain silly.
Mani Deli
>"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote:
>> Art is visual language, and as such says a good deal about the philosophy and
>culture of the artist in not just what is expressed, but how it was expressed.
If art is considered a language it is only that in some metaphoric
sense.
You write, "as such it says"
>Well, this I do agree with - or would, if you amend the first clause to
>say "art is a set of visual languages".
One hears the"visual language" phraise often but you never get an
explanation. I believe this is because there is no such thing.
>> I find a good deal of abstract art simply distasteful, celebrating, as it
>> does, incompetence, a lack of vision, and above all intellectual
>timidity.
>> It is a retreat from logic and humanism and the willful abandonment of
>the
>> acceptance of risk involved in communicating intelligently with other
>> people.
>
>To someone who does not understand the language being used,
If you understand just tell us something about it. Bet I get the
usual, no answer. The language of Modern art really is reams of
incomprehensible utterly useless, constantly changing Artspeak. Its a
profession for charlatans.
>I can see
>how it might appear that way. But this is my point. Again, I see this
>as being a reflection of the observer not understanding the type of
>competence required to make the art.
--and I see it as a general excuse for utter bullshit.
> agree that much abstract art emphasizes creativty over technical
>mastery,
--in words only!
> in the same way the reverse tends to be true for realistic art.
>Usually, the best art is that which has both attributes, but still,
>different genres reward the different skills differently. Just because
>abstract art does not require the exact same skill set as realistic does
>not mean it is celebrating incompetence,
The museum variety of modern abstract art is decoration and is
comparable to the commercial variety, but requires little or no
technical skill.
Paul Mesken
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote:
>> I find a good deal of abstract art simply distasteful, celebrating, as it
>> does, incompetence, a lack of vision, and above all intellectual timidity.
>> It is a retreat from logic and humanism and the willful abandonment of the
>> acceptance of risk involved in communicating intelligently with other
>> people.
>
>To someone who does not understand the language being used, I can see
>how it might appear that way. But this is my point. Again, I see this
>as being a reflection of the observer not understanding the type of
>competence required to make the art.
>
>I would agree that much abstract art emphasizes creativty over technical
>mastery, in the same way the reverse tends to be true for realistic art.
>Usually, the best art is that which has both attributes, but still,
>different genres reward the different skills differently. Just because
>abstract art does not require the exact same skill set as realistic does
>not mean it is celebrating incompetence, retreatuing from logic, or
>abandoning risk. That's just plain silly.
I do agree with Chris. A great deal of abstract art fails to
communicate with regular viewers even within the same (sub)culture in
which readily understood visual languages are present . It will not
evoke the intended ideas and/or feelings. This is not necessarily the
fault of the audience. It might be expected from the artist to have
such a mastery of the visual language to communicate effectively with
the intended audience. If he/she makes up an entirely new visual
language which is only understood by him/her (if it isn't a hoax) then
the audience cannot be called incompetent if they, unsurprisingly,
don't "get" it.
IMO Technical mastery is mostly a "redeeming factor" if art isn't
effective (something like : it's dull stuff but at least it was hard
to make :-) Of course realistic art shows typically more technical
mastery. This doesn't make it good art but, I believe, it prevents it
from being bad art.
I believe most art is bad (both abstract and realistic) but at least
realistic art has this redeeming factor which abstract art doesn't
have preventing it from being called "bad art". Because of this it
seems like bad art is mostly abstract.
walnut earl
>I believe most art is bad (both abstract and realistic) but at least
>realistic art has this redeeming factor which abstract art doesn't
>have preventing it from being called "bad art". Because of this it
>seems like bad art is mostly abstract.
Yeah, if I can't see a pony, it's a really bad pixture. I want to see
a pony, damnitall. Abstract art has no ponies. OK?
Glad we got that settled.
Let's move on, shall we?
Paul Mesken
>
>>I believe most art is bad (both abstract and realistic) but at least
>>realistic art has this redeeming factor which abstract art doesn't
>>have preventing it from being called "bad art". Because of this it
>>seems like bad art is mostly abstract.
>
>Yeah, if I can't see a pony, it's a really bad pixture. I want to see
>a pony, damnitall. Abstract art has no ponies. OK?
Look, all art needs to have a pony in it, else it ain't art. It
doesn't need to be readily identifiable, it might be subliminal, it
might even be implicitly refered to but if it ain't got a pony then it
ain't art.
Mani Deli
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/reference_pictures/face2.jpg
Looking forward to the usual Dali rip-off complaint. Anything more
specific this time? Hope you hate the drawing and composition.
>Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>I'm hoping that some day you will figure out that it's possible to mimick
>someone's STYLE, without specifically STEALING from their paintings.
If you read my messages you will see that I figured that out long ago.
Lauri Levanto
Dilettante wrote:
> No classical realist painting can possibly achieve this, just as no
> symphonic musician can do jazz improvisation.
Barock music was about improvisation as much as jazz. I know one particular jazz musician
that records regularly baroc music.
Turner is a good example. Professor in perspective theory, capable of accurate rendering
and did demi-abstarct pieces full of emotion
-lauri
Bob C
>
> One hears the"visual language" phraise often but you never get an
> explanation. I believe this is because there is no such thing.
>
From Webster's Dictionary:
language -
1. a) the expression or communication of thoughts and feelings by means
of vocal sounds, and combinations of such sounds, to which meaning is
attributed
2. any means of expressing or communicating, as gestures, signs, animal
sounds, etc.
visual -
1. of, connected with, or used in seeing
Maybe you should consider purchasing a dictionary to assist in
alleviating your comprehension challenges.
- Bob C.
Bob C
>
> Well, this I do agree with - or would, if you amend the first clause to
> say "art is a set of visual languages". This fits my point well - just
> because a given viewer does not respond to a piece of art does not mean
> there is not something valid being expressed. It could well be simply
> that the viewer does not understand the particular language employed.
>
I agree that art is a language, but I think this point can be even
better understood by thinking about art as being the creative use of
patterns (by pattern, I mean an organization of characteristics and
tendencies, not a repeating visual motif). We accept an object as art
because we recognize in it, or its presentation, patterns which fulfill
the functions we associate with art.
We evaluate the work based on the patterns we are able to recognize and
the lack of those which we expect to find. Traditional art presents
patterns which are easily recognized by all members of a common culture.
Avant-garde art does not. The patterns are not those we have been
conditioned to see naturally without effort. Some artists require us to
make considerable effort to discover what patterns they are offering.
Some works create patterns which are almost entirely unique to themselves.
Pattern recognition is a cognitive skill. Like all cognitive skills, it
can be developed beyond what is acquired naturally if one chooses to do
so. Having someone explain the patterns they see in a work is not the
same thing as being able to recognize them yourself. It is an entirely
personal quesetion whether or not you believe it is worth the effort to
develop these skills in a way which makes you better able to recognize
what modern art is trying to offer. No one can guarantee that developing
these skills will change a person's opinion about modern art. What it
will do, however, is allow one to evaluate a work of art based on what
it has to offer, rather than only being able to criticize it for what it
doesn't.
- Bob C.
Marc Sabatella
> I do agree with Chris. A great deal of abstract art fails to
> communicate with regular viewers even within the same (sub)culture in
> which readily understood visual languages are present .
Assuming by "regular viewers" you mean, *some* viewers, then yes, this
statement is clearly true.
> It will not
> evoke the intended ideas and/or feelings. This is not necessarily the
> fault of the audience. It might be expected from the artist to have
> such a mastery of the visual language to communicate effectively with
> the intended audience.
Indeed. But the set of people who are predisposed to dislike abstract
is *not* the
intended audience.
> If he/she makes up an entirely new visual
> language which is only understood by him/her (if it isn't a hoax) then
> the audience cannot be called incompetent if they, unsurprisingly,
> don't "get" it.
Straw man. This does not describe the vast majority of abstract art.
> I believe most art is bad (both abstract and realistic) but at least
> realistic art has this redeeming factor which abstract art doesn't
> have preventing it from being called "bad art". Because of this it
> seems like bad art is mostly abstract.
I don't think this follows, although certainly for those predisposed to
dislike abstract art,
this is going to be the case. But here's another way of looking at it.
In realistic art, if one of the aesthetic qualities you look for in
evaluating the painting is *how* realistic it is, then a huge chunk of
it fails miserably. Whereas with abstract art, it is harder for the
casual observer to say what specifically is wrong with it. He might not
love it, but it may well look better to him than a poorly executed
realistc piece.
Marc Sabatella
> One hears the"visual language" phraise often but you never get an
> explanation. I believe this is because there is no such thing.
I think rather it is because most folks are clever enough to be able to
figure it out for themselves.
> >To someone who does not understand the language being used,
>
> If you understand just tell us something about it.
Well, as I said, it is a *set* of languages. In order to talk
specifics, I'd need a particular painting - and one that *I* might claim
to understand at some level, but you don't.
Paul Mesken
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
>> I do agree with Chris. A great deal of abstract art fails to
>> communicate with regular viewers even within the same (sub)culture in
>> which readily understood visual languages are present .
