Bouguereau
mdeli
century academics and probably has never even seen a Bouguereau is
fast to mouth the slanted bullshit doled out in fashionable modern art
courses in which the academics are barely mentioned. Here a few slides
which usually show a Cabanel and perhaps a B. along with a short
lecture on its evils is about all the average student gets on this
matter. It is as if a history of the 20th century made a brief mention
of Hitler and went on to discuss show biz.
Condemning Bouguereau for painting sexually disturbing pinups nudes is
hypocritical. Especially when critics unflinchingly accept pictures
like Picasso's erotic comic book style bathroom scrawls, which abound
in hairy protuberances and erotic naughtyisms, as great art.
A derisive quotation from Kenneth Clark's important and very silly
book on THE NUDE should further indicate the flavor of this
contemporary and very fashionable viewpoint.
"For the paintings of Ary Scheffer, Cabanel, Bouguereau, and Henner
are no longer exhibited in public galleries and must be sought in
provincial mairies or the saloons of midwestern hotels. Each of these
had his own recipe for success ranging from the lubricity of
Bouguereau to the high minded sexlessness of Lord Leighton; but all
had one characteristic in common: they glossed over the facts. They
employed the same convention of smoothed?out form and waxen surface."
The "facts" indeed! This "smoothed out surface" can be found in
painting since its very beginnings. What Clark really objects to is
the degree of refinement and finish which reached such great heights
in the nineteenth century. Clark, it seems, favors the rough
unfinished looking surface. Had he researched academic art a bit more
thoroughly, he would have seen that very quality he favors is found in
the detail of the academic paintings and many of the preliminary
sketches for them. It is ironic that sketches and preliminary work by
academic and Victorian painters are an ignored subject.
B. painted far more than nudes, the perfection of which rarely fails
to upset fifth rate patzers. He did Portraits, religious and
historical subject matter, all of which are totally unfamiliar to an
indoctrinated Modern Art buff.
Well, I wouldn't really expect more. When the Modern Artzy Fartzy is
faced with technically superior work containing politically incorrect
subject matter he runs off and seeks relief from subject matter on a
level ranging between decorative floor covering and third rate
cartoons.
Get on your search engine and type Bouguereau. There is lots of
information on the web to See and read! At last the suppressed work of
the 19th century by the French salon and English schools is becoming
available through the net. Even an occasional derogatory comment
against our esteemed idiot museum administrators is creeping through.
At last we can begin to see and compare skilled work and no
Artzy-fartzy can prevent it.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Ricardo Pontes
Worth pointing out that Bouguereau opened the door for Women artists in the
19th century. He deserves more credit than he gets, probably one of the best
artists of all time. Definatly one of the most skilled. Its amazing whenever
there is a Bouguereau in a gallery it eclipses all other paintings and makes
them all look like beanie paintings.
There is a great history on Bouguereau at www.artrenewal.org in case someone
here is intersted in learning about a very good artist.
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:<3ab9952c...@news.psi.ca>...
Here are some Bouguereau's some of the modernists might want to view, are
they Kitch??
http://www.goodart.org/wbanna.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Baigneus
e_accroupie.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Pieta_18
76.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/The_Flag
ellation_of_Christ.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Dante_et
_Virgile_au_Enfers.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/La_jeune
sse_de_Bacchus.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Portrait
_de_Gabrielle_Drienza.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/The_Firs
t_Mourning.jpg
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Soul_Car
ried_to_Heaven.jpg
Ricardo Pontes
Tracy Miller
find your way back?
ON the contrary, Art History and Art Appreciation courses cover the
whole gamut of art in the history of the west. The French Academics
of the 19th century were but a very tiny part.
You have a very narrow view of things.
Bouguereau was no Caravaggio, nor even David in his prime,
no Durer, no Gentileschi, no Kauffman.
He did not believe it, that's the thing, and you can tell. His
figures don't believe it either.
mdeli
finest I have ever seen. When I visited Paris in the 70's he was not
to be seen. This show had his greatest large pieces. They are unique,
entirely original, and technically unmatched by anybody.
What you see of B's work on the web or in books is a mere indication
of the quality of his work. Unfortunately looking at detail is out of
fashion. If books or the net showed detail one would get some sense of
the painterly quality in his and much of the best 19th cent. work. At
last a fine book on B. came out some time ago by F. E. Wissman
(Pomegranate Art Books, 96) Also there is the catalog to the B. show.
Also check B. in search engines and you will be surprised how much
there is, Unfortunately no details.
The best of B. is in his amazing detail. Nobody, and this can only be
seen in the original, painted flesh like B. Not Rubens, Ingres, David,
Raphael, etc..
Look at his masterly drawings or the preliminary studies for his
paintings (many are pure impressionism) Compare them to Picasso and
Matisse.
The student of modern art learns to rant about the awfulness of B. and
19th cent academic art by seeing a slide and listening to some utter
nonsense about academic evil and the lurking dangers of kitsch in
politically correct art history courses. Few can name ten academic
painters or have ever seen any of their work. About all they learn is
that it was evil and the Impressionists revolted against it and held
seperate shows. Little known to artzy fartzies is that many academics
also took up Impressionism and exhibited in these show.
As I indicate in my book, the present view of nineteenth cent. art
history carefully avoids mentioning about 98% of its artists. It is as
if a history of the 20th century contained one paragraph each about
Hitler and Stalin and only got into detail about America's triumphs
over communism.
It is no wonder Picasso and Matisse hated B. By the way a load of
Academic paintings were found among Picasso's art collection. Dali
also owned a B. and admired the finest of 19th cent. technique.
There are hundreds of very fine Academic painters. Among the best are
Gerome, Bonheur, Meissonier, Bargue. Vibert. Detaille, Fortuney. There
are so many more. They are hidden away and are as hard to find as
originals by Norman Rockwell or Leyendecker's are in any museum. The
artzy fartzy curaters of most major musuems keep these artists out of
eyes reach lest the viewer stray from Modern Academic Art or
Impressionism.
B. is a kind of immortal zombie of modern art. He keeps popping up.
Book covers, post cards, puzzles, posters, etc.; (On stuff that sells)
and an occasional a well attended show. He is popular without a well
known name. His paintings haven't earned a Modern critic's word in his
favor. They don't need one.
Ulrich Osterloh
the problem with art like this is for me that it is too technically perfect,
the eye and the observing mind cannot really 'co-create' with the artists,
and I think this kind of stimulus is very important in a work of art
The one thing I agree on is the hard work the paintings obviously represent.
Nowadays, most conceptual artists have work produced by somebody else and
there is an overall sublime hatred of the physical object around . Why?
Another aspect is that in this world of duality, all possibilites have to be
expressed, so as long as there is abstraction, there will be figuration of
this kind and there will be an audience for both, and thats really quite a
cool thing
mdeli
<Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I agree, originals often radiate something that cannot be reproduced, but
>the problem with art like this is for me that it is too technically perfect,
In other words there are artits that draw too well etc. Would you
suggest that the try to draw a little worse?
>the eye and the observing mind cannot really 'co-create' with the artists,
>and I think this kind of stimulus is very important in a work of art
...what ever that means
>The one thing I agree on is the hard work the paintings obviously represent.
The amazing thing about B. is the speed and ease with which he
painted. The hard work in Modern Academic Art is the in the PR
necessary in order to get anybody to look at it.
cuděc'
made some pretty sensible observations but you projected on his words
a somewhat disappointing literal interpretation.
After all, your basic opinions are very reasonable, debatable but
rational. I share many points with you.What surprise me is the manner
in which you stretch them. I suspect you need a bit of exaggeration to
keep the dialectic simple: if Mani would really become reasonable
perhaps he would cease to exist as a "personality": it could emerge
that his thesis are not so explosive, and, after all, fairly well
represented (although in minority) in the critical debate...I hope to
be wrong however.
Rationally, I feel myself compelled to admire Bouguereau from a
technical point of view. But from a poetic point of view I would
prefer to him many artists apparently less skilled, but able to
communicate me strong and complex emotions. That's a complex game, in
which a lot of the work (projections, associations and so on) is made
by the viewer. I think you should respect this "mystic", subjective
side of art, and not reduce all to a sterile technical competition. Do
you think that Art is no more than a technology of the pictorical
representation? In your opinion is a poet first of all a technician of
language? Don't misunderstand, I think technique is important,
essential to some extent, but not by itself rather as a "weapon" for
achieving objectives that are always yet to define.
Regards
Cuděc'
mdeli
>Well, Mani. I think that the dialogue below is very signifying. Ulrich
>made some pretty sensible observations but you projected on his words
>a somewhat disappointing literal interpretation.
...and what's your interpretation.
>After all, your basic opinions are very reasonable, debatable but
>rational.
Anything wrong with rationality?
>Rationally, I feel myself compelled to admire Bouguereau from a
>technical point of view. But from a poetic point of view I would
>prefer to him many artists apparently less skilled, but able to
>communicate me strong and complex emotions.
Well name some and explain a "poetic" point of view.
>That's a complex game, in
>which a lot of the work (projections, associations and so on) is made
>by the viewer. I think you should respect this "mystic", subjective
>side of art, and not reduce all to a sterile technical competition.
The usual!
I suppose the fundamentalists here have to go on saying this in order
to reassure themselves that they are on the right track because they
so sorely lack even a modicum of technique and craftsmanship.
I don't judge art solely on technique. However I dismiss all artwork
that lacks it. That's why I discuss mostly Modern Academic Art here.
Bouguereau goes far beyond technique. However the Modern Art
Fundamentalist who is familiar with little more than the latest
schmier sees Bouguereau and anyone who can draw well as a threat. This
is because he can't draw at all. Read some of the nutty outbursts
here. Then check the web sites of those who dare show one.
> Do
>you think that Art is no more than a technology of the pictorical
>representation? In your opinion is a poet first of all a technician of
>language? Don't misunderstand, I think technique is important,
>essential to some extent, but not by itself rather as a "weapon" for
>achieving objectives that are always yet to define.
Technique alone doesn't amount to much of anything. However self
expression without a foundation of technique is self delusion.
Technical skill in a narrow sense is like the foundation of a building
if its not there the building collapses. In a broader sense skill even
refers to the ability to get ideas, technique, composition and the
ability to handle complexity.
Check out my work, does it lack poetry (what ever that is), is it
technique alone? Is my idea of skill technical perfection or exact
photo realism as Marylin claims?
Tracy Miller
>Check out my work, does it lack poetry (what ever that is), is it
>technique alone? Is my idea of skill technical perfection or exact
>photo realism as Marylin claims?
I'd say it's about like Salvador Dali, only even less interesting.
I think it should go on Greeting Cards right next to the
White-Buffalo-Woman-Fantasy Greeting Cards! And the
Naked Women Gazing at Fairies Greeting Cards!
Scarlett
"Ricardo Pontes" <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O9B8SUJtAHA.302@cpmsnbbsa09...