>
>Assuming by "regular viewers" you mean, *some* viewers, then yes, this
>statement is clearly true.
>
>> It will not
>> evoke the intended ideas and/or feelings. This is not necessarily the
>> fault of the audience. It might be expected from the artist to have
>> such a mastery of the visual language to communicate effectively with
>> the intended audience.
>
>Indeed. But the set of people who are predisposed to dislike abstract
>is *not* the
>intended audience.
There's also a lot of bad abstract art which fails to communicate with
a majority of abstract art lovers. IMO there's a lot of stuff out
there that simply aims to look like abstract art. Hack artists who
look at good abstract art, feel that it is nothing but some splashes
of paint put randomly on the canvas and "copy" it. Of course, real
abstract artists don't merely "splash" paint around. They put paint
down deliberately to achieve certain effects.
>> If he/she makes up an entirely new visual
>> language which is only understood by him/her (if it isn't a hoax) then
>> the audience cannot be called incompetent if they, unsurprisingly,
>> don't "get" it.
>
>Straw man. This does not describe the vast majority of abstract art.
Well, it depends on where the boundary between abstract and realism is
put. This is fuzzy at best, it's a matter of degree. Are Picasso and
Matisse for example realistic or abstract painters? I would call them
realistic, others would call them abstract, but then again "abstract"
to me means something close to non-representational art (like Rothko,
Pollock, Kandinsky, etc.).
>> I believe most art is bad (both abstract and realistic) but at least
>> realistic art has this redeeming factor which abstract art doesn't
>> have preventing it from being called "bad art". Because of this it
>> seems like bad art is mostly abstract.
>
>I don't think this follows, although certainly for those predisposed to
>dislike abstract art,
>this is going to be the case. But here's another way of looking at it.
>In realistic art, if one of the aesthetic qualities you look for in
>evaluating the painting is *how* realistic it is, then a huge chunk of
>it fails miserably. Whereas with abstract art, it is harder for the
>casual observer to say what specifically is wrong with it. He might not
>love it, but it may well look better to him than a poorly executed
>realistc piece.
Yes, this is true indeed. Even though abstract art might not need
technical mastery at the level of realistic art, it also doesn't need
to "live up" to an example.
G*rd*n
> ...
> say "art is a set of visual languages". This fits my point well - just
> because a given viewer does not respond to a piece of art does not mean
> there is not something valid being expressed. It could well be simply
> that the viewer does not understand the particular language employed.
I thought the point of abstract art, as in Abstract
Expressionism, anyway, was that is sidestepped language.
There was this notion that the plastic arts had become
burdened with rhetoric and narrative -- I'm sure you all
know the rap. Ab-Ex was supposed to break free of all
that. In my wayward youth, when it was still going strong,
I was told that it was, like music, "pure thought".
And I agree, in spite of _The Painted Word_. As far as I can
see, Pollock, Rothko, Mondrian and the other usual suspects
are _not_ dealing with things through language, through
concepts. Before the critics got to work on it, their work
had no story -- it was just what you saw and no more. (I'm
exempting Barnett Newman and others fond of giving poetic
rhetoric about their work here.) Language is usually symbolic
in that it's something that points away from itself to something
else. Some art is supposed to do that, but Ab-Ex was not.
Later, of course, and partly with the condonation and even
connivance of many of these artists, the works were filled up
and overlaid with innumerable words, concepts, meanings and
references. But I'm not referring to that -- that even happened
to Andy Warhol's stuff, which was deliberately even emptier
than Ab-Ex. That has a lot to do with the necessity of
marketing and selling the artist and his work to the well-off
and the bureaucrats who run museums and galleries. Without
a story, they won't buy. However, narrative has little to do
with the way the art was constituted by the people who actually
made it when they made it, at least if we go by what they said
they were doing and by the appearance of the result.
I'd say that, as with Quantum Mechanics, if you think you
understand something like Pollock's "Full Fathom Five" or
"Autumn Rhythm", you don't understand it. If you know you
don't understand it, you're beginning to get it. But that
kind of approach is never going to sell paintings or get you
a degree, so you're not going to hear it where it's
important for paintings to be "important", to be a tool
of self-advancement.
walnut earl
opposing modes of expression.
Virtually all art has an element of abstraction.
from Latin abstrahere, to draw away to draw from
nonobjective vs objective maybe?
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> One hears the"visual language" phraise often but you never get an
>> explanation. I believe this is because there is no such thing.
>
>I think rather it is because most folks are clever enough to be able to
>figure it out for themselves.
I think the claim that there is a "visual language" to any artwork is
a cop-out which most folks aren't even interested in because the
statement is meaningless..
>
>> >To someone who does not understand the language being used,
>>
>> If you understand just tell us something about it.
>
>Well, as I said, it is a *set* of languages.
Good, a language is one among a set of all launguages.
> In order to talk
>specifics, I'd need a particular painting - and one that *I* might claim
>to understand at some level, but you don't.
>
I don't UNDERSTAND any language that relates to any painting what so
ever.
So choose any painting you claim to UNDERSTAND and give us an
explanation that shows that it is expressing a language. Please note
that a description of subject matter is not a language nor are
theories of color and composition etc.
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
> Whereas with abstract art, it is harder for the
>casual observer to say what specifically is wrong with it. He might not
>love it, but it may well look better to him than a poorly executed
>realistc piece.
>
True. No skill realism looks far worse than most modern abstraction
because anyone who isn't blind senses its glaring errors.
That is why the practically nothing content of modern abstraction
usually gets a slightly longer less painful glance. Good design of any
sort attracts a viewer. You can check this out at Walmart.
Mani Deli
> Traditional art presents
>patterns which are easily recognized by all members of a common culture.
> Avant-garde art does not. The patterns are not those we have been
>conditioned to see naturally without effort.
Modern abstraction is a form of decorative art. Pure abstraction is
nothing new. The only thing unique about tso called avant-garde art is
that it is the only stuff of the period allowed into the museums.
Decorative abstract art is all over the place and recognized as good
or bad design by most anyone.
> Some artists require us to
>make considerable effort to discover what patterns they are offering.
>Some works create patterns which are almost entirely unique to themselves.
All artwork that is any good induces the viewers interest. There is no
requirement. If many viewers show great interest for long periods of
time the work is often labeled as art.
Marc Sabatella
> I thought the point of abstract art, as in Abstract
> Expressionism, anyway, was that is sidestepped language.
> There was this notion that the plastic arts had become
> burdened with rhetoric and narrative -- I'm sure you all
> know the rap. Ab-Ex was supposed to break free of all
> that. In my wayward youth, when it was still going strong,
> I was told that it was, like music, "pure thought".
Well, there are still going to be basic conventions of aesthetics that
most artists will tend to hold to - and this is equally if not not mroe
true in music. Think of it this way - a whole lot of realistic painters
will tell you that what interests them about a painting are its abstract
qualities - how well the design, color, and other aesthetic elements
work independently of the specifics of what is being depicted. If we
are to take them at face value on this - and I see no reason not to,
because it is very much how I think as a representational painter - then
it would seem that abstract art can be seen using all those same
criteria. Unless you grew up in some alternate reality where you werre
not exposed to all these traditional aesthetics, they are likely going
to be part of your world view even when painting non-representationally,
and indeed, much of the abstract art I see seems to show this.
> And I agree, in spite of _The Painted Word_. As far as I can
> see, Pollock, Rothko, Mondrian and the other usual suspects
> are _not_ dealing with things through language, through
> concepts.
The phrase "visual language" shouldn't be interpreted to mean
"expresisng verbal concepts through visual means". I would say the
above all *do* work within visual languages, but that doersn't mean they
are trying to express verbal thoughts through their paintings. It
simply means they are trying to communicate something through the medium
of their art. Not something as specific as a story, but something,
well, more visual in nature. Like, "see how nice that big red square
works against the little yellow one", or whatever.
> Language is usually symbolic
> in that it's something that points away from itself to something
> else. Some art is supposed to do that, but Ab-Ex was not.
True enough, but again, that's not what I think of "language" as
implying. It can be - and indeed often is - self-referential in both
art and music. There is even a special term for music that tries to
tell a story - "program music" - and historically, it has usually been
looked down upon (except as part of a dramatic work, such as opera).
Marc Sabatella
> So choose any painting you claim to UNDERSTAND and give us an
> explanation that shows that it is expressing a language. Please note
> that a description of subject matter is not a language nor are
> theories of color and composition etc.
Well, then, what do *you* think a "language" is in this context?
Marc Sabatella
> There's also a lot of bad abstract art which fails to communicate with
> a majority of abstract art lovers.
This is true, depending on what we mean by "a lot". As it is, there
seems to be an implication that it means "a higher percentage than with
realistic art", and I simply see no reason to assume this is true. I've
seen plenty of what I'd consider to be bad realistic art, too.
> >> If he/she makes up an entirely new visual
> >> language which is only understood by him/her (if it isn't a hoax)
then
> >> the audience cannot be called incompetent if they, unsurprisingly,
> >> don't "get" it.