:
: Worth pointing out that Bouguereau opened the door for Women
artists in the
: 19th century.
Are you insane? How did he do this?
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Marilyn Welch
No, he is not insane. It's true. One day Mary Cassatt was walking into the
Louvre, and Bougereau suddenly stopped and opened the door for her. She
became famous after that as The Woman Artist for whom Bougereau Opened the
Door of the Louvre.
Actually I'd like to see an art historical comparison of the works of
Bougereau and the works of Giacometti. It would begin with what
Giacometti said in "Face to Face with Giacometti" - when he studies his
models he sees their vulnerability and their common fear, the fear of
death. G. saw humanity as mortal, vulnerable, suffering.
Bougereau saw humanity as plump pink alabaster immortal beings floating
in space.
Marilyn
Ricardo Pontes
Have you read anything on Bouguereau? I doubt it, because you were taught to
hate it. Down girl, down
Here is a quote from Art Renewal org that has a good description of, its
also in many books including the catalogue raisonme.(sp)
"On the subject of teaching, we should add that, thanks to his innovative
ideas and, no doubt, because of his love for the American painter, Elizabeth
Gardner, he was one of the champions of the integration of women, not only
in the ateliers but also into the official art courses. It is in large part
due to his militant conviction that we owe the opening up to women, first in
his own atelier, and later in the celebrated Julian Academy, and finally, in
the École des Beaux-Arts."
Scarlet, how do you think women got intergrated? Eakins?
RIcardo Pontes
-
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:F3pw6.106846$lj4.3...@news6.giganews.com...
bennett
heroes.
Ricardo... the only "integration of women" that Eakins ever did was what got
him in trouble, and finally, fired from the Pennsylvania... I'm sure that's
what you meant, and I am still laughing.
Brian Shapiro
academic artists are berated as not understanding modern art, it is often
the case that those who admire modern art do not understand academic art.
The below characterization of those in the art establishment by Mani and the
subsequent quote point at two such occassions of missing understanding.
The first notion, as referenced to by Mani, is that Bouguereau and other
academic artists were creating pretty pin-ups and sexual fantasies to mass
produce for the public---based on the presence of nudes and attractive women
in their oevres, lesser attention towards men, and a sensual rendering of
those women who were painted. First off---and I think this would be easily
agreed on by everyone---to say that they were fabricators of pin ups merely
because they portrayed many ideal and sensual nude women would be a skewed
standard. There is never any criticism of the Rennaissance artist's
obsession with portraying naked, robust males; and yet we see diatribes
against the Academic artist's obsession with portraying naked, nubile
females. As the presence of sexual males in Renaissance work doesnt force us
to conclude that the artists of that period were interested in creating
homosexual icons, the presence of sexual females in Academic work doesnt
force us to conclude that the creators of that art were interested in
creating heterosexual icons. Aside from that, it is necessary to examine two
matters: a.) how the academic's portrayal of nude women differed from those
of previous generations and those which suceeded them, and b.) whether the
market or the public would have supported depictions of women that were
obvious in being pin-ups.
There are two major differences in Academic art over the art which preceded
it which effect the way in which the nudes carry meaning or evoke emotional
response. The first is that in Academic art the nude appears more sensual. A
brief an honest look at examples of academic art would reveal that this type
of sensuality was in male figures as well as nudes. For an extreme example
one can consider the smooth, emotionally evocative and erotic bronze
sculptures of male wrestlers by Frederick Lord Leighton. However, one can
find the same concern with sensuality in any male or female portrait of the
period. This type of treatment of the human form arose out of the discourse
of art in the 19th century... After Ingres had suggested that the effect of
the painting could be changed through control of the line and Romanticists
responded with examples by which it could be changed through the control of
color, artists began to look for strategies to find a balance or harmony
between line and color. The first artists who made such attempts included
the Italian Francesco Hayez and the Belgian Ary Scheffer, who maintained the
neo-classical treatment of line while using it to the service of essentially
romantic content (subjects and emotions). Later artists who had been given
praise by critics for achieving such a synthesis of neoclassicism and
romanticism include Decamps, Chassieriau, and Thomas Couture. Also during
this period of time was a concern for the ability of a painting to have
figurative content---that is to have what is in the picture to be able to
convey ideas or meaning---which lead to an emphasis towards allegory and
idealization which I will return to discussing later in this message.
At any rate, these theories and methods of art led to works which were
highly emotional, sensual, and sometimes erotic on the surface. Because many
lesser artists of the period were unable to pull it off sucessfully, they
produced cliched and overly melodramatic formulations which had no
intelligent content. However, it is necessary to distinguish that art
produced by that movement which borrowed cliches and unconvincingly rendered
emotions from that which created what became cliches (in effect, acting as
iconography) and evidence a true and sincere understanding of human
psychology. Because now what modes had been used in even the good academic
art are cliches nonetheless as they had been borrowed and overused by lesser
artists, it is difficult for the modern viewer to understand the great
intellectual effort which had been put into producing them.
The second difference in the portrayal of nudes and women in general, is
that the Academic artists moved away from the coquettish and dainty figure
that existed at the beginning of the century in Roccoco and imbued the
feminine form with more power, strength, and sexual energy (compare
Bouguereau's Venus with one by Watteau). This coincided with a change in the
way Western society viewed women... by the late 19th century, as women were
beginning participation in politics and academics, it had been felt that
there was a "new woman" who was stronger and more capable than her
counterpart in previous eras. In turn, while during the Enlightenment women
thought to be less capable of moral judgements because they were less
rational, more emotive, and more sexual---during the Victorian era women
were considered the preservers of morality. Victorian society placed both
women and children, as emblems of innocence and the perfect morality in
innocence, on pedestals. As such, it is not a stretch to say that as in the
Rennaissance artists wished to glorify masculinity, the Victorian era
artists wished to glorify femininity.
Perhaps it is difficult for some to understand this, as the treatment of
women in that era is recorded as being horrific. I would suggest that the
low place of women in Victorian society was a cultural holdover from
previous generations, and that the plight of women was then reported so
greatly because of great desire to change their position in society. By the
end of the 19th century, according to surveys of the period, most men in the
public supported women's suffrage and political rights. It is also important
to note that the Academic artists, though not supporting 'progressive'
changes in the field of art, were politically progressive and liberal.
Bouguereau headed the academie julian, which--under him--became the first
art academy in Europe which admitted women as students, and ardently
supported the indigent and republican political forces. Likewise, many
Academic artists supported Zola's Dreyfusard cause.
As I mentioned earlier, something else which must be under inspection is
whether the Victorian public would have supported paintings which were
merely pin-ups of women. Usually, it is within the commentary of art
historians that the 'sexual fantasy' nature of Academic art displays the
hypocrisy of Victorian men who publically proclaimed sexual ideals which are
puritanical relative to those we have today. Yet, the truth is that the
Victorian public did not support art which they viewed as overtly
sexual---and I am not speaking of avant-garde works by Manet but of overtly
sexual art produced by -Academic artists-. Henri Gervex caused a scandal by
depicting a woman lounging on her bed nude, her dress on a nearby chair,
while her lover escapes through a window---suggesting to a viewer the
de-flowering of the woman ("Rolla"). Charles Chaplin, another academic
artist, had his work "Aurora" rejected from the Salon because it was too
sexual. Thomas Couture had a work rejected which had shown the wife of a
prominent politician naked and in the arms of Baudelaire. And, finally,
Victorian critics attacked Bouguereau's painting "The Return of Spring",
because the allegorical figure within had an "unwholesome" expression of
sexual bliss. Bouguereau drafted a letter to one of those critics , replying
that it was furthest from his intent to portray the figure as unwholesome or
overtly sexual. In art history classes, one is only taught of the urproar
caused by Manet's paintings "Le Dejeuner" and "Olympia", while left ignorant
to the fact that many paintings by academic artists caused similar uproars.
I think you will see, looking at which art was accepted and which was
rejected by the Victorian public that the standard they had dealt
with -morality-. One could depict a nude, sensuality, and even sex (examples
of sex: Gericault's painting of a man in bed with two lovers, many paintings
with the theme of Leda). However, if one were to do that in a way that was
considered to remove dignity or degrade the human being it would be
considered unacceptable: what paintings were rejected were women as
prostitutes, or generally showing undignified behavior, women showing
orgasmic expressions, etc. A simple pin-up, meant to arouse the male viewer,
would have been considered undignified and unnaceptable. [Yes, there were
problems with this thinking, and they would lead Victorian culture to be
subverted. But to look at it in perspective, it is necessary to compare the
ideals of moderation and temperance present in the Victorian era--where they
would allow themselves sensual pleasures--with the squeaky-clean puritanism
of the 50s and the rational aseticism of the 17th century.]
The second notion which I believe is rooted in a lack of understanding is
that the Academic "glossed over facts" to produce pretty pictures of women
and peasants ("They employed the same convention of smoothed?out form and
waxen surface." to pull from the quote I am responding to). I will return to
the subject of the intellectual interest in idealized allegory and
figuration, but first it would be helpful to point out matters that are
less related to their theoretical standpoint (which one could claim were
just rationalizations). If you look at a broad selection of paintings of
Bouguereau you will notice that he painted godesses different from peasant
women. The godesses in his paintings always have paler, lighter skin, and
less imperfections and more serenity in their form (areas of comparison
would be the feet, hands, elbows, and shins). Even within his idealizing
technique, Bouguereau differentiated deities from humans by portraying them
as more divinely ideal. What else must be considered is that Bouguereau
didnt simply draw models as peasants with ignorance of how peasants truly
looked or lived---in fact, he spent most of his early career traveling in
Italy and sketching Italian peasant women and girls who resided in small
villages. This brings me to think that Bouguereau knew more how peasant
women actually looked than Parisian art critics who did not move beyond the
walls of their city. Could it be true that they exaggerated how dirty and
unkempt the peasants were?
That speculation aside, Bouguereau and other academic artists did indeed
attempt to idealize the human form, but this was based in their interest
their notions of allegory and figuration. Essentially, academic artists held
a Platonic view of nature, and equated beauty with truth [truth of the ideal
forms behind the perceptory experience]. Thomas Couture, an Academic artist,
hated Realism, calling the artists in that movement "incompetent men without
any talent" who "confuse ugliness with truth". To Couture, ugliness
represented formlessness, a grotesque distortion of nature by those who
could not see the truth behind what was percieved.
In other words---Academic artists were not concerned so much with realism,
but with figuration and allegory.
--Brian Shapiro
> Condemning Bouguereau for painting sexually disturbing pinups nudes is
> hypocritical. Especially when critics unflinchingly accept pictures
> like Picasso's erotic comic book style bathroom scrawls, which abound
> in hairy protuberances and erotic naughtyisms, as great art.
Brian Shapiro
To be frank, it seems as if you can't recognize an intelligent/serious view
of humanity unless it is pessimistic and cynical. Bouguereau chose to
depict, in most of his works, the innocence and dignity of youth (while some
earlier works do depict suffering ('St. Louis caring for the plague
victims') or are reflective on suffering ('Equality', for instance, an
allegory in which an angel of death is above a dead body, draping over it a
white cloth))
The nudes that are "plump pink alabaster immortal beings floating in space"
are representing gods in paintings that are more concerned with allegory,
figuration, and reflecting divine ideals. The 'humanity' can be seen in his
portraits, and his scenes with peasants, shepherdessess, and knitters.
--Brian
>Giacomettisaw humanity as mortal, vulnerable, suffering.
Brian Shapiro
And in addition to that episode with Mary Cassatt, Bouguereau is responsible
for opening the first art academy that admitted women students.
Come one... Isn't it a little ironic that feminist theorists detest
Bouguereau while they admire Picasso, who was rumored to be a mysoginist?
--Brian
Brian Shapiro
I often find that people that overstate the case for something are harming
the cause that they support
"cudìc'" <tir...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:s2h1ctsjkrboujk9c...@4ax.com...
> Well, Mani. I think that the dialogue below is very signifying. Ulrich
> made some pretty sensible observations but you projected on his words
> a somewhat disappointing literal interpretation.
> After all, your basic opinions are very reasonable, debatable but
> rational. I share many points with you.What surprise me is the manner
> in which you stretch them. I suspect you need a bit of exaggeration to
> keep the dialectic simple: if Mani would really become reasonable
> perhaps he would cease to exist as a "personality": it could emerge
> that his thesis are not so explosive, and, after all, fairly well
> represented (although in minority) in the critical debate...I hope to
> be wrong however.
> Rationally, I feel myself compelled to admire Bouguereau from a
> technical point of view. But from a poetic point of view I would
> prefer to him many artists apparently less skilled, but able to
> communicate me strong and complex emotions. That's a complex game, in
> which a lot of the work (projections, associations and so on) is made
> by the viewer. I think you should respect this "mystic", subjective
> side of art, and not reduce all to a sterile technical competition. Do
> you think that Art is no more than a technology of the pictorical
> representation? In your opinion is a poet first of all a technician of
> language? Don't misunderstand, I think technique is important,
> essential to some extent, but not by itself rather as a "weapon" for
> achieving objectives that are always yet to define.
>
> Regards
> Cudìc'
zoo
>Bouguereau is responsible
> for opening the first art academy that admitted women students.
In reply to Marilyn 's comment:
> >One day Mary Cassatt was walking into the Louvre, and Bougereau suddenly
stopped and opened the door for her. She
> > became famous after that as The Woman Artist for whom Bougereau Opened
the
> > Door of the Louvre.
Some people make pretty influential door openers, seems to me.....
Louise Marleau
Tracy Miller
Watch out for this guy. He's also from the TOAD POND.
Tracy
Brian Shapiro
Look its a bitter anti-bouguereau maniac! etc etc If you had really spent
some time subscribed to the good-art list you would know that most of the
posts I make to that list are arguments in favor of accepting modern art,
while the posts I make to this newsgroup are arguments in favor of academic
artists. In other words, I dont involve myself on either list for the
purpose of ingratiating myself through concurrent opinions, but for
discussion
--Brian
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3ac93138...@news.pipeline.com...
> Cudic,
>
> Watch out for this guy. He's also from the TOAD POND.
>
> Tracy
>
>
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 01:41:11 GMT, "Brian Shapiro"
> <thesh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >cudic,
> >
> >I often find that people that overstate the case for something are
harming
> >the cause that they support
> >
> >"cuděc'" <tir...@spam.com> wrote in message
> >> Cuděc'
Tracy Miller
Brian Shapiro
Yes it is obvious, but so many people still don't realize this, which is why
it was necessary for inclusion in my message. I hope you do read the rest of
it, as it deals with more than what is said in that statement.
--Brian
-
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3ac9343a...@news.pipeline.com...
Tracy Miller
favor of Modern art.
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:25:45 GMT, "Brian Shapiro"
<thesh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Tracy,
>
>Look its a bitter anti-bouguereau maniac! etc etc If you had really spent
>some time subscribed to the good-art list you would know that most of the
>posts I make to that list are arguments in favor of accepting modern art,
>while the posts I make to this newsgroup are arguments in favor of academic
>artists. In other words, I dont involve myself on either list for the
>purpose of ingratiating myself through concurrent opinions, but for
>discussion
Again, total BULLSHIT! BULLSHITAROLA!
Discussion? HAH! Discussion is not what ANY of you are about.
Brian Shapiro
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3ac93ce0...@news.pipeline.com...
> And I say, total bullshit. I never once saw you post anything in
> favor of Modern art.
> Again, total BULLSHIT! BULLSHITAROLA!
mdeli
Magazine. There are four reproductions showing his typical variety.
First an art school level painting. Second and third, drawing which is
pure abomination. Fourth the usual Picasso stupidity on the level of a
third rate illustrator. I suppose the average Picassoholic willing to
swallow anything will again be ecstatic.
I have a collector's book of Picasso's erotic drawings one worse than
the next.
Why you won't hear a word of descent:
-Picasso is an international business in which investors stand to lose
their paints
-You might be branded an anti-intellectual
-The average viewer says nothing because he has been told he doesn't
understand and he doesn't want to hear about it.
If any of these four works turned out to be fakes I believe they would
be classed as garbage. The only worthwhile thing about these works is
the signature.
Its Picasso as usual, 85% hype.
Andrew D
[snip]
+There are hundreds of very fine Academic painters. Among the best are
+Gerome, Bonheur, Meissonier, Bargue. Vibert. Detaille, Fortuney. There
+are so many more. They are hidden away and are as hard to find as
+originals by Norman Rockwell or Leyendecker's are in any museum. The
+artzy fartzy curaters of most major musuems keep these artists out of
+eyes reach lest the viewer stray from Modern Academic Art or
+Impressionism.
The West Australian Art Gallery "hides" most of *our* finest historical
works (Von Guerard, McCubbin, Roberts, Streeton, Davies, Buvelot et al)
away in a separate gallery and places a very small sign pointing toward
it. Most people I speak to about our gallery are unaware this other
gallery exists right next door and generally assume the WAAG simply
doesn't hold much historical Australian art any more.
Apart from one token Hans Heysen painting, the main gallery is mostly
filled with the sort of oversized, unfathomable scrawl that wins acclaim
among the critics these days. "If it's fathomable, it isn't art".
Andy
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
John Mashler
>If any of these four works turned out to be fakes I believe they would
>be classed as garbage. The only worthwhile thing about these works is
>the signature.
mani, how do you feel about Rembrandt? Many of his works were discovered to be
fakes - or rather done by the *school of*. One is never sure what one is
looking at in the National Gallery these days.
John
John Mashler
>
>To be frank, it seems as if you can't recognize an intelligent/serious view
>of humanity unless it is pessimistic and cynical.
What an remarkably perceptive man you are, Brian.
John
Tracy Miller
paintings by an artist who does representational work that is actually
really quite good. Better than anything I have ever seen done
locally. I mentioned it to one of my teachers, and he said that that
is actually an East Coast thing, now - you know, like New York CIty,
thoguht to be the art center of the universe. He said that the
conceptual art thing is largely a West Coast thing. I told him that
was heartening. You do not have anyone from the GoodArt list
to thank for it. I think perhaps they are stuck in a groove like a
vinyl record, and endlessly repeat themselves ad naseum.
They can't stop!
Marilyn Welch
On 3 Apr 2001, John Mashler wrote:
> >Marilyn,
> >
> >To be frank, it seems as if you can't recognize an intelligent/serious view
> >of humanity unless it is pessimistic and cynical.
I suggested a comparison of Bouguereau and Giacometti, that's all. You are
the one who got personal.
As for the Mary Cassatt bit, that was total fiction in the style of Borge
in a word play on the phrase "Bouguereau opened the doors for women
artists." That you could not recognize the irony perhaps explains why you
can't understand modern art.
>
> What an remarkably perceptive man you are, Brian.
> John
>
Not perceptive enough to recognize that "john mashler" is ALISON RAIMES.
Brian Shapiro
> in a word play on the phrase "Bouguereau opened the doors for women
> artists." That you could not recognize the irony perhaps explains why you
> can't understand modern art.
Marilyn,
Perhaps what is more ironic is that you presume that I can't understand
modern art, while I do both enjoy it and am knowledgeable about it. As for
your fictional response, I should have noticed the play on the prhase (it
doesn't require an erudite or intelligent person to notice, nor a type of
skill that would lead one to understand or appreciate modern art); that I
didn't can be probably be explained a result of several factors that were
effecting my attention, and which need not be discussed here.
I had no intention to "get personal"---I was responding to the way in which
you were able admire Giacometti for his view of humanity as vulnerable,
fearful, and suffering, but had a demeaning characterization towards art
which projected opposite ideas. Is it Bouguereau's artistic talent that you
find questionable, or his view of humanity?
--Brian
Marcus Williamson
A word of what?
Tracy Miller
Descent! As in Descending down, as into Hell!
John Mashler
>Not perceptive enough to recognize that "john mashler" is ALISON RAIMES.
Or maybe not as paranoid?
John
Ricardo Pontes
> On 3 Apr 2001, John Mashler wrote:
>
> > >Marilyn,
> > >
> > >To be frank, it seems as if you can't recognize an intelligent/serious
view
> > >of humanity unless it is pessimistic and cynical.
>
> I suggested a comparison of Bouguereau and Giacometti, that's all. You are
> the one who got personal.
>
> As for the Mary Cassatt bit, that was total fiction in the style of Borge
> in a word play on the phrase "Bouguereau opened the doors for women
> artists." That you could not recognize the irony perhaps explains why you
> can't understand modern art.
>
I didnt know about that bit on Bouguereau and Mary Cassat. I cannot find it
on the archives, can someone repost this post in which this was suggested. I
never heard of that before, it sounds very intersting thou :)
Marilyn, are you familiar with Bouguereau at all? Have you read any books on
him? I would suggest you pick up a book on dear old bougie and study a bit
before declaring these things false. :)
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
John,
I dont know about Mani. But personally if anyone has enough skill to make a
Rembrandt, Vermeer, Bouguereau then that is great. Its not really the
signature on these works that i like, i personally go to the National
Gallery to look at the works, i hardly admire the signature(often its pretty
well hidden). Copying the masterworks alone is pretty difficult, but making
a painting that seems to be an original and then having the skill to execute
it is pretty amazing.
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
Seems like your teacher still thinks that art belongs to fashion. Do you
recall what the artists name is Tracy? It would be great if you could post
some images of the show.
You keep talking about the goodart list as if they owe you something Tracy?