> >
> >Straw man. This does not describe the vast majority of abstract art.
>
> Well, it depends on where the boundary between abstract and realism is
> put. This is fuzzy at best, it's a matter of degree. Are Picasso and
> Matisse for example realistic or abstract painters? I would call them
> realistic, others would call them abstract, but then again "abstract"
> to me means something close to non-representational art (like Rothko,
> Pollock, Kandinsky, etc.).
I agree, but don't see how this relates to the above. Even within the
field of completely non-representational art, I don't think the
majority - or even a particularly large percentage - are trying to
invent entirely new visual languages.
Mani Deli
> Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote: From Webster's Dictionary:
>language -
>1. a) the expression or communication of thoughts and feelings by means
>of vocal sounds, and combinations of such sounds, to which meaning is
>attributed
Doesn't fit art does it?
>2. any means of expressing or communicating, as gestures, signs, animal
>sounds, etc.
Doesn't fit art does it?
>visual -
>1. of, connected with, or used in seeing
>
I accounted for that in my first sentence saying "If art is
considered a language it is only that in some metaphoric
sense."
>Maybe you should consider purchasing a dictionary to assist in
I have about five, including the Oxford un. Read the formal
definitions. I mention this because when critics try to squirm out of
the fact that the artwork is miserable they often say "you just don't
understand the language of modern art" imagining this is a finality.
When asked about it they usually have nothing more to say or retreat
into Artspeak babble.
A language has to do with words expressed as meaningful units which
can be understood by its speakers. But there is more because languages
are translatable.
Artspeak is not translatable and for the most part lacks meaning.
An abstract painting contains no more language that has any meaning
than the design on a neck tie or a bed sheet, nor does a realistic
painting.
Bob C
>>Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote: From Webster's Dictionary:
>
>>2. any means of expressing or communicating, as gestures, signs, animal
>>sounds, etc.
>>
> Doesn't fit art does it?
So you're saying that art isn't a means of expressing or communicating.
Is it at all possible that I could get you to expand on that thought?
- Bob C.
G*rd*n
> > I thought the point of abstract art, as in Abstract
> > Expressionism, anyway, was that is sidestepped language.
> > There was this notion that the plastic arts had become
> > burdened with rhetoric and narrative -- I'm sure you all
> > know the rap. Ab-Ex was supposed to break free of all
> > that. In my wayward youth, when it was still going strong,
> > I was told that it was, like music, "pure thought".
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>:
> Well, there are still going to be basic conventions of aesthetics that
> most artists will tend to hold to - and this is equally if not not mroe
> true in music. Think of it this way - a whole lot of realistic painters
> will tell you that what interests them about a painting are its abstract
> qualities - how well the design, color, and other aesthetic elements
> work independently of the specifics of what is being depicted. If we
> are to take them at face value on this - and I see no reason not to,
> because it is very much how I think as a representational painter - then
> it would seem that abstract art can be seen using all those same
> criteria. Unless you grew up in some alternate reality where you werre
> not exposed to all these traditional aesthetics, they are likely going
> to be part of your world view even when painting non-representationally,
> and indeed, much of the abstract art I see seems to show this.
Well, then, it's not doing what they said it was supposed
to do. If they're really using painterly gestures and
techniques and aiming at the same effects as their historical
predecessors, the reactionaries have a just complaint --
they're being deceived.
Note that I'm speaking only of ab-ex here, not other kinds
of abstractionists, surrealists, and so on. No one seems to
object to a moderate amount of abstraction. They just get
excited when it gets off the leash.
> > And I agree, in spite of _The Painted Word_. As far as I can
> > see, Pollock, Rothko, Mondrian and the other usual suspects
> > are _not_ dealing with things through language, through
> > concepts.
>
> The phrase "visual language" shouldn't be interpreted to mean
> "expresisng verbal concepts through visual means". I would say the
> above all *do* work within visual languages, but that doersn't mean they
> are trying to express verbal thoughts through their paintings. It
> simply means they are trying to communicate something through the medium
> of their art. Not something as specific as a story, but something,
> well, more visual in nature. Like, "see how nice that big red square
> works against the little yellow one", or whatever.
>
> > Language is usually symbolic
> > in that it's something that points away from itself to something
> > else. Some art is supposed to do that, but Ab-Ex was not.
>
> True enough, but again, that's not what I think of "language" as
> implying. It can be - and indeed often is - self-referential in both
> art and music. There is even a special term for music that tries to
> tell a story - "program music" - and historically, it has usually been
> looked down upon (except as part of a dramatic work, such as opera).
Okay, but now "language" doesn't mean language in the sense
of vocabulary and syntax. Ab-ex is not an organized system
of signs. It's not something you can learn. (I know there
are critics who talk about Pollock or Rothko having some
kind of symbolic strategy, but I don't believe it. I am
pretty sure there was no there there when they were doing
the work.)
I think this is exactly what those who object to it don't like
-- they miss the conventions. Most popular art e.g. comics,
advertising, graffiti, is highly conventional, as, of course,
are the classical forms of high art. So I would say that the
problem with the art for those who dislike it is not that it is
or embodies language, but that it doesn't. They can't _allow_
_it_to_happen_ because there's no text, no documentation, no
map saying "You are here."
Leo Papandreou
> > Bob C <bob...@erols.com> wrote: From Webster's Dictionary:
> >language -
> >1. a) the expression or communication of thoughts and feelings by means
> >of vocal sounds, and combinations of such sounds, to which meaning is
> >attributed
>
> Doesn't fit art does it?
>
>
> >2. any means of expressing or communicating, as gestures, signs, animal
> >sounds, etc.
>
> Doesn't fit art does it?
>
> >visual -
> >1. of, connected with, or used in seeing
> >
> I accounted for that in my first sentence saying "If art is
> considered a language it is only that in some metaphoric
> sense."
>
> >Maybe you should consider purchasing a dictionary to assist in
>
> I have about five, including the Oxford un. Read the formal
> definitions. I mention this because when critics try to squirm out of
> the fact that the artwork is miserable they often say "you just don't
> understand the language of modern art" imagining this is a finality.
> When asked about it they usually have nothing more to say or retreat
> into Artspeak babble.
>
> A language has to do with words expressed as meaningful units which
> can be understood by its speakers. But there is more because languages
> are translatable.
>
Is the word 'book' a book? Is the word 'freedom' freedom? How would you convey
book or freedom without using some kind of language? Would you point to a book?
Why point? Many animals cannot point yet they seem to communicate OK. Why not
imitate them? Why not another human gesture? Why not a bunch of them, let us
call it the Sacred Book Dance? Is dance an art? Does it have a language? If
not, why do different cultures and sub-cultures dance, jive talk and dress
differently? Why is disco dancing "lewd and lascivious?"
Is there something in a work of art separable from the physical object or
concept itself? How would you convey this "thing," this subjective mental
state? Just because aesthetic meaning is not enunciated linguistically doesn't
mean it isn't enunciated. Duh. The mental states or aesthetic experience you
get are 'named' in a work of art. The artist is 'naming,' making conscious
decisions to lose her edges, blur focus though she knows everything the eye
looks at is instantly and always in focus, draw in topological rather than
axonometric perspective, her use of red instead of green, this kind of line,
shape, texture, and pattern instead of that one, and so forth, in order to
induce a mental state in the viewer.
Why is she hatching her lines vertically instead of horizontally? Could it be
because vertical lines slow movement as the eye follows the shape drawn whereas
horizontal lines reinforce our sense of its movement? The direction of her
marks influence our perception of movement imparted along the long axis of the
shape. How did she know that? Same way you know English, pretty much, but not
well enough to win a Pulitzer. Artists learn "vocabulary" much the same way
that we learn our language, through wiring, imitation, practice, and study of
its structure. What is language, visual or otherwise, is unclear, but there is
obviously language. Abstract art is an investigation into visual language free
from iconography or context and not limited by function, message or knowledge.
It's purpose is to separate the signifier from the signified and affect a
supposedly pure aesthetic experience in the Kantian, Platonic or other
intellectual sense, for example that of neuro-esthetics:
<http://tinyurl.com/ywj2e>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42296-2004Jan23?language=printer>
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/reith2003_lecture3.shtml>
> Artspeak is not translatable and for the most part lacks meaning.
>
> An abstract painting contains no more language that has any meaning
> than the design on a neck tie or a bed sheet, nor does a realistic
> painting.
You're an idiot.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Well, it depends on where the boundary between abstract and realism is
>put. This is fuzzy at best, it's a matter of degree. Are Picasso and
>Matisse for example realistic or abstract painters?
This is a gradient between subject matter which has recognizable
images and how realistic they are and no image recognizable design.
When Picasso paints an eye it is somewhat more realistic than that of
one in de Kooning and less so for one in Dali. That of itself is not a
value judgment. The purest forms of decoration as in AE have no
recognizable images. They fall on the end of the gradient.
Leo Papandreou
> >language -
> >1. a) the expression or communication of thoughts and feelings by means
> >of vocal sounds, and combinations of such sounds, to which meaning is
> >attributed
>
> Doesn't fit art does it?