Did they hurt your pride? If so what happened? I doubt that the goodart
group is as evil as your make them out to be.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3ac9e531...@news.pipeline.com...
Ricardo Pontes
> Again, total BULLSHIT! BULLSHITAROLA!
>
> Discussion? HAH! Discussion is not what ANY of you are about.
>
> >
Tracy,
How old are you?
Ricardo Pontes
Tracy Miller
info from the books, and if that information in any way contradicts
his worldview, he'll start saying that books don't count, you have to
go look at the paintings, you have go down into the basements of
museums and look at all of them, before your opinion will mean
anything. If you bring up statements made even by Professor
Emerituses on art history, he'll debunk it all, he'll say that a
Professor Emeritus knows nothing, and he'll assume that you haven't
applied whatever his next qualification requirement will be, and
exhort you to do that.
I know, I've been there. That's how the Bougeuareu maniacs work.
It's a cult!
Tracy Miller
about the artist, I will tell them.
Tracy Miller
How old are you?
Marilyn Welch
> Marilyn, doin't believe what he says. If you styart bringing out the
> info from the books, and if that information in any way contradicts
> his worldview, he'll start saying that books don't count, you have to
> go look at the paintings, you have go down into the basements of
> museums and look at all of them, before your opinion will mean
> anything. If you bring up statements made even by Professor
> Emerituses on art history, he'll debunk it all, he'll say that a
> Professor Emeritus knows nothing, and he'll assume that you haven't
> applied whatever his next qualification requirement will be, and
> exhort you to do that.
>
> I know, I've been there. That's how the Bougeuareu maniacs work.
> It's a cult!
Hi Tracey,
It's pointless to discuss Bouguereau (yawn), especially here. I can think
of 100 other painters I'd rather discuss. In a good discussion each tries
to convince or persuade the other of their point of view and there exists
a little give on both sides. There is no "give" with the
dyed-in-the-wool-die-hards.
Besides I don't go around "declaring things false" because the truth is so
elusive, just when you think you have grasped it, it gets away from you.
regards,
Marilyn
Tracy Miller
regards,
Tracy
RBrac53660
PENCIL
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Ricardo Pontes
When i went to a art school in washington d.c. (mostly conceptual crap was
taught here, and photography), there was a part of drawing 1 in which we
copied a master. Basically they didnt want it copied, actually they asked us
to trace the drawing because they felt that we needed to learn more of the
technique(crosshatching). Most of us made decent copies, but there were
problems that went unnoticed, very subtle things that the masters had that
we could not get from copying one drawing. It requires many years of hard
work towards become good at drawing, some students learn faster than others.
But when you think that Leonardo Da Vinci never thought of himself as a
master and never thought that he learned everything that there was to learn.
Seems to me that brainwashed modern art teachers in art schools want you to
draw 1 single work that might be considered good by the uneducated public.
Something that looks 19th century academic, that way the students can always
show that one work when people dont understand the garbage that they
produce. Most of the academic drawings students do is basically garbage,
you ever wonder why trash cans in drawing classes are the industrial
version??
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010411040719...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
ljrobins
Ricardo Pontes wrote:
>
> Seems to me that brainwashed modern art teachers in art schools want you to
> draw 1 single work that might be considered good by the uneducated public.
> Something that looks 19th century academic, that way the students can always
> show that one work when people dont understand the garbage that they
> produce. Most of the academic drawings students do is basically garbage,
> you ever wonder why trash cans in drawing classes are the industrial
> version??
I think it is sad that you view your art education so sourly. Certainly you
went to the wrong school? Did you ever think of searching for one that would
fulfill your needs?
I find the kind of generalizations you make here about Modern Art Teachers
quite troubling. Two of my most influential drawing instructors are both
abstractionists in their practice, but both were classically trained, and they
really made their students draw space and form rigorously, and always through
observational drawing. I had this type of training through both my Foundation
year and my second year. Unfortunately, I didn't get enough of it in 3rd and
4th year for my liking. But I do have a decent enough foundation to work from
and it's all in my hands now to improve on that foundation. Art school should
be a place that you gain enough of a foundation that you can pursue your
passion. It takes discipline and a rigorous practice. End of story.
lissa
mdeli
wrote:
Most of the academic drawings students do is basically garbage,
>> you ever wonder why trash cans in drawing classes are the industrial
>> version??
>
>I think it is sad that you view your art education so sourly.
>I find the kind of generalizations you make here about Modern Art Teachers
>quite troubling. Two of my most influential drawing instructors are both
>abstractionists in their practice, but both were classically trained, and they
>really made their students draw space and form rigorously, and always through
>observational drawing.
Sure, lets see the drawings.
snip
> End of story.
Not quite!
BACK TO SCHOOL
For all those students who sincerely believe that learning skill and
technique is of no importance I have taken the liberty of renaming and
describing some of the important courses offered to them by their
favorite Modern Art Academy.
Note:
By the time you finish your training you will be a certified ARTIST
and you will get a coveted certificate to prove it.
Drawing courses should be renamed Paper Dirtying.
-You will be expected to produce one realistic drawing of an egg in
order to convince yourself that you have mastered realism and then
proceed to more serious stuff. Here you can smear away on large
newsprint pads. You will be taught all methods of how to excuse the
academic errors and the little sloppinesses you produce, as
experimental distortions.
Design courses should be called "Kindergarten Theory for slow
learners."
-Here you will learn all those modern academic techniques including
advanced dripping flipping and snipping. Although students have been
doing this for the last fifty years you will be given the impression
that this is all very new, highly creative and important.
Art history should be called "Art Mythology."
-Here you will learn that all past art merely anticipated the
Impressionists whose evangelical struggle to overcome their evil
enemies led to the glories of Avant Garde Modern Academic Art which
is presently admired by anyone who claims intellectual grace.
Painting courses should be called "Canvas Alteration." (course
requirement-the above three courses)
-Here you will learn the latest methods of how to convince yourself
that your product enhanced by your lack of drawing skills, is an all
new, very serious, self expression which was designed to exhibit
honesty, sincerity and emotion rather than any useless technique. VERY
NICE teachers will instruct you in accomplishing this.
I have always suggested a new course called "Artspeak One." This would
crystalize the ideas in all the above courses.
-Besides sharpening your illogical abilities, mastery of this course
will teach you how oppose any detractors by dropping cryptic terms.
The latest issues of the most prominent Artzy Fartzy magazines will be
required reading with great attention to the lingo used to describe
the masterpieces therein. The public dangers of anything labeled as
kitsch, commercial and illustration will be discussed in lectures by
important guest critics.
At term’s end you will be examined on your abilities to analyze the
ethereal essences of Mondrian in at least ten thousand words or more.
Mastery of this course should enable you to defend Abstract
Expressionist work against any and all negativism’s.
Mani DeLi
PS
I suppose my detractors here will write the usual stuff about my
"ranting negativism." I sincerely advise them to consult any
unrecognized, technically inept disgruntled genius graduates who
failed to win the Modern Academic Art lottery and listen to their
extensive ranting negativism about art and money.
ljrobins
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:23:13 -0600, ljrobins <ljro...@cadvision.com>
> wrote:
> Most of the academic drawings students do is basically garbage,
> >> you ever wonder why trash cans in drawing classes are the industrial
> >> version??
> >
> >I think it is sad that you view your art education so sourly.
>
> >I find the kind of generalizations you make here about Modern Art Teachers
> >quite troubling. Two of my most influential drawing instructors are both
> >abstractionists in their practice, but both were classically trained, and they
> >really made their students draw space and form rigorously, and always through
> >observational drawing.
>
> Sure, lets see the drawings.
Either you believe me or not. If not, who cares? You are just mad that people can
get an art education you insist isn't offered anywhere in the world. Whatever.
Keep living in your fantasy world. You are a sad bitter man.
Ricardo Pontes
>
> Ricardo Pontes wrote:
>
> >
> > Seems to me that brainwashed modern art teachers in art schools want you
to
> > draw 1 single work that might be considered good by the uneducated
public.
> > Something that looks 19th century academic, that way the students can
always
> > show that one work when people dont understand the garbage that they
> > produce. Most of the academic drawings students do is basically
garbage,
> > you ever wonder why trash cans in drawing classes are the industrial
> > version??
>
> I think it is sad that you view your art education so sourly. Certainly
you
> went to the wrong school? Did you ever think of searching for one that
would
> fulfill your needs?
Hmm, well my bad. I thought ART schools taught ArT?? I have gone to 2 art
schools. Its mostly filled with teachers who dont know much about art but
since they need a part time job to fill the void in their life they have
managed to kiss enough ass to get in a pretigious art school.
Lissa, what school would your recommend for someone like me? I have very
high standards.
>
> I find the kind of generalizations you make here about Modern Art Teachers
> quite troubling. Two of my most influential drawing instructors are both
> abstractionists in their practice, but both were classically trained, and
they
> really made their students draw space and form rigorously, and always
through
> observational drawing. I had this type of training through both my
Foundation
If i had your teachers, and i dont mean any disrespect. I would ask to see
their drawings. The only thing that will convince me if they are truly great
sculptors and painters is by their drawings. I will bet you that they dont
know the different between their hands and their feet. I have heard the same
thing over and over, about abstract artists having a solid foundation in
classical art. I have asked a few to show me and they were pretty confident
in their work. The result was a horrible geberish sort of human alien
thingy. And they manage to talk me for minutes about the work, as if talking
will save their lousy work. I would suggest you question them on their so
called "Classical Training".
> year and my second year. Unfortunately, I didn't get enough of it in 3rd
and
> 4th year for my liking. But I do have a decent enough foundation to work
from
> and it's all in my hands now to improve on that foundation. Art school
should
> be a place that you gain enough of a foundation that you can pursue your
> passion. It takes discipline and a rigorous practice. End of story.
>
> lissa
>
This is a very standard practice among art school these days. And I hate to
tell you, but if that is what you have gotten for an education then you have
not received academic training. 1 or 2 or 10 years of art school training
these days will not do anything for you, not artistically anyway. I heard
the same thing, teachers telling me that :"we have showed you the tools, the
foundation, now its up to you!!" and that is total crap. Because art
students come to art school to learn about art, if I wanted someone to show
me the so called foundation and tools I would read a book. Its wise to
research how art schools and studios have trained artists in the past.
In the end its up to the student to learn, but art teachers have failed to
show the foundation in which great art is built upon. The best thing for art
is to get rid of the buffoons teaching art in art schools and replace them
with monkeys, we can learn something from monkeys like eating fleas and
ticks off of each other. :)
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
ljrobins
Ricardo Pontes wrote:
>
>
> If i had your teachers, and i dont mean any disrespect. I would ask to see
> their drawings. The only thing that will convince me if they are truly great
> sculptors and painters is by their drawings. I will bet you that they dont
> know the different between their hands and their feet. I have heard the same
> thing over and over, about abstract artists having a solid foundation in
> classical art. I have asked a few to show me and they were pretty confident
> in their work. The result was a horrible geberish sort of human alien thingy.
> And they manage to talk me for minutes about the work, as if talking will
> save their lousy work. I would suggest you question them on their so called
> "Classical Training".
You absolutely do mean to be disrespectful. Funny how you are pontificating on
instructors at a school you know nothing about. One of them is one of the most
amazing drawers I have met. He is in his late 60's or 70's and DOES have a
classically trained background. He teaches all of the figure drawing classes
(including the anatomical ones) and makes the students draw through observation
over and over again. Just because he is an abstract painter NOW doesn't mean he
always was. He knows more about space and line than your average joe artist.
Sheesh. Why do YOU assume I know nothing about these instructors or their
history? Why do you assume to know more than I do about these instructors of
MINE. You are just a blimp of hot air.
> This is a very standard practice among art school these days. And I hate to
> tell you, but if that is what you have gotten for an education then you have
> not received academic training. 1 or 2 or 10 years of art school training
> these days will not do anything for you, not artistically anyway. I heard
> the same thing, teachers telling me that :"we have showed you the tools, the
> foundation, now its up to you!!" and that is total crap. Because art
> students come to art school to learn about art, if I wanted someone to show
> me the so called foundation and tools I would read a book. Its wise to
> research how art schools and studios have trained artists in the past.
The point you are missing is THEY DID TEACH ME ABOUT ART. IT IS A STUDIO BASED
ART COLLEGE. They don't just teach you the foundations they make you do it
...over and over again. Good drawing is practice. Over and over again. That is
what the classical artists did.
>
>
> In the end its up to the student to learn, but art teachers have failed to
> show the foundation in which great art is built upon. The best thing for art
> is to get rid of the buffoons teaching art in art schools and replace them
> with monkeys, we can learn something from monkeys like eating fleas and
> ticks off of each other. :)
You have ranted and raved but you have not proven your argument. Come up with
more concrete example.
Ricardo Pontes
--
> >
> >
> > In the end its up to the student to learn, but art teachers have failed
to
> > show the foundation in which great art is built upon. The best thing for
art
> > is to get rid of the buffoons teaching art in art schools and replace
them
> > with monkeys, we can learn something from monkeys like eating fleas and
> > ticks off of each other. :)
>
> You have ranted and raved but you have not proven your argument. Come up
with
> more concrete example.
>
>
>
Neither have you. Why dont you upload some of your art?
Ricardo Pontes
ljrobins
You speak in generalities (all art schools are bad) and I speak in this was my
experience at this school with this instructor.
I don't and won't upload my art because I make installation art and we already
know what you think about that. It would serve no purpose other than give you
an opportunity to insult me. Again. I am confident in my education, in my
instructors and in my work. Enough so that I don't need to insult other
people's work to elevate myself even if I don't like it.
I am confident that I understand space and form. Does this mean I am a master?
No. Could I be better? Yes. Has this aspect of my work been prominent? No. Can
my understanding of space and form translate into installation art. Yes.
Caroline Broadhead's work is a great example of this. But it doesn't matter
because you will reject this kind of art no matter what. You can't even look
because your eyes are so fogged up with your own vision that nothing could ever
penetrate it. Nope. You won't see my art. I ain't no masochist.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010413183759.422$3...@newsreader.com...
> A gallant effort, Lissa, but you are wasting your time. As you quite
> correctly point out, folks like RPontes create total generalizations
> that evolve out of their own bitterness, envy, and disappointment. Of
> course many art teachers are quite good. Some are lousy. That's life. I've
> seen some MFA shows lately that would make me want my money back if I were
> the parent. The goal of art school is still worthwhile for those who will
> take advantage of what's offered.
Talking of disappointments, hows your art?
>
> In addition to generalizations, losers like to define valid art for us.
> For some, only classical realism is acceptable. Others will on occasion
> allow that certain abstraction might meet their criteria - but not
> video or installation, etc. etc.
>
Losers, as in the public and people who dislike your garbage.
> These messages all have one basis. They reflect what writer William Gass
> calls, 'the motheaten arrogance of the self-taught.' Pity them: You and I
> can leave here and go back to the studio and make art. Their problems live
> inside them. They cannot leave.
>
Wow you make it sound like we are real tortured souls. Perhaps we can use
that to our advantage and make up a phony character , act silly etc.. and
then make some garbage like you do then we can be admired for our genius. I
once made a character, i wore a full 3 piece suit, one black shoe, one red
shoe, and a checked baseball cap. I entered a local show by submitting some
ordinary crap i found around the house, a ladder, a couple of ceiling tiles
and then i wrote a bogus manifesto on art. They sure loved it. They really
loved my character as i paraded dressed like an idiot in the gallery, that
was good fun. I doubt anyone here is bitter except a couple of your who
realize that you have been taken by a hoax. But me, im just having a bit of
fun!! :)
Cherio
Ricardo Pontes
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
> http://www.danfoxart.com
ljrobins
>
> Talking of disappointments, hows your art?
>
>
>
> Wow you make it sound like we are real tortured souls. Perhaps we can use
> that to our advantage and make up a phony character , act silly etc.. and
> then make some garbage like you do then we can be admired for our genius. I
> once made a character, i wore a full 3 piece suit, one black shoe, one red
> shoe, and a checked baseball cap. I entered a local show by submitting some
> ordinary crap i found around the house, a ladder, a couple of ceiling tiles
> and then i wrote a bogus manifesto on art. They sure loved it. They really
> loved my character as i paraded dressed like an idiot in the gallery, that
> was good fun. I doubt anyone here is bitter except a couple of your who
> realize that you have been taken by a hoax. But me, im just having a bit of
> fun!! :)
I think it is unfortunate also that this gallery gave you a show. What I find
even more unfortunate is that you didn't use that to your advantage and create
a media frenzy around your farce. I mean, if you were really serious about
exposing the art world, you actually would have. Instead we all have to sit and
listen to you pontificate (sigh, I love this word) about nothing.
One other sad note: there are many modern and contemporary artists who take
what they do very seriously and put much effort and skill into their work. Not
all contemporary artists who work outside of 'classical' traditions are
phonies. Too bad you aren't open enough to recognize that. I can bet with your
bitterness though that you will probably never make it as an artist.
lissa
Scarlett
"ljrobins" <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:3AD719DF...@cadvision.com...
:
:
: Ricardo Pontes wrote:
:
: >
: > Seems to me that brainwashed modern art teachers in art
schools want you to
: > draw 1 single work that might be considered good by the
uneducated public.
: > Something that looks 19th century academic, that way the
students can always
: > show that one work when people dont understand the garbage
that they
: > produce. Most of the academic drawings students do is
basically garbage,
: > you ever wonder why trash cans in drawing classes are the
industrial
: > version??
:
: I think it is sad that you view your art education so sourly.
Certainly you
: went to the wrong school? Did you ever think of searching for
one that would
: fulfill your needs?
:
the second year of art school. Look at ANY college website (I
think they all have one) in ANY country and you will see that the
1st levels or beginning levels have classes offered in abundance.
For example: Drawing 101, 2-D design 102 and so on - they will
have many, many, many of these classes offered. Then go to the
second year: Figure Drawing 201, Painting 280 (whatever) and you
will see 1/2 the amount. When you get up to the fourth year you
will see maybe TWO drawing or painting classes! The people with
the *attitudes* are simply "UNTEACHABLE" and I've seen and
experience them challenge an instructor's wisdom and authority
relentlessly. Either they drop out (the "I coulda been a
contender" syndrome) or they are removed from the class. They
have small little closed minds and they fear their own
inadequacies so they dismiss what is being taught as irrelevant.
So typical.
I went to an artist's opening last week. Gossip was rampant and a
good time was had by (some, many, a few?) but one thing I noticed
is that not one person there said "This isn't art" because they
were yearning for their little Floral still-life or landscapes.
There are plenty of people who go to those kind of shows. I
don't. I decided that just as I isolate myself in a selective
manner with my art viewing and art making (and therefore, these
silly battles never occur) that I have a blocker on my news
program that blocks people I don't wish to read. I've done so
with mani and Ricardo. I recommend this because people like them
don't have a chance of ever changing a single view.
They are failures. They have no future as artists in the
contemporary art world and they resent the hell out of people who
do.
I'd rather invite some Jehovah Witnesses to my home to try and
convert me. They are less offensive than those mentioned here.
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his
head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
Chris
I'm not too sure where to jump into this thread, but in any case here's
a few comments, and I hope you take them at face value.
Re the public, and public taste - because of where my studio is located
(adjacent to a skateboard club) I get a pretty big variety of people
wandering through (usually looking for the bathroom, or someplace quiet
to escape the rap music, LOL). It's shared with some others who are far
less conservative than I (like a graffitti/abstract type, and one who
did some peculiar installation things...), so there's always a range of
work in progress. I doubt I could ever generalize people's reaction to
work, other than to say that most are honestly interested in the
creation of images, and in the expression of visual ideas. Certainly
some people like some work better than others - we all have our
individual tastes - but I don't think I've seen anyone react derisively
towards any of the work. (FWIW, the most popular piece by far was a
regular school desk done over in white icing, with pinkish rosettes &
trim. Personally, it was something I really grew quite fond of - as it
was obviously whimsical on the one hand, and ironic and a little sad in
another). Younger children are particularly broad-minded - just about
anything piques their curiosity - but on the whole I don't see a bias
one way or the other towards any particular form of art.
Re. universities - the teaching of art is following pretty much the same
trends as other subjects. Students have far more options these days in
the paths they take, and because of this have to take a great deal of
responsibility for their own choices. If you are really sincere about
wanting to study classical methods, there are some schools that still
teach these extensively (I think Philadelphia is one). But by and large
any competent school will have enough people to provide you with the
resources you need in order to carry your work in the direction you
choose to go. Even way out here in the middle of nowhere our
local-but-once-and-soon-to-be-(hopefully)-again-well-known school (the
Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (NSCAD)) produces some grads with
a strong measure of classical skills, as well as others who are heading
out in different directions. But the decisions do rest with you, and not
the schools.
Regards;
Chris
RBrac53660
hard to get the feeling or the point of the space on to the internet w/o a DSL
or something like and a super computer. Video tape is a lot cheaper.
RBrac53660
Elizabeth Sussman did you. There was some great work but mostly crap
>That's life. I've
>seen some MFA shows lately that would make me want my money back if I were
>the parent.
Joseph Bennett
Joseph Bennett
I do not want to eat your ticks or fleas, but to get the kind of art
education you seem to covet, apprentice yourself to an artist whom you
actually respect, and give him six or seven years of your life cleaning
his studio, scraping up the mud from his palettes after a day's work,
stretching, gluing and priming his canvas, and so forth. Perhaps by
year three, he might let you stain a canvas, providing you have been
doing your drawing faithfully every day during the first two or three
years. By year five, you might start on color. By year seven, he might
actually let you rough in one of his canvasses. By year ten, you might
know how to paint.