You're mind is a frightening thing. Are you a genius or something?
>
>
> >2. any means of expressing or communicating, as gestures, signs, animal
> >sounds, etc.
>
> Doesn't fit art does it?
Of course it does. Perhaps you cannot read english sentences for meaning.
>
> >visual -
> >1. of, connected with, or used in seeing
> >
> I accounted for that in my first sentence saying "If art is
> considered a language it is only that in some metaphoric
> sense."
Yeah, so? You say that as if language can be explained without resorting to
metaphor, which is just a relation between two sets of objects or concepts.
Everything that "is," is metaphor. We simply don't know things in themselves.
>
> >Maybe you should consider purchasing a dictionary to assist in
>
> I have about five, including the Oxford un. Read the formal
> definitions.
He did. You accounted for one of them saying "if art is considered a language
it is only that in some metaphoric sense," which is to say you disagree with
the dictionary (without actually disagreeing) and have a muddled reason why.
Fine, write your own dictionary, or talk to yourself.
> I mention this because when critics try to squirm out of
> the fact that the artwork is miserable they often say "you just don't
> understand the language of modern art" imagining this is a finality.
> When asked about it they usually have nothing more to say or retreat
> into Artspeak babble.
Yes, and no doubt theories of language are linguistic-babble. Yawn.
>
> A language has to do with words expressed as meaningful units which
> can be understood by its speakers.
That is not language; that is the language of articulate sounds. 'Language'
denotes soemthing conceptually much more generic and high order than that.
> But there is more because languages
> are translatable.
>
> Artspeak is not translatable and for the most part lacks meaning.
You lack meaning. Your artspeak is gibberish. Perhaps you are inarticulate.
Mani Deli
>I'd say that, as with Quantum Mechanics,
Its is understandable and its results are immensly usefull.
> if you think you
>understand something like Pollock's "Full Fathom Five" or
>"Autumn Rhythm", you don't understand it. If you know you
>don't understand it, you're beginning to get it.
and if you compare it to floor covering you are getting it even more.
Mani Deli
>Okay, but now "language" doesn't mean language in the sense
>of vocabulary and syntax.
and at that point it also isn't understandable in that sense.
> Ab-ex is not an organized system
>of signs. It's not something you can learn.
Most art schools wouldn't agree.
> (I know there
>are critics who talk about Pollock or Rothko having some
>kind of symbolic strategy, but I don't believe it. I am
>pretty sure there was no there there when they were doing
>the work.)
>
>I think this is exactly what those who object to it don't like
>-- they miss the conventions.
not true! There is a long history of beautiful abstract decorative
art, saved, collected and valuable.
walnut earl
>
>> Artspeak is not translatable and for the most part lacks meaning.
Wait, I get it!
That's artspeak.
It lacks meaning.
No , couldn't mean that...
Oh, damn.
Marc Sabatella
> Well, then, it's not doing what they said it was supposed
> to do. If they're really using painterly gestures and
> techniques and aiming at the same effects as their historical
> predecessors, the reactionaries have a just complaint --
> they're being deceived.
In what way? I don't understand, Just because a very small set of
artists made claims that may have contained an implied assumption that
wasn't stated explicitly?
> Okay, but now "language" doesn't mean language in the sense
> of vocabulary and syntax.
No one ever said it did in this context - that's why it was called a
"visual language", to distinguish it from written or spoken languages.
G*rd*n
> ... The purest forms of decoration as in AE have no
> recognizable images. ...
Objects (figuration) may be used in decor. The significant
thing about decoration is that it is subordinate to something
else -- another work of art, the use of a room, the appearance
of a building, and so on.
A lot of ab-ex strikes me as decorative, in that lacking
objects and narrative it may be easily subordinated to anything
else in its environment -- the couch is goes over, for example.
But this could also be true of a figurative cliché.
G*rd*n
> >Okay, but now "language" doesn't mean language in the sense
> >of vocabulary and syntax.
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
> and at that point it also isn't understandable in that sense.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > Ab-ex is not an organized system
> >of signs. It's not something you can learn.
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
> Most art schools wouldn't agree.
Well, of course. A school which says that something can't
be learned is cutting its own throat. However, they can
teach you to imitate various existing abstract artists,
apparently. My point is that if there is something in
ab-ex not available elsewhere, it's not linguistic. It's
not a series of steps that can be memorized.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > (I know there
> >are critics who talk about Pollock or Rothko having some
> >kind of symbolic strategy, but I don't believe it. I am
> >pretty sure there was no there there when they were doing
> >the work.)
> >
> >I think this is exactly what those who object to it don't like
> >-- they miss the conventions.
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
> not true! There is a long history of beautiful abstract decorative
> art, saved, collected and valuable.
Most of what I think you're talking about is highly
conventionalized, for example Chinese calligraphy.
G*rd*n
> > Well, then, it's not doing what they said it was supposed
> > to do. If they're really using painterly gestures and
> > techniques and aiming at the same effects as their historical
> > predecessors, the reactionaries have a just complaint --
> > they're being deceived.
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>:
> In what way? I don't understand, Just because a very small set of
> artists made claims that may have contained an implied assumption that
> wasn't stated explicitly?
My impression from away back in the '50s was that narrative
and figuration were to be mostly very rigorously avoided.
We were not to see things _in_ a painting, or make up
stories about what was being depicted.
I agree that not everyone played the game this way.
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
> > Okay, but now "language" doesn't mean language in the sense
> > of vocabulary and syntax.
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>:
> No one ever said it did in this context - that's why it was called a
> "visual language", to distinguish it from written or spoken languages.
It seems dubious whether it should be called a language then.
Many non-human animals communicate elaborately with one another
through various vocalizations and gestures, but we don't
usually consider these signs to be language.
Paul Mesken
>A lot of ab-ex strikes me as decorative, in that lacking
>objects and narrative it may be easily subordinated to anything
>else in its environment -- the couch is goes over, for example.
>But this could also be true of a figurative cliché.
Yes, but can it still be called Art then? Doesn't it simply become
part of aesthetically motivated furniture like flowers in a vase?
G*rd*n
> >I'd say that, as with Quantum Mechanics,
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
> Its is understandable and its results are immensly usefull.
Explain superposition and its use.
> ...
G*rd*n
> >A lot of ab-ex strikes me as decorative, in that lacking
> >objects and narrative it may be easily subordinated to anything
> >else in its environment -- the couch is goes over, for example.
> >But this could also be true of a figurative cliché.
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>:
> Yes, but can it still be called Art then? Doesn't it simply become
> part of aesthetically motivated furniture like flowers in a vase?
Decor is art to me. The Japanese make quite a big deal out
of flower arrangement, do they not? Or they used to.
Marc Sabatella
> My impression from away back in the '50s was that narrative
> and figuration were to be mostly very rigorously avoided.
> We were not to see things _in_ a painting, or make up
> stories about what was being depicted.
Exactly; but again, no one is saying that this is what a visual language
must entail. Sure, there are no objects, no stories to be told - but
that doesn't mean basic aesthetic principles necessarily go out the
window.
Mani Deli
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>> >A lot of ab-ex strikes me as decorative, in that lacking
>> >objects and narrative it may be easily subordinated to anything
>> >else in its environment -- the couch is goes over, for example.
>> >But this could also be true of a figurative cliché.
>
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>:
>> Yes, but can it still be called Art then? Doesn't it simply become
>> part of aesthetically motivated furniture like flowers in a vase?
>
>
>Decor is art to me. The Japanese make quite a big deal out
>of flower arrangement, do they not? Or they used to.
Its art to me also. So what! The question is whether its any good. I
believe AE is comparable to floor covering and bed sheet decor. Is it
art? Why not. Why argue about it?
My point is that its also crap, no matter what the song and dance
accompaniment is.
Mani Deli
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> > Ab-ex is not an organized system
>> >of signs. It's not something you can learn.
>
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
>> Most art schools wouldn't agree.
>
>
>Well, of course. A school which says that something can't
>be learned is cutting its own throat. However, they can
>teach you to imitate various existing abstract artists,
>apparently.
They do, in fact that's about all they teach.
>My point is that if there is something in
>ab-ex not available elsewhere, it's not linguistic. It's
>not a series of steps that can be memorized.
Most any design isn't "a series of steps that can be memorized."
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>> > (I know there
>> >are critics who talk about Pollock or Rothko having some
>> >kind of symbolic strategy, but I don't believe it. I am
>> >pretty sure there was no there there when they were doing
>> >the work.)
>> >
>> >I think this is exactly what those who object to it don't like
>> >-- they miss the conventions.
>
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
>> not true! There is a long history of beautiful abstract decorative
>> art, saved, collected and valuable.
>
>
>Most of what I think you're talking about is highly
>conventionalized, for example Chinese calligraphy.
and Persian rugs, Japanese textiles, lacquer ware. baroque decoration,
decorative detail in classical painting, Tantric artwork, any sort of
calligraphy, scene painting, commercial design, textile design, Greek
vases, etc. AE and bed sheets are also highly conventionalized.