What then? it would be terrible to discover that you are only a clone
of the teacher, with no resident talent whatever. Or perhaps another
Titian? Who, by the way, did his drawing on the canvas itself, left
very few studies and almost no drawings, the perfect counterpoint to
Constable of many years later, who did full scale paintings as preps for
the finished work.
All of which says what? Different strokes for different folks. It is
not really possible to condemn all art schools because they live in
today's world, where, we like it or not, the foundation skills are
simply not considered germain to the production of contemporary art.
Ranting about this is just so much pissing in the wind. If genius is
there, genius will make itself known. So many great painters, VanGogh
among them, had either very little or no training at all yet live on.
Quit complaining. Most, but not all, art teachers are living in a world
different from ours. Done deal. Let it lie. Move on. Make your own
art and see what happens down that long, long road.
Regards....
ljrobins
Joseph Bennett wrote:
This is the challenge of making art in contemporary culture. Between
trying to make money, do errands, pay for a studio, write proposals
and grants and make connections in the art world (find your
supporters), the challenge is finding time to consistently be in your
studio (often at the expense of one's personal life). There are so
many distractions in contemporary life that it is difficult to sustain
such a discipline. I believe, for myself, this is where I have
faltered the most.
lissa
Joseph Bennett
>
>
>>
>> ljrobins wrote:
>>There are so many distractions in contemporary life that it is difficult to sustain
> such a discipline. I believe, for myself, this is where I have
> faltered the most.
>
> lissa
Lissa... along this line, down in Wyandotte, Michigan, about half hours
south of Detroit, a thriving little art colony if it can be called that
seems to be taking shape. At least, a lot of people down there are
making art.
But about a month ago, one of the fine old buildings on the main street,
Biddle Street, which housed a major gallery on the first floor, plus a
coffee house that used local artist's work for its wall hangings, with
eight studios on the second floor rented out to working artists and
replete with years worth of work, all equipment, and a ton of hopes went
up in smoke. Burned to a crisp. Photo in the paper showed a couple of
the devastated artists watching a large hunk of their lives going up in
smoke.
Now, because I felt also that having a place to go to "work" just like
punching a clock would help me with the discipline bit, about two years
ago I contacted the lady in charge of renting those studios to sign up.
She never responded to my call. At the time, I was ticked. Now, I
dance for myself, but weep for the eight and the gallery and the coffee
house.
Moral: Better to be undisciplined than toast.
Regards....
Ricardo Pontes
> I think it is unfortunate also that this gallery gave you a show. What I
find
> even more unfortunate is that you didn't use that to your advantage and
create
> a media frenzy around your farce. I mean, if you were really serious about
> exposing the art world, you actually would have. Instead we all have to
sit and
> listen to you pontificate (sigh, I love this word) about nothing.
>
I think that goes to show you that anyone can do it. When i was in art
school i actually produced the garbage that i speak of here in this group.
But i just couldnt keep a straight face.
> One other sad note: there are many modern and contemporary artists who
take
> what they do very seriously and put much effort and skill into their work.
Thats the joke. They put "effort" and "skill" into their "work".
Not
> all contemporary artists who work outside of 'classical' traditions are
> phonies.
They are all phonies. Which ones are not phonies? Pollock, Picasso,
Dekooning, Van GOgh, Monet, Bouguereau, Leighton, Da Vinci....
Too bad you aren't open enough to recognize that. I can bet with your
> bitterness though that you will probably never make it as an artist.
>
> lissa
>
Lissa, you are right. I will never make it as an artist. I do not have that
open mindedness you speak off. That fruity hippie attitude towards life, i
think art is a serious thing and should not be taken lightly. Perhaps that
is my problem. But i like to think some artists are creating art out there
worthy of being called a high human achievement, most create noise, most
modernists produce garbage that is intended to be novelty and new and
original crap.
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010414093541.684$8...@newsreader.com...
> "Ricardo Pontes" <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Talking of disappointments, hows your art?
>
> I have the respect of the art community, and enough sales to make a
> comfortable living. I'll probably never be rich or famous, but I can
> do what I love.
>
I wish i could BS people into buying a ton of bottles i have in my home.
Think you can do it? You can probably make a killing.
> How's your art? Don't think I've seen it.
>
I dont make art. But actually i am building a site to house some of my
thingies at www.classical-art.com which i am in the process of transfering.
Dan, you are a very intelligent guy (it seems), intelligent enough to con
people into getting their money.
Ever think of selling pet rocks?
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3AD7E28D...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Hi Ricardo;
>
> I'm not too sure where to jump into this thread, but in any case here's
> a few comments, and I hope you take them at face value.
>
> Re the public, and public taste - because of where my studio is located
> (adjacent to a skateboard club) I get a pretty big variety of people
> wandering through (usually looking for the bathroom, or someplace quiet
> to escape the rap music, LOL). It's shared with some others who are far
> less conservative than I (like a graffitti/abstract type, and one who
> did some peculiar installation things...), so there's always a range of
> work in progress. I doubt I could ever generalize people's reaction to
> work, other than to say that most are honestly interested in the
> creation of images, and in the expression of visual ideas. Certainly
> some people like some work better than others - we all have our
> individual tastes - but I don't think I've seen anyone react derisively
> towards any of the work. (FWIW, the most popular piece by far was a
> regular school desk done over in white icing, with pinkish rosettes &
> trim.
Did you build the desk? Wow, that is redefining the whole meaning of the
word art. Its incredible. :)
Personally, it was something I really grew quite fond of - as it
> was obviously whimsical on the one hand, and ironic and a little sad in
> another). Younger children are particularly broad-minded - just about
> anything piques their curiosity - but on the whole I don't see a bias
> one way or the other towards any particular form of art.
>
> Re. universities - the teaching of art is following pretty much the same
> trends as other subjects.
They follow Fashion not art. They pursue novelty and have dismissed all
aspects of visual art for dogma.
Students have far more options these days in
> the paths they take, and because of this have to take a great deal of
> responsibility for their own choices.
Hardly, when i was a art student i could not find a school that trained
artists in a classical tradition. Now there are more small schools available
which do not give a degree or certificate etc.. When you speak of paths, you
mean regular art schools who do not train artists, but train artsy talking
monkeys into believing they are making fine art with toilet paper and
dildos. That is where the choices lay, the modern artist who can pick and
choose the route of his garbage is going to take, but there are not many
choices for someone like me. If there are, they are either half and half
modern or just plain terribly bad, like the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine
Arts. I know a guy that has 3 degrees,a pretty accomplished artists, and he
wants to get in a University in DC to get his masters, he simply is not
accepted based on what kind of art he does, "traditional" art. I know
another guy that had to make his art more contemporary in order to even get
into a masters program, his choice Dildos. Modern garbage artists love
dildos, or glitter and zippers.
If you are really sincere about
> wanting to study classical methods, there are some schools that still
> teach these extensively (I think Philadelphia is one).
You mean the Pennsylvania Academy? The Academy baites students on the
traditional history of the school and then feeds them oranges instead of the
apples they promised. On the good note, they do have a decent collection of
plaster casts students can draw from. I have been there to several shows,
and its mostly garbage just like anywhere else. The biggest garbage is in
their masters program part, im sure you know what that looks like.
But by and large
> any competent school will have enough people to provide you with the
> resources you need in order to carry your work in the direction you
> choose to go.
Hardly. Art schools should worry about training artists how to
draw/paint/sculpt/print and quite worrying about what the current trend of
wall decor is out there.
Even way out here in the middle of nowhere our
> local-but-once-and-soon-to-be-(hopefully)-again-well-known school (the
> Nova Scotia College of Art and Design (NSCAD)) produces some grads with
> a strong measure of classical skills, as well as others who are heading
> out in different directions. But the decisions do rest with you, and not
> the schools.
>
I question their strong measure of classical skills.
Ciao
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Joseph Bennett" <joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AD85218...@mediaone.net...
> Ricardo...
>
> I do not want to eat your ticks or fleas, but to get the kind of art
> education you seem to covet, apprentice yourself to an artist whom you
> actually respect, and give him six or seven years of your life cleaning
> his studio, scraping up the mud from his palettes after a day's work,
> stretching, gluing and priming his canvas, and so forth. Perhaps by
> year three, he might let you stain a canvas, providing you have been
> doing your drawing faithfully every day during the first two or three
> years. By year five, you might start on color. By year seven, he might
> actually let you rough in one of his canvasses. By year ten, you might
> know how to paint.
>
Whoever said art was easy??? Wannabe artists go into art school thinking
they have it made, like they can kick back. Art is about hard work.
> What then? it would be terrible to discover that you are only a clone
> of the teacher, with no resident talent whatever. Or perhaps another
> Titian? Who, by the way, did his drawing on the canvas itself, left
> very few studies and almost no drawings, the perfect counterpoint to
> Constable of many years later, who did full scale paintings as preps for
> the finished work.
>
You are wrong about that. 2 individuals will produce different results no
matter how they were painted. David and Ingres. There is a resemblance, but
2 men, 2 temperaments etc.. It would be horrible to learn that after all of
that time i was not as talented as the "master". But then again, i could
just be a modern artist, you dont need talent for that. If you simply say
that the teacher produces clones, than just about every artist in the past
is a clone. Da Vinci, Bouguereau, Monet, Degas etc... Its up to the student
to take steps in order to distinguish himself, to make his art better than
the previous. But i hardly think that is worth it, its better to sincerlly
study than to pursue originality for its own sake.
> All of which says what? Different strokes for different folks. It is
> not really possible to condemn all art schools because they live in
> today's world, where, we like it or not, the foundation skills are
> simply not considered germain to the production of contemporary art.
> Ranting about this is just so much pissing in the wind. If genius is
> there, genius will make itself known. So many great painters, VanGogh
> among them, had either very little or no training at all yet live on.
>
I think everyone knows the level of training of a Van gogh. I can give Van
gogh some credit, at least he tried, but his paintings really are pretty
awful. Reminds me of the realistic garbage being produced these days with
over saturated color and the drawing skill of a drunken midget. He had some
letters in which he refered to Bouguereau and Picasso. Anyone on this list
care to write some of those quotes up?? About picasso not having enough
skill??
> Quit complaining. Most, but not all, art teachers are living in a world
> different from ours. Done deal. Let it lie. Move on. Make your own
> art and see what happens down that long, long road.
>
> Regards....
>
Art teachers are living in a different world? The problem with most people
in this group and the "artists" out there, is that they have all their lives
been sheltered by nice teachers who never tell the students what their art
really is. Frankly when i was in art school, i got my ass kicked more than
the average nerd in school because i told them what they knew and did not
want to hear. I find my spare time more fullfilled when i attend artspeak
night at the local art gallery and blaze away at the very nice artist types.