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>--- no one is saying that this is what a visual language
>must entail. Sure, there are no objects, no stories to be told - but
>that doesn't mean basic aesthetic principles necessarily go out the
>window.
>
A basic principal is an explination not a language.
Leo Papandreou
People who study animal language call it that. It's not as rich or expressive
as human language, but it is a system of shared signs and their meanings,
thus 'language.' Speech is one _manifestation_ of language; painting, LISP,
and American Sign Language are some others. (In fact, I would argue LISP is
less language-like than painting or what dolphins speak.)
Consider painting. A painting obviously stands for something else, be it the
Last Supper, an object or concept, or a pure aesthetic experience unadulterated
by context if you believe such a thing possible. Therefore, we have something
other than the painting encoded in the painting.
Second, there is the perceivable part of the painting. The perceivable part of
the painting is under the artist's control; he is "naming" the object or
concept, Last Supper, or autonomous aesthetic experience by combining
visual "phonemes" such as line (diagrammatic, structural, calligraphic, etc.),
shape, value, color, projection, etc. into a complex construction.
Whether we understand the expressive nature of these "phonemes" a priori or
have been conditioned to respond to an arbitrary convention of marks is an
interesting digression. I resist dichotomies and prefer to think it is both,
each one feeding off the other in a feedback cycle that generates impenetrable
complexity. For example, I can at least in principle concoct a system of
projection that has no obvious physical interpretation. If my art is successful
then the system will explain the art and become a visual vernacular taught in
art school and imitated in whole or in part by successive generations of
artists come after me. Cubism refers.
Finally, the painting posits an observer for it to have meaning.
Those are the three features of language. Now obviously their manifestation in
painting differs in myriad ways from meaningful grunts called speech and black
and white glyphs called text, and we can debate object, perceivable expression
and meaning forever, but I think you'll have to admit that we are talking about
a system for communicating, which is what if not language?
I think the phrase a picture is worth a thousand words is telling. We understand
more than we know or can explain.
Bob C
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote in message news:<bvess6$hq0$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
>>
>>It seems dubious whether it should be called a language then.
>>Many non-human animals communicate elaborately with one another
>>through various vocalizations and gestures, but we don't
>>usually consider these signs to be language.
>>
> People who study animal language call it that. It's not as rich or expressive
> as human language, but it is a system of shared signs and their meanings,
> thus 'language.'... <Remainder of excellent response clipped>
G*rd*n is right, though, most people usually do not consider those
things languages. That simple fact, however, does not mean that they
don't share many basic principles and characteristics of language, and
that they cannot be better understood by examining those similarities.
We don't call art a visual language just to argue about whether it is or
isn't. Examining it as a language is one way to increase our
understanding and appreciation of both art and communication. I can only
guess as to why some posters are so much more interested in arguing that
it isn't a language rather than engaging in discussion about the ways
that (maybe) it is.
- Bob C.
Rhoda Rhunner
>Decor is art to me. The Japanese make quite a big deal out
>of flower arrangement, do they not? Or they used to.
Don't forget those raked gravel gardens...
G*rd*n
> >>Many non-human animals communicate elaborately with one another
> >>through various vocalizations and gestures, but we don't
> >>usually consider these signs to be language.
Leo Papandreou:
>> People who study animal language call it that. It's not as rich or expressive
>> as human language, but it is a system of shared signs and their meanings,
>> thus 'language.'... <Remainder of excellent response clipped>
Bob C <bob...@erols.com>:
> G*rd*n is right, though, most people usually do not consider those
> things languages. That simple fact, however, does not mean that they
> don't share many basic principles and characteristics of language, and
> that they cannot be better understood by examining those similarities.
> We don't call art a visual language just to argue about whether it is or
> isn't. Examining it as a language is one way to increase our
> understanding and appreciation of both art and communication. I can only
> guess as to why some posters are so much more interested in arguing that
> it isn't a language rather than engaging in discussion about the ways
> that (maybe) it is.
My own experience with ab-ex is that the value, the effect of
the work comes over only when one drops linguistic expectations
and projections. When these are maintained, as they usually
are in gelleries, museums, and academic texts, we hear complaints
in response that the works don't really _mean_ anything,
that they don't have any cognitive or emotional import Well,
they don't, because most language screens don't allow them to
and the ones made up for them seem to be pretty fraudulent.
"No skill no art" as Mani's parrot likes to say -- skill
obviously being a well-defined set of operations on a well-defined
set of objects, i.e. something textual. I know people try to
apply that to Jackson Pollock, too, but I think it's a mistake.
Logically, ab-ex is the one sort of art a two-year-old should
be able to enjoy.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>People who study animal language call it that. It's not as rich or expressive
>as human language, but it is a system of shared signs and their meanings,
>thus 'language.' Speech is one _manifestation_ of language; painting, LISP,
>and American Sign Language are some others. (In fact, I would argue LISP is
>less language-like than painting or what dolphins speak.)
I knew it. I knew it! You're one of those LISP programmers! (for the
uninitiated : LISP stands for "Lost In Stupid Parentheses" ;-) Only
the psychology faculty still uses that language (it's also still
popular in the a.i. community).
>Consider painting. A painting obviously stands for something else, be it the
>Last Supper, an object or concept, or a pure aesthetic experience unadulterated
>by context if you believe such a thing possible. Therefore, we have something
>other than the painting encoded in the painting.
Agreed, at least for representational art. Of course, people still
want to recognize something in non-representational art which just
shows how strongly people expect art to be symbolic.
>Second, there is the perceivable part of the painting. The perceivable part of
>the painting is under the artist's control; he is "naming" the object or
>concept, Last Supper, or autonomous aesthetic experience by combining
>visual "phonemes" such as line (diagrammatic, structural, calligraphic, etc.),
>shape, value, color, projection, etc. into a complex construction.
Yes, conceptual, visual, relational and practical elements are
combined into a big meaningfull structure (conceptual elements are the
elements which are not really present but perceived nonetheless like
the "line" around a shape and the center of a circle). Indeed, much
like how phonemes, words, word groups, idioms, sayings, etc. are
combined to form meaningfull sentences.
Ah, the combinatorics of art! :-)
>Whether we understand the expressive nature of these "phonemes" a priori or
>have been conditioned to respond to an arbitrary convention of marks is an
>interesting digression. I resist dichotomies and prefer to think it is both,
>each one feeding off the other in a feedback cycle that generates impenetrable
>complexity.
We probably have an innate understanding of the "phonemes". The bigger
structures will be more and more culturally defined. Seeing white and
black as contrasts, lines as denotating "outlines", recognizing lots
of relational elements, etc. are probably innate skills. Recognizing a
structure as Jesus, unlocking all what that encompasses, is clearly
cultural.
> For example, I can at least in principle concoct a system of
>projection that has no obvious physical interpretation. If my art is successful
>then the system will explain the art and become a visual vernacular taught in
>art school and imitated in whole or in part by successive generations of
>artists come after me. Cubism refers.
Perhaps, but it still needs to be grounded firmly in the human
perceptual system which dictates the basic terms. There was an
experiment in which a multi lingual whizz kid (who could read over 20
languages) had to learn a "complete nonsense" language (probably
generated by a computer, randomly constructing phonemes). He failed
miserably, suggesting that all human languages, even at the level of
phonemes, follow some system. No matter whether we understand the
language or not, if we hear it we can quite quickly establish that it
is in fact a human language and not noise. Charlie Chaplin was quite
good at making up languages by imitating the "sound" of a language.
>Those are the three features of language. Now obviously their manifestation in
>painting differs in myriad ways from meaningful grunts called speech and black
>and white glyphs called text, and we can debate object, perceivable expression
>and meaning forever, but I think you'll have to admit that we are talking about
>a system for communicating, which is what if not language?
Yes, there clearly is something like a visual language in the sense
that language is the means of communication or instruction. I believe
only Mani doubts that :-)
>I think the phrase a picture is worth a thousand words is telling. We understand
>more than we know or can explain.
And far more efficient! It takes a while to get the meaning of a
sentence which is transmitted and decoded in a serial fashion whereas
a picture can be translated as fast as a single glance. After all :
25% of all of our neurons are dedicated to the visual system. It would
be foolish not to make good use of them :-)
Marc Sabatella
> A basic principal is an explination not a language.
If I understood why it seems to bother you so much to refer to these
things as visual language, I'd have a better idea of how to respond. As
it is, it seems you're denying things just to deny them. Does calling
something an "explination" and not a language in some way affect the
point of the original claim being made in talking about art as a set of
visual languages? That is, is the point in any way diminished by
substituting the word "explination" for "language"? I'm guessing you
didn't even understand the original point, so instead chose to attack
the terminology.
Bob C
>
> My own experience with ab-ex is that the value, the effect of
> the work comes over only when one drops linguistic expectations
> and projections. ...
> "No skill no art" as Mani's parrot likes to say -- skill
> obviously being a well-defined set of operations on a well-defined
> set of objects, i.e. something textual. I know people try to
> apply that to Jackson Pollock, too, but I think it's a mistake.
> Logically, ab-ex is the one sort of art a two-year-old should
> be able to enjoy.