They usually get very insulted, some actually push, but mostly they are
afraid of someone who seems a bit nutz. Its fun, you should try it.
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
> I think Ricardo is one of many I've seen. They never make it past
> the second year of art school. Look at ANY college website (I
> think they all have one) in ANY country and you will see that the
> 1st levels or beginning levels have classes offered in abundance.
> For example: Drawing 101, 2-D design 102 and so on - they will
> have many, many, many of these classes offered. Then go to the
> second year: Figure Drawing 201, Painting 280 (whatever) and you
> will see 1/2 the amount. When you get up to the fourth year you
> will see maybe TWO drawing or painting classes! The people with
> the *attitudes* are simply "UNTEACHABLE" and I've seen and
> experience them challenge an instructor's wisdom and authority
> relentlessly. Either they drop out (the "I coulda been a
> contender" syndrome) or they are removed from the class. They
> have small little closed minds and they fear their own
> inadequacies so they dismiss what is being taught as irrelevant.
>
That is always the case. Usually the more determined stay. What makes you
think i did not stay??? When i entered art school i was so green and just
wanted to learn. But after seeing what the final product was, you start to
question what this is about. When i was in art school, i was more advanced
the the teachers that were teaching it, this was simply bad. If a student is
a better artist thant he teacher, how is he to learn. (I dont want to seem
like i am vein here). To tell you the truth, i am pretty bad, but the
teachers were worse. I see a problem with that, dont you?
> So typical.
>
> I went to an artist's opening last week. Gossip was rampant and a
> good time was had by (some, many, a few?) but one thing I noticed
> is that not one person there said "This isn't art" because they
> were yearning for their little Floral still-life or landscapes.
That is the sort of downlooking you can expect from a modern "artist". As if
some art is just beneath them.
> There are plenty of people who go to those kind of shows. I
> don't. I decided that just as I isolate myself in a selective
> manner with my art viewing and art making (and therefore, these
> silly battles never occur)
I guess its better to believe that everyone likes what you produce.
Listening to the opposite side should be a benefit to you. After i critize
modernist "artists" they usually will be quite blunt about the stuff i make,
and that makes it very valuable. Its the sort of thing that art schools dont
accept, a truthful look at someone's work.
that I have a blocker on my news
> program that blocks people I don't wish to read. I've done so
> with mani and Ricardo. I recommend this because people like them
> don't have a chance of ever changing a single view.
>
> They are failures. They have no future as artists in the
> contemporary art world and they resent the hell out of people who
> do.
>
I never said i was an accomplished failure.
> I'd rather invite some Jehovah Witnesses to my home to try and
> convert me. They are less offensive than those mentioned here.
>
>
> --
If your art sucks, try putting a zipper and lots of glitter on it. It shines
Ricardo Pontes
mdeli
> I have a blocker on my news
>program that blocks people I don't wish to read. I've done so
>with mani and Ricardo. I recommend this because people like them
>don't have a chance of ever changing a single view.
Scarlett's views have changed read below.
>They are failures. They have no future as artists in the
>contemporary art world and they resent the hell out of people who
>do.
So here are some quotes of what Scarlett wrote when she first saw my
work on my web site before she stopped reading my messages. When I
reviewed her work she went ballistic and condemned me as a failure.
She should fail as well as I have.
Scarlett wrote:
"I told you I would look at your site and I did. It takes a lot
of time. You make good arguments, most of which I still vehemently
disagree with (although I do like Tamara & have not been a fan of
Picasso since analytic/synthetic cubism & Guernica. What puzzles me
is your own art. I have looked at art on the net and it is really
pretty worthless. (Try critiquing that). Your lists of artists that
you like (Disney & Dali) is bizarre in the comparison. Back to your
art, your art contains both the bizarre, satire & irony. The names
are wonderful (Middle Yeast Rising!) but they are very well painted!
Why so bitter? Why go on in this vein? You state that you hate
Modern art and I wouldn't call you a Modernist; I would definitely
call you a post-modernist. Your art contains most elements of
deconstruction post-modernism. I really liked "Mickey Mona"
(appropriation - another post-modern phenomenom). Why are your works
so small? What medium do you work in? Did you do !
the "Nosepickers of Avignon? Well, I guess you aren't going to
change. You could make a living as an artist. Duchamp was a
non-working artist who made are too. Your sense of humor and satire
show in your work. Very clever and well-done. What's the problem?"
Very well done!"
I met Scarlett types all through art school. They will only compliment
your work if you do the same. It was an unspoken law. This made those
who produced average art school drivel feel good about themselves.
Scarlett's work is art school drivel check it out. I suspect she
thinks so much about academia because she is teaching the next
generation of failures. (only a guess)
caliban
I 've been lurking around and have enjoyed and agreed with most all of your
posts. I also noticed that you showed with Lombard/Freid. Very cool. They're
great gals, huh? So here's the question:
Do you remember which things, in particular, you liked and which you thought
were crap in the Sussman Biennial (you were close <G>). Was Jason Rhoades in
that one? I always get them confused.
cal
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010414023109...@ng-df1.aol.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
RBrac53660
>artists in a classical tradition. Now there are more small schools available
Uhhm I know for a fact that pratt is one of the oldest art schools in the grand
ole USA and if you want to go down the classical path you can. It is also a
very small school. Or you could check out the Art Institute of Chicago or Cal
Arts, Parsons is hot too.
So I took your worm (stink bait) Mr. Dantes but my worm is flambayed in a nice
rum sauce.
Best regards to your BAIT
caliban
oh, I don't know, let say the early 50's. They do *claim* (and this is where
they always seem to get into trouble) to represent is presently happening in
CONTEMPORARY art when, as I think you were implying, what they really
present is the vision of what one, two or four curators see as going on at
the moment. I think that's still interesting because these curators spend
there days, nights and weekends seeing has much art as they can but as any
list of favorites, it is subjective. For the record, I'm not particularly
interested in what Rudy or mdeli (both of whom I consider to be certifiably
nuts) think. Can you say Looooooooooooosers?
As for political art, which really hasn't been represented much in a
biennial since 9 years ago, if you like Leon Golub, you might like his wife,
Ida Applebrog. She one of my most favorite political artist.
your friend, cal
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010416160926.929$k...@newsreader.com...
> Mr. Brac (or may I call you 'R'? --
>
> Naw, I don't bother with the Whitney Bienalle (i can't spell it either) -
> I think it mostly represents the worst in modern art. Curators who select
> work for the Whitney show and others like it have a right to do so, of
> course, but they just add flames to the fire for people like mdeli and
> Mayor Guiliani. In addition, artists who are doing good work are bumped
> for this adolescent nonsense.
>
> My main objection to this kind of work: First, I'm of the opinion that
> the arts should not contain social or political content. This is just an
> opinion, and many disagree with me. There are a few politically oriented
> artists that I do like - Leon Golub comes to mind - but his work is so
> good it transcends the political content, at least for me.
>
> My main objection, however, is the trite, adolescent nature of the social
> content in much current work. People sophisticated enough to come to
> galleries and museums don't have to be told that AIDs is bad, racism is
> bad, etc. If you want to piss me off, start talking about 'issues' in art.
>
> I know that the art fascists believe that all modern artists must like all
> modern art (since it is all so bad), and that collectors and critics are
> just gullible boobs who can be easily conned out of money and review space
> by scheming artists and gallery owners - but hey - why not posit a
> conspiracy theory? Maybe Elvis killed JFK, too. Check it out.
>
>
>
> rbrac...@aol.com (RBrac53660) wrote:
> > Dan you did by any chance catch that Whitney Bienallie <sp?> curated by
> > Elizabeth Sussman did you. There was some great work but mostly crap
> >
>
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
> http://www.danfoxart.com
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010416020246...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
> >Hardly, when i was a art student i could not find a school that trained
> >artists in a classical tradition. Now there are more small schools
available
>
> Uhhm I know for a fact that pratt is one of the oldest art schools in the
grand
> ole USA and if you want to go down the classical path you can. It is also
a
> very small school. Or you could check out the Art Institute of Chicago or
Cal
> Arts, Parsons is hot too.
Pratt is one of the biggest garbage dumps in the world. I believe the
Pennsylvania Academy is the Oldest art school in the "grand ole USA" , it
doesnt matter, even thou they think they teach classical standards, they
fall quite beneath mediocrety. Art suffers when students pursue novelty and
fashion.
>
> So I took your worm (stink bait) Mr. Dantes but my worm is flambayed in a
nice
> rum sauce.
>
> Best regards to your BAIT
>
>
> www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Ricardo Pontes
ljrobins
> As for political art, which really hasn't been represented much in a
> biennial since 9 years ago, if you like Leon Golub, you might like his wife,
> Ida Applebrog. She one of my most favorite political artist.
>
Ida's paintings are great.
Christian Boltanski is a favorite political artist of mine.
lissa
caliban
Boltanski's work. Usually, when his name has come up, I just smile and
pretend that agree what ever is being saidnews:3ADB5E69...@cadvision.com...
ljrobins
> You know lissa, I'm embarrassed to say that I can never really place
> Boltanski's work. Usually, when his name has come up, I just smile and
> pretend that agree what ever is being said
Cal, when you say *place* do mean not know?
If so, here is a link:
http://www.kemperart.org/exhibition.html
Oh, and I always find it interesting when I discover what artists are married
to other artists. I did not know Golub and Applebrog are a couple. Annette
Messager and Christian Boltanski are a couple.
Anyone know of any other couples?
These are some I recall:
Joyce Wieland and Michael Snow (Canadian)
Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera
caliban
forgotten that the Kempner like him so much. Thanks for the reminder. And I
think Beth B is Golub and Applebrog's daughter. But maybe I'm getting that
one wrong. As for couples, god, there are lots. In fact I think that almost
every one I know, if they have a spouse, they are somehow connected to the
art world. Beyond that, let's see, there's Brice and Helen Marden
(obviously), Cindy Sherman and Steve Martin (although I think they broke
up...does that still count?)...I cant think anymore cause I'm tired from
looking at this canvas all day. I have to go to dinner now. I'm starving!!!
Later,
cal
"ljrobins" <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:3ADB7038...@cadvision.com...
Chris
ljrobins wrote:
> Anyone know of any other couples?
>
> These are some I recall:
>
> Joyce Wieland and Michael Snow (Canadian)
> Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera
>
Francoise Gilot & Pablo Picasso
Elizabeth Gardner & William Bouguereau
Christopher & Mary Pratt
Cheers;
Chris
Chris
Max Ernst & Leonora Carrington
Max Ernst & Dorothea Tanning
caliban
Color me cadmium red dark. Your absolutely right. Nancy Spero is married to
Leon Golub. You know something? What's worse is that I've made that mistake
before. That's what I get for trying to be clever while trying to paint.
Never a good idea. You know what else it is? I think it's that I think that
Ida and Leon have similar drawing styles and they use a similar palette and
since I know that Leon is married to a really good artist, I just put them
together.
As for anonymity, did you read about Julian Schnabel dissing Tom Hanks and
then having to run into him at an Oscars afterparty? Now if Julian could
just learn to use a nickname...
Good to meet you.
your friend,
cal
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010416224129.725$4...@newsreader.com...
> Dear buddy Cal -
>
> Yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to say about the Whitney. Thanks
for
> clarifying.
>
> As for using our real names - I don't 'diss' (love those cool terms!) my
> peers, or anybody else who is trying to make art or understand art, so
> I'm not worried about retribution. The kooks are such easy targets that,
> after a long day in the studio, sometimes I just can't help myself.
>
> I'm out of Boston, and also show in Chicago and a couple of places in
> California. I haven't been repped in NY for a few years, but maybe we
> know some of the same people. Email me if you want to dish the NY dirt.
>
> I thought Leon's wife was Nancy Spero. Did I, like, really miss something?
>
>
> "caliban" <cal...@tempest.com> wrote:
> > Actually, Dan, the Whitney Biennial hasn't represented "modern" art
> > since, oh, I don't know, let say the early 50's. They do *claim* (and
> > this is where they always seem to get into trouble) to represent is
> > presently happening in CONTEMPORARY art when, as I think you were
> > implying, what they really present is the vision of what one, two or
four
> > curators see as going on at the moment. I think that's still interesting
> > because these curators spend there days, nights and weekends seeing has
> > much art as they can but as any list of favorites, it is subjective. For
> > the record, I'm not particularly interested in what Rudy or mdeli (both
> > of whom I consider to be certifiably nuts) think. Can you say
> > Looooooooooooosers?
> >
> > As for political art, which really hasn't been represented much in a
> > biennial since 9 years ago, if you like Leon Golub, you might like his
> > wife, Ida Applebrog. She one of my most favorite political artist.
> >
> > your friend, cal
> >
>
Marilyn Welch
> Actually, Dan, the Whitney Biennial hasn't represented "modern" art since,
> oh, I don't know, let say the early 50's. They do *claim* (and this is where
> they always seem to get into trouble) to represent is presently happening in
> CONTEMPORARY art when, as I think you were implying, what they really
> present is the vision of what one, two or four curators see as going on at
> the moment. I think that's still interesting because these curators spend
> there days, nights and weekends seeing has much art as they can but as any
> list of favorites, it is subjective. For the record, I'm not particularly
> interested in what Rudy or mdeli (both of whom I consider to be certifiably
> nuts) think. Can you say Looooooooooooosers?
>
> As for political art, which really hasn't been represented much in a
> biennial since 9 years ago, if you like Leon Golub, you might like his wife,
> Ida Applebrog. She one of my most favorite political artist.
>
> your friend, cal
When did Leon Golub divorce Nancy Spero?
Nancy, there is another artist who can present a political message too.
I wouldn't rule out all art with a social message, I prefer it not to be
blatant or in a cute title. I think we have had an overkill with pathology
art recently, but that may reflect present day society's fascination with
the pathological.
We had a friend in the Whitney. Her work is not too shabby.
Marilyn
muchan
Dan Fox wrote:
>
>
> Hell, I've done much worse. I hate to admit it, but earlier this year I
> met jazz drummer Max Roach at a party. I'm a big fan and was so awed that
> I effused about how much I loved the Caravan album - played it to death,
> bought the cd, etc. Max, ever the gentleman, just smiled and nodded. I
> realized later that it was drummer Art Blakey who made Caravan. I ran into
> Max later on and stuttered an apology and we laughed about it, but -
> Christ!
>
But Max Roach played Caravan in the trio with Duke Ellington and Charles
Mingus in "Money Jungle" album. You will love to hear it!
BTW, someone seems to have wrote that Picasso didn't have skill.
I'm novice at visual art, but I remember some of his "etude" work,
the realistic drawing of a human foot when he was only 4 or 5 years old...
muchan
caliban
all I have is cad red med but I do have cad yellow deep so I bet your right.
Oh well... A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Yuk, yuk yourself :)
cal
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010417102949.346$S...@newsreader.com...
> "caliban" <cal...@tempest.com> wrote:
> > OMG... Dan
> >
> > Color me cadmium red dark.
>
> You mean, cadmium red deep, don't you? Yuk, yuk - just busting your
> chops!
>
>
> Your absolutely right. Nancy Spero is married
> > to Leon Golub. You know something? What's worse is that I've made that
> > mistake before. That's what I get for trying to be clever while trying
to
> > paint. Never a good idea. You know what else it is? I think it's that I
> > think that Ida and Leon have similar drawing styles and they use a
> > similar palette and since I know that Leon is married to a really good
> > artist, I just put them together.
>
> Hell, I've done much worse. I hate to admit it, but earlier this year I
> met jazz drummer Max Roach at a party. I'm a big fan and was so awed that
> I effused about how much I loved the Caravan album - played it to death,
> bought the cd, etc. Max, ever the gentleman, just smiled and nodded. I
> realized later that it was drummer Art Blakey who made Caravan. I ran into
> Max later on and stuttered an apology and we laughed about it, but -
> Christ!
>
> >
> > As for anonymity, did you read about Julian Schnabel dissing Tom Hanks
> > and then having to run into him at an Oscars afterparty? Now if Julian
> > could just learn to use a nickname...
>
> Hadn't heard that but it doesn't surprise me. Julian being Julian, I'm
> sure he could either make it right or make it worse, depending on how
> he felt.
>
> Your fellow New York commie pinko homo snob,
Scarlett
"ljrobins" <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote:
: Anyone know of any other couples?
Now I'm wracking my brain for the name of the artist husband of
Ana Mendieta? Big name. Remember her? The earth/body artist who
*accidently* fell out the window during an arguement with her
husband? (I just hate when that happens to me but luckily I live
on the ground floor!)
But what is his name? I'm thinking Carl Andres, but I could be
wrong.
Wasn't Cindy Sherman married to (????)
another big name artist but I've blanked it out too unless it is
also Carl Andres ;-)
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his
head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
:
caliban
cal
"Scarlett" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message
news:7k9D6.164057$lj4.4...@news6.giganews.com...
Marilyn Welch
(I know that because I go to the movies.)
Also
the Delaneys
Wolf Kahn & Emily Mason
Marilyn
mdeli
>One other sad note: there are many modern and contemporary artists who take
>what they do very seriously and put much effort and skill into their work.
Effort, yes skill,no. What's sad about it?
>Not
>all contemporary artists who work outside of 'classical' traditions are
>phonies. Too bad you aren't open enough to recognize that.
>
Interesting! This guy believes the usual art school hype. There are
very few good artists who work in what you have been taught to imagine
is a "classical" tradition. No one would mistake the finest modern
work that isn't allowed into museums as "classical' or traditional.
Of course you can tell that to the boobs here who imagine otherwise.
>I can bet with your bitterness though that you will probably never make it as an artist.
As usual anyone who doesn't agree with this guy is bitter. Well its
better than Dan Fox's psychobabble. He has to imagine that anyone
disagreeing with him is a genuine psycho. I guess when one has as
little ability as Dan one has to make himself feel better in any way.
RBrac53660
mdeli
>BTW, someone seems to have wrote that Picasso didn't have skill.
_not much but more than what followed.
>I'm novice at visual art, but I remember some of his "etude" work,
>the realistic drawing of a human foot when he was only 4 or 5 years old...
I wonder in what art school this guy picked up this typical
information.
Picasso was born in 1881. His famous foot and other very mediocre
academic pap were done around 1894-5, well beyond the age of five.
Take a look at them and compare them to average academic drawing of
the time ( bet most here have never seen any). They are very ordinary.
However they apparently impress the hell out of ignorant art students
who imagine that they do classical drawing in their schmier courses
labeled drawing. Their ability to weed out the baloney they learn in
art school is on about the same level. (Check out some of Marilyn's
idiotic messages for some far out art school mythology.)
Lets hope our prime psychobabbler here Dan Fox, who can't draw a toe,
sees this message as a further sign of neurosis etc. I recall that
most of the totally forgotten teachers in one of the art schools I
attended had a similar opinion. If your artwork manages to irritate
failures you can be sure you're doing something right.
Guerdis
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> I suppose my detractors here will write the usual stuff about my
> "ranting negativism." I sincerely advise them to consult any
> unrecognized, technically inept disgruntled genius graduates who
> failed to win the Modern Academic Art lottery and listen to their
> extensive ranting negativism about art and money.
Unrecognized...Technically Inept...Disgruntled...
Hey, that sounds just like *you*, Mani.
Hutto
Guerdis
> failures you can be sure you're doing something right.
Ah. I wondered what you must chant in your head to keep from flinging
yourself off the nearest tall building. Sounds like that must work out well
for you, since your work sure as hell is irritating...and to a much more
universal audience than your fellow failures.
Hutto
Guerdis
Because 'dissent' is the word? I dunno.
Hutto
Marilyn
Guerdis wrote:
I dissent.
To me, it's a form of _descent_ into hell to read the "bitter feeb's"
posts or look at his website. (he's a blocked sender on my system.)
Marilyn
Tracy Miller
>Take a look at them and compare them to average academic drawing of
>the time ( bet most here have never seen any). They are very ordinary.
>However they apparently impress the hell out of ignorant art students
>who imagine that they do classical drawing in their schmier courses
>labeled drawing. Their ability to weed out the baloney they learn in
>art school is on about the same level. (Check out some of Marilyn's
>idiotic messages for some far out art school mythology.)
>
>Lets hope our prime psychobabbler here Dan Fox, who can't draw a toe,
>sees this message as a further sign of neurosis etc.
Yeah - Mani Deli's neurosis.
Tracy Miller
> ljrobins wrote:
>>One other sad note: there are many modern and contemporary artists who take
>>what they do very seriously and put much effort and skill into their work.
>
>Effort, yes skill,no. What's sad about it?
>
>>Not
>>all contemporary artists who work outside of 'classical' traditions are
>>phonies. Too bad you aren't open enough to recognize that.
>>
>
> Interesting! This guy believes the usual art school hype. There are
>very few good artists who work in what you have been taught to imagine
>is a "classical" tradition. No one would mistake the finest modern
>work that isn't allowed into museums as "classical' or traditional.
>
>Of course you can tell that to the boobs here who imagine otherwise.
>
>>I can bet with your bitterness though that you will probably never make it as an artist.
>
>As usual anyone who doesn't agree with this guy is bitter. Well its
>better than Dan Fox's psychobabble. He has to imagine that anyone
>disagreeing with him is a genuine psycho. I guess when one has as
>little ability as Dan one has to make himself feel better in any way.
And what do you call it when one rants and raves about "Modern Art"
yet copies it in his own work? As you do? Psycho!