I can't speak for the others, but when talking about the language of
abstract art I certainly never meant to imply that it has a well-defined
syntax which both artist and viewer are aware of using. But I do not
believe that the effect of the work is completely independent of the
artist's own feelings and intentions - which means that the artist is
somehow encoding these in the work and the viewer is decoding them.
Even if the decoding gives them an impression completely contrary to the
artist's intentions, it is still the result, at least partially, of the
encoded information put in there. When the decoding is too far off (as
in the case of a two-year-old) then the viewer probably will not find
much to enjoy, except by accident.
I believe that exposure to many such works with an open mind helps me to
more fully decode the things which they have to offer, and in that sense
I feel like I am learning the language even if I'm not consciously aware
of what that language is. Trying to identify how this encoding and
decoding are taking place also improves my understanding of the
language, but I do not need to approach the art with any linguistic
expectations in order to benefit from an improved ability to read it.
- Bob C.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>>I think the phrase a picture is worth a thousand words is telling. We understand
>>more than we know or can explain.
AE pattern making explains nothing and understanding and explanations
aren't languages. We us language to implement them.
>
>And far more efficient! It takes a while to get the meaning of a
>sentence which is transmitted and decoded in a serial fashion whereas
>a picture can be translated as fast as a single glance.
So translate an AE painting for us! Tell us what its language explains
that most can agree on.
>After all :
>25% of all of our neurons are dedicated to the visual system. It would
>be foolish not to make good use of them :-)
Has nothing to do with calling art as a language.
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> So choose any painting you claim to UNDERSTAND and give us an
>> explanation that shows that it is expressing a language. Please note
>> that a description of subject matter is not a language nor are
>> theories of color and composition etc.
>
>Well, then, what do *you* think a "language" is in this context?
>
I don't think there is a language in that context you do. Some here
are implying that a language about art is the language of art. My
point is that outside of a metaphorical sense art is not a language.
You are the one who claims to understand the language of art not me. I
maintain that you can't and so far you haven't explained and I don't
believe you can.
So chose a painting and get on with it if you can!
I wrote:
>>> One hears the"visual language" phraise often but you never get an
>>> explanation. I believe this is because there is no such thing.
you answered
>>I think rather it is because most folks are clever enough to be able to figure it out for themselves.
Most folks can't figure it out and it seems you can't either.
I think this is the typical statement. I heard this sort of crap since
art school. "oh you don't like it because you don't understand the
language of modern art." and "everyone uderstands only you don't,"
etc..
When pressed to explain this understanding the result is usually a
blank stare, or Papy style Artspeak, loaded questions and the last
gasp, "you are an idiot."
Leo Papandreou
> On 30 Jan 2004 22:47:43 -0800, koan...@earthling.net (Leo Papandreou)
> wrote:
>
> >People who study animal language call it that. It's not as rich or expressive
> >as human language, but it is a system of shared signs and their meanings,
> >thus 'language.' Speech is one _manifestation_ of language; painting, LISP,
> >and American Sign Language are some others. (In fact, I would argue LISP is
> >less language-like than painting or what dolphins speak.)
>
> I knew it. I knew it! You're one of those LISP programmers! (for the
> uninitiated : LISP stands for "Lost In Stupid Parentheses" ;-) Only
> the psychology faculty still uses that language (it's also still
> popular in the a.i. community).
Damn it, all the so-called "new" programming paradigms and technologies like
OOP were done first, better, faster, and prettier in LISP -- in 1956! C++ --
WTF!?
[..]
> > For example, I can at least in principle concoct a system of
> >projection that has no obvious physical interpretation. If my art is successful
> >then the system will explain the art and become a visual vernacular taught in
> >art school and imitated in whole or in part by successive generations of
> >artists come after me. Cubism refers.
>
> Perhaps, but it still needs to be grounded firmly in the human
> perceptual system which dictates the basic terms.
If there were a rhyme or reason to it that engaged our engine for pattern
recognition, or if it were in some other sense coherent like minimalism or op
art, then that would probably do the trick. Abstract art is not easy. People
who say anyone could do it -- anyone can paint a portrait, too.
I happen to think that creating good, original abstract art is as difficult in
its own way as creating objective art.
> There was an
> experiment in which a multi lingual whizz kid (who could read over 20
> languages) had to learn a "complete nonsense" language (probably
> generated by a computer, randomly constructing phonemes). He failed
> miserably, suggesting that all human languages, even at the level of
> phonemes, follow some system. No matter whether we understand the
> language or not, if we hear it we can quite quickly establish that it
> is in fact a human language and not noise. Charlie Chaplin was quite
> good at making up languages by imitating the "sound" of a language.
Reminds me of a study in which expert chess players were flashed board positions
and asked to recreate them from memory. Now there are a gazillion legal board
positions but most are unlikely to develop in the course of normal play between
opponents trying to win. Turns out the experts could recall ordinary positions
that made "sense" but not pathological positions that could be described as
"gibberish." The interesting thing is the positions were pretty! At least I
thought they were. Perhaps they intrigued because they couldn't arise in normal
play. So maybe these board positions don't light up a chess player's brain but
an MRI of an artist brain contemplating the same positions might resemble a
Christmas tree.
Leo Papandreou
That's the spiel: a spontaneous act of creation supposedly driven by the
artist's unconscious mind. Rothko, for one, resisted explanations of his work,
which he felt could be understood or at least experienced on its own, without
an accompanying description. I think there is something to the phenomenon, but
I don't believe unverifiable art-theoretic explanations of it, which though
meaningful have the philosophical quality of Jung and Plato's exploded fiction.
That is, I am convinced there is a primordial aesthetics we are wired to
respond to, but reject the possibility that we can isolate, express or
understand it outside a semiotic context, i.e. not "mean" anything. All those
books about AE are what it "means."
But, you know, what does anything mean stripped from our devotion to the
spontaneous ordering forces of sentences? "Blah, blah, blah," we seem to lack
the ability to transgress the reassuring limits of conscious thought and
reason, unable to suspend elaboration and plunge our minds into a no-
differentiation zone and look at objects in the external world as they are,
without the coherent and compact outlines imposed by semantics. You know what I
mean? :-)
> When these are maintained, as they usually
> are in gelleries, museums, and academic texts, we hear complaints
> in response that the works don't really _mean_ anything,
> that they don't have any cognitive or emotional import
Well I think that is impossible, non-human. I posted some links to neuro-
aesthetics up-thread. I think we can trust scientists and their MRIs to
correlate brain states with non-objective art. However, where is the causality?
Just because a work of art lights up the brain doesn't mean the increased
mental activity isn't the result of cognition of the work. Art, like
consciousness, is one of those things that we will never "solve" (IMO.) At
least I hope not, anyway.
As for the language of art...
Language is not speech or art; it is what makes speech and art possible. It is
not an isolated thing but instead many phenomena that occur in relation to each
other. There are things that cannot be communicated well visually, just as some
things cannot be communicated well linguistically, and linguistic expression is
a particularly efficient way to communicate and disseminate knowledge, which
entails some notion of progress and ascendancy, but not, I would argue, the
quality of being language-capable human.
Consider a race of post-apocalyptic people with genetically traumatized vocal
chords and without written language. Pretend they live in a world with abundant
food and shelter, i.e., minimize the survival function of complex speech, which
facilitates the division of labor (I guess.) I cannot think of any reason why
these "people" could not in principle at least communicate everything they'd
need to pictorially in order to qualify as fully human.
I think they'd communicate different things and have very different notions of
thing-ness --we'd probably think they came from another planet if we met them--
but they'd still be human, they'd communicate. A system of grunts, gestures and
pictures would fulfill the function of English to the extent it can do that as
a definite but not necessarily defined "structural" manifestation of language.
Could they communicate something as complex as the Bible?
Keep in mind that it took a long time to communicate the Bible. Every text
annotates text written before it. The Bible stands for a semantic network
spanning thousands of years of written and oral language, and people brought up
in our Judeo-Christian culture subscribe to the rich meaning and implication of
Biblical language whether they have read the text or not.
I see no reason these people could not communicate all the stories and concepts
in a sacred text by scratching elaborate pictures in clay. It would be easier
for them if they developed a system of hieroglyphics or pictographs,
compositions which have as much in common with painting as they do with Roman
letters, and more in common with some modern art, but not necessary. They
could, for example, have a rule that states "a man rolling a boulder up a hill
signifies feelings of existential anxiety." No further stylistic convention
need be prescribed, though in all likelihood that would happen eventually.
I cannot imagine the pictorial conventions they'd have to develop over a very
long period of time in order to communicate all the stories and concepts in a
sacred text, and could not fully decipher its meaning once such a text were
illustrated. But if I were a human living 100,000 years before the invention of
writing I could not imagine or decipher the Bible either.
Think about it. Even if such an absurdly hypothetical scenario were in practice
impossible, thinking about it helps explain speech and pictures as
manifestations, not examples, of this human quality or what have you called
LANGUAGE.
G*rd*n
> > My own experience with ab-ex is that the value, the effect of
> > the work comes over only when one drops linguistic expectations
> > and projections. ...
> > "No skill no art" as Mani's parrot likes to say -- skill
> > obviously being a well-defined set of operations on a well-defined
> > set of objects, i.e. something textual. I know people try to
> > apply that to Jackson Pollock, too, but I think it's a mistake.
> > Logically, ab-ex is the one sort of art a two-year-old should
> > be able to enjoy.
Bob C <bob...@erols.com>:
> I can't speak for the others, but when talking about the language of
> abstract art I certainly never meant to imply that it has a well-defined
> syntax which both artist and viewer are aware of using. But I do not
> believe that the effect of the work is completely independent of the
> artist's own feelings and intentions - which means that the artist is
> somehow encoding these in the work and the viewer is decoding them.
>
> Even if the decoding gives them an impression completely contrary to the
> artist's intentions, it is still the result, at least partially, of the
> encoded information put in there. When the decoding is too far off (as
> in the case of a two-year-old) then the viewer probably will not find
> much to enjoy, except by accident.
>
> I believe that exposure to many such works with an open mind helps me to
> more fully decode the things which they have to offer, and in that sense
> I feel like I am learning the language even if I'm not consciously aware
> of what that language is. Trying to identify how this encoding and
> decoding are taking place also improves my understanding of the
> language, but I do not need to approach the art with any linguistic
> expectations in order to benefit from an improved ability to read it.
Aren't you contradicting yourself in that last sentence?
To approach a work of art with the idea that it contains
a code is exactly what I mean by a linguistic expectation.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:00:41 +0100, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>wrote:
>>And far more efficient! It takes a while to get the meaning of a
>>sentence which is transmitted and decoded in a serial fashion whereas
>>a picture can be translated as fast as a single glance.
>
>So translate an AE painting for us! Tell us what its language explains
>that most can agree on.
No way! I excluded non-representational art immediately.
Representational art OTOH does communicate. It refers to something
else than the painting itself (which is just a surface with visual
markings on it, much like a book consists of pages with glyphs on it).
A circle with two dots in it (on a horizontal line) is a face, an arc
underneath does two dots pointing upwards makes it into a smiling
face, etc. The visual language draws heavily from abstractions of our
observations.
>>After all :
>>25% of all of our neurons are dedicated to the visual system. It would
>>be foolish not to make good use of them :-)
>
>Has nothing to do with calling art as a language.
No, but it is a fun fact. Here's another : 50% (that's almost half :-)
of our neurons is devoted to fine tuning our motions. They don't
contain the motor programs, cyclic motions and reflexes themselves,
all they do is modulate outgoing commands to our muscles based on
input from our senses and other brain regions. Amazing! :-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Damn it, all the so-called "new" programming paradigms and technologies like
>OOP were done first, better, faster, and prettier in LISP -- in 1956! C++ --
>WTF!?
I believe Richard Stallman is a big fan of Lisp, didn't he make emacs
completely in Lisp? (perhaps he did even the GNU compiler in it as
well).
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>But, you know, what does anything mean stripped from our devotion to the
>spontaneous ordering forces of sentences? "Blah, blah, blah," we seem to lack
>the ability to transgress the reassuring limits of conscious thought and
>reason, unable to suspend elaboration and plunge our minds into a no-
>differentiation zone and look at objects in the external world as they are,
>without the coherent and compact outlines imposed by semantics. You know what I
>mean? :-)
I think we do it all the time. We're just hardly aware of it and quite
incapable of phrasing it or rationalizing it. But why would we? The
rational mind is quite limited and has a quite narrow field of
application (although also quite successfull). It's nothing but a tool
to use. A good eye is better than a rational mind for an artist I
think, although having both is even better. They're not opposites.
Radios existed before someone came up with the theory that
electromagnetic radiation made it all possible. So what? The radios
also worked without the theory :-)
>> When these are maintained, as they usually
>> are in gelleries, museums, and academic texts, we hear complaints
>> in response that the works don't really _mean_ anything,
>> that they don't have any cognitive or emotional import
>
>Well I think that is impossible, non-human. I posted some links to neuro-
>aesthetics up-thread. I think we can trust scientists and their MRIs to
>correlate brain states with non-objective art. However, where is the causality?
>Just because a work of art lights up the brain doesn't mean the increased
>mental activity isn't the result of cognition of the work. Art, like
>consciousness, is one of those things that we will never "solve" (IMO.) At
>least I hope not, anyway.
Well, I hope at least we will be able to reproduce it. Even simple
neural networks defy proper explanation but it doesn't matter as long
as it works.
>As for the language of art...
>
>Language is not speech or art; it is what makes speech and art possible. It is
>not an isolated thing but instead many phenomena that occur in relation to each
>other. There are things that cannot be communicated well visually, just as some
>things cannot be communicated well linguistically, and linguistic expression is
>a particularly efficient way to communicate and disseminate knowledge, which
>entails some notion of progress and ascendancy, but not, I would argue, the
>quality of being language-capable human.
Yes, but we also need the concept of intentionality (in our
perception) for successfull communication (the way we humans do it).
It's argued that not many animals have this concept.
G*rd*n
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>:
> I believe Richard Stallman is a big fan of Lisp, didn't he make emacs
> completely in Lisp? (perhaps he did even the GNU compiler in it as
> well).
According to legend, Stallman did everyting inside one emacs
session for several years. Given that emacs was originally
programmed in Lisp, one can understand that. Finally the
monitor gave out and he was forcibly dragged away....
Lisp is one of the two great self-satirizing computer
languages, the other being APL.
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/APL.html
Leo Papandreou
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:01:38 -0700, "Marc Sabatella"
> <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
>
> >--- no one is saying that this is what a visual language
> >must entail. Sure, there are no objects, no stories to be told - but
> >that doesn't mean basic aesthetic principles necessarily go out the
> >window.
> >
> A basic principal is an explination not a language.
Explain this poem: http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html
Your bizarre dictats are increasingly cryptic. Art doesn't have to explain
anything. It has to _mean_ something, which it obviously does or else books
written about it would be f43-0 g$*&!fj28 fk 2j4 ^89@#%^.
Leo Papandreou
Yep, it's a totally functional lisp environment that happens to run an
editor.
Its core, the most basic, low-level features of the lisp interpreter, is
written
in C.
RMS is an interesting guy. He is to Open Source what Mani Deli is to
painting, but otherwise a talented and beautiful individual by all accounts.
I
agree with Gordon that LISP culture is its own parody. I like LISP. It is
the
only language that I still use, perhaps because I no longer have to program
for
a living.
>
>
>
>
Paul Mesken
<koan...@earthling.net> wrote:
>RMS is an interesting guy. He is to Open Source what Mani Deli is to
>painting, but otherwise a talented and beautiful individual by all accounts.
Yeah, he's a weird guy but a real hacker (actually, those two go, more
often than not, together :-) I have his book : "Free as in Freedom".
Nowadays, he seems to loosen up a little, he even has a girl friend
now and is involved in a physical activity known as dancing!
>I agree with Gordon that LISP culture is its own parody. I like LISP. It is
>the only language that I still use, perhaps because I no longer have to program
>for a living.
You're a lucky guy. I still have to program mind numbing projects (in
C++ using Borland Builder and MS SQL). If I had it my way then I would
be programming strategy games for Linux/Unix and not that stupid MS
Windoze that grows a new abstraction layer every month. Just straight
C, perhaps throwing in some Assembly, back to my roots :-) (of course
not in that AT&T syntax, there're limits to my masochism ;-)
Mani Deli
wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:37:09 -0500, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 19:00:41 +0100, Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl>
>>wrote:
>>>And far more efficient! It takes a while to get the meaning of a
>>>sentence which is transmitted and decoded in a serial fashion whereas
>>>a picture can be translated as fast as a single glance.
>>
>>So translate an AE painting for us! Tell us what its language explains
>>that most can agree on.
>
>No way!
That's about the only answer there is.
>
>>>After all :
>>>25% of all of our neurons are dedicated to the visual system. It would
>>>be foolish not to make good use of them :-)
>>
>>Has nothing to do with calling art as a language.
>
>No, but it is a fun fact.
No skill no art!
Dilettante
One of my favourite recent abstract pieces is "The
> Rhythm of the Trees". Interesting artist too - I'm sure you can google
> for the work.
Since you have never seen it, how can you say it is one of your "favourites"?
Dilettante
Dilettante
Since you have never seen it, how can you say it is one of your "favourites"? I
Dilettante
Dilettante
Dilettante
Chris
<marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20040201100754.739$Z...@newsreader.com...
> Why is nearly everyone here an engineer of some kind,
That may be because people with tech backgrounds are just less intimidated
by technology, and are the first to embrace its use.
>who just paints on
> the side?
Actually, I paint standing up.
Oh - you mean as something like a hobby? I don't know about the others on
this group, but my time is roughly spent 60-40, with the 60% on the art
side, the 40% on the tech side. According to Canadian child support laws,
they can both claim joint custody of me. The science pays much better
though.
>Neither myself nor any artist I know has a tech background.
> Comments, please. (this is a serious question, not sarcasm)
>
You should probably broaden your circle of acquaintances then; if you are
simply sirrounding yourself with art school grads then you are severely
limiting your exposure to alternate viewpoints. Personally speaking, the
most interesting, artistically aggressive, and intellectually challenging
artists I know all have tech backgrounds; most of the art grads are now
working behind shop counters or at best scrounging for government grants or
sponging off their spouses. One of the major reasons art has fallen into
such disrepute over the last century or so is that the culture has become a
dumping ground for feckless depressives who either are not capable, or just
not interested, in going outside the art school box. How many art grads have
courses in - or even a working knowlege of - physics, mathematics beyond the
high school level, exobiology, chemistry, theoretical computation? I have
lots of art-school friends who have graduated anywhere from 2 years ago to
30-40 years ago, not one of whom has anything more than a rudimentary
knowlege of the most important ideas and discoveries of our time. (Of
course, of the recent art grads, I know more than a few who couldn't even
identify a van Gogh. But I digress.)
So, justifiably, they are getting left behind. One of the great aspects of a
tech education (particularly the pure sciences) is that you are continually
faced with having to deal with new ideas, and you continually have to deal
with your own doubts as to whether you will be able to come to terms with
them. You get a good sense of what you can, and can't accomplish - failure
is no sin in a science. So tackling the internet is childs play :)
Chris
Lauri Levanto
I studies social sciencies mainly
then had marketing research as my first vocation.
I started computers as a hobby ( built my first one 1978)
made it a second career - having art as a hobby
studied intensively 1994-2001 before leaving computing.
it is true what Chris said that many art school students
are narrow-minded. Not only them but most humansits.
I feel however that the science rationale has a backside, too.
It is more hard to be impulsive, obsessive, self-sufficient.
All aspects that are beneficial in art carrier.
-lauri
Bob C
> Bob C <bob...@erols.com>:
>
>>Trying to identify how this encoding and
>>decoding are taking place also improves my understanding of the
>>language, but I do not need to approach the art with any linguistic
>>expectations in order to benefit from an improved ability to read it.
>>
>
> Aren't you contradicting yourself in that last sentence?
> To approach a work of art with the idea that it contains
> a code is exactly what I mean by a linguistic expectation.
>
That's exactly what I would have expected it meant and I don't think
it's a contradiction, because I don't think it is necessary to expect
something to be readable in order to be able to read it. If you were
looking at a series of pictures and someone inserted a word, you would
read the word even though you had not approached it with any linguistic
expactations. But you wouldn't read it if you hadn't previously learned
the letters.
But, on second thought, I do approach it with something similar to what
you're calling linguistic expectations, because I do believe that in
order for something to be art it has to contain some recognizable
pattern which meets our expectations of what art is. By pattern, I mean
an organization of tendencies and characteristics, not a repeating
motif, and so what I like to call patterns is very similar to what
others may call visual language.
So I do expect the art to contain these patterns and will only be able
to appreciate what the art has to offer when I'm able to recognize them.
Recognition of a pattern, however, is a much more vaguely defined and
hard to describe then recognition of a written language. With
traditional works, it becomes second nature and you aren't even aware
that the recognition is taking place. The same is true with ab-ex once
you've seen enough of it.
Expecting a pattern doesn't mean looking for some well-defined key with
which to decode the meaning of the picture. Basically, it's just one way
of describing looking at a work with the purpose of attempting to see
what the artist was trying to offer. To me, the best compliment I can
give any work of art is that I'm able to see the artist alive in it, and
so it makes no sense for me to look at art without trying to see that.
- Bob C.
walnut earl
>it is true what Chris said that many art school students
>are narrow-minded. Not only them but most humansits.
>
that reveal the depth of our ignorance.
Kye Ohtie
>I feel however that the science rationale has a backside, too.
>It is more hard to be impulsive, obsessive, self-sufficient.
>All aspects that are beneficial in art carrier.
I don't know if your ever experienced
the "Hippy era" in Finland Lauri. But most
of the artists I know today, who continue
to labor at it and make a living at it, are
from that "Hippy era." They live in their
own little world of self-sufficiency and
self-gratification, without worry of where
their next meal or rent check is coming from.
And interestingly, their lack of worry over
such mundane daily things allows them to
create in a way that myself - a born worrier -
is unable to. That is, I could never kick back
far enough to let the bill collectors wallow
in their own threats of foreclosure, repossession,
etc. while I merrily went about my creative
pursuits. In other words, those "Hippies" are
the ones who are "impulsive, obsessive, self-sufficient."
Marc Sabatella
> I don't think there is a language in that context you do. Some here
> are implying that a language about art is the language of art. My
> point is that outside of a metaphorical sense art is not a language.
>
> You are the one who claims to understand the language of art not me. I
> maintain that you can't and so far you haven't explained and I don't
> believe you can.
Well, I explained what the value of that language is. Merely saying
that what I am describing should not technically be called a language
doesn't change this argument in any way at all. Call it a fizwang if
you prefer, and then try to refute the actual *point*.
> So chose a painting and get on with it if you can!
OK, here's an example. Consider two paintings. One has seven dots on
the left side of the canvas, one dot on the right. The other is
identical in stlye and technique but the dots are arranged
symmetrically: four on each side. Would not most people - artist and
viewer alike - see these paintings as having different effects, and in
more or less similar ways? This is the sort of thing I am talking
about.
This is, of course, but one of thousands of possible elements in the
language - or fizbang, if you prefer - of art.
Marc Sabatella
on
> the side? Neither myself nor any artist I know has a tech background.
> Comments, please. (serious question, not sarcasm)
Generally speaking, if you have talent and interest in both fields, most
people opt for the perceived safety of the technical career.
Paul Mesken
>Why is nearly everyone here an engineer of some kind, who just paints on
>the side? Neither myself nor any artist I know has a tech background.
>Comments, please. (serious question, not sarcasm)
The percentage of engineers seems to be quite high here. I believe
this is because this is a newsgroup and not a web forum. Traditionally
engineers hang around in newsgroups and less in web forums (some of
the busiest groups are the comp and sci groups). Most other people
don't even know that there are newsgroups.
Erik A. Mattila
G*rd*n wrote:
> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>
>>>Well, then, it's not doing what they said it was supposed
>>>to do. If they're really using painterly gestures and
>>>techniques and aiming at the same effects as their historical
>>>predecessors, the reactionaries have a just complaint --
>>>they're being deceived.
>>
>
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>:
>
>>In what way? I don't understand, Just because a very small set of
>>artists made claims that may have contained an implied assumption that
>>wasn't stated explicitly?
>
>
>
> My impression from away back in the '50s was that narrative
> and figuration were to be mostly very rigorously avoided.
> We were not to see things _in_ a painting, or make up
> stories about what was being depicted.
>
> I agree that not everyone played the game this way.
>
>
> "G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com>:
>
>>>Okay, but now "language" doesn't mean language in the sense
>>>of vocabulary and syntax.
>>
>
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>:
>
>>No one ever said it did in this context - that's why it was called a
>>"visual language", to distinguish it from written or spoken languages.
>
>
>
> It seems dubious whether it should be called a language then.
> Many non-human animals communicate elaborately with one another
> through various vocalizations and gestures, but we don't
> usually consider these signs to be language.
If you call it "language" you then privelege "language" as the master
category, which then leads to confusion. That's why Ernst Cassirer
called "art" a "symbolic form", one among others (language being
another.) It follows that "wisdom" shouldn't be priveleged either -
just another "taxonomic form."
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
Paul Mesken wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2004 19:05:19 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>
>
>>A lot of ab-ex strikes me as decorative, in that lacking
>>objects and narrative it may be easily subordinated to anything
>>else in its environment -- the couch is goes over, for example.
>>But this could also be true of a figurative cliché.
>
>
> Yes, but can it still be called Art then? Doesn't it simply become
> part of aesthetically motivated furniture like flowers in a vase?
>
You must consult the Wizard of Art for the answer, my son. Just follow
the yellow bloxx road...
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Don't be fooled, Jack. All those "Back-to-the-landers" who settled into
the NorCal forests to grow the perfect bud threw out their copies of
"The Hobbit" and "The Teachings of Don Juan" and replaced them with
"Estate Planing" and "How to Buy Gold Futures" when the price of boo hit
$1600 per pound.
Erik
>
>
Kye Ohtie
>Don't be fooled, Jack. All those "Back-to-the-landers" who settled into
>the NorCal forests to grow the perfect bud threw out their copies of
>"The Hobbit" and "The Teachings of Don Juan" and replaced them with
>"Estate Planing" and "How to Buy Gold Futures" when the price of boo hit
>$1600 per pound.
>
>Erik
I'm sure you're right about those who
stayed there in the Great Prune Bowl, but
those who emigrated here are still
puffing stuff that keeps them full of
hot air, if nothing else. We tend to
refer to them as the Great Californicators.
You can usually tell who they are by their
long salt/pepper beards (males) and their
ankle-length granny dresses (females...and
some males, come to think of it...).