WRITERS
James Leonard
SUBJECT:
SUBJECT: AUTHORS DESIRING PUBLICATION
New York City Literary Agency. In business for 10 years. Talk to us about
what you have written and like to have published.
Email: ZKP...@prodigy.com
Mdeli
From my book "no skill no art"
Mondrian's paintings are a bore a focal point of
intellectual kitsch. Credited with an unbending
devotion to the mystique of "practically nothing",
Mondrian has inspired larger effusions of vacuous
babble than any other MAA (Modern Academic Art)
practitioner. No worthy MAA critic can fail his
capability to justify Mondrian at length. Mondrian is
to MAA critics, what the nude was for the Academics.
If you can draw the nude well, an academic feels, you
can draw just about anything. If you can justify
Mondrian, you can do it with just about anybody.
Like the Pythagorean theorem in mathematics, Mondrian's
works provide classical practice problems for the art
student and MAA critic. There is no student of Academic
Abstraction who has not been trained to say something
about the marvels of this master. Mondrian, is in fact
not really a painter, he is a problem. Most
fashionable intellectuals are convinced that Mondrian's
brand of minimality contains a hidden essence totally
beyond ordinary explanation. Critics are certain that
his composition exemplifies the quintessence of utter
perfection.
His painting "Boogy-Woogy" certainly stands out as it
contains about ten colors, a record for Mondrian. It is
more complex then all his former works put together.
Judging from the work that preceded it, one can only
conclude that it must also have taken many years of
planning. It has provoked many theories about what all
these rectangles mean. Some scholarly interpretations
are, City buildings, stops on subway maps, post boxes,
it is all supposed to be a portrait of New York City.
Intellectuals who feel that Picasso discovered the
cube generally concur that it was Mondrian who
dissected matters one step further. The cube itself is
made up of even more elemental straight lines. Along
with insights into the forth and sometimes even the
fifth dimension, a few people even credit Mondrian with
the actual discovery of the straight line. Even more
critics agree that it was Mondrian who actually
discovered the true significance of the straight line,
whatever that means. The reason so much has been
written about all this significance, is that no one can
quite explain it. But critics assume that Mondrian,
understood all this better then anyone.
Few can deny that Mondrian can leave an uninitiated
onlooker speechless. After all, what is there to really
say here? Mondrian's paintings can not be accused of
bad drawing, they contain no subject-matter, no color
and no story. They are all quite pristine and
inoffensive. Mondrian has created a perfect vehicle for
non-sensible criticism and has managed to entirely
insulate himself from sensible criticism. He is the
envy of many of today's painters.
Dali whose goofs on our idiotic Modern Academic
critics kept his statements to a minimum here. He best
summed up Modrian in his MINIMAL comment "Piet Niet."
& a review of a review:
Robert Hughes dean of present Modern Academic critics
reviews Mondrian at the MOMA in Time Mag. It starts
with the vast compliment "one of the best shows MOMA.
ever held..." I have to give Hughes credit for not
writing in conventional cryptic Artspeak and knowing
his facts. As to his taste in contemporary art; we have
our differences. Needless to say my opinion of
Mondrian for those who have not read my previous
messages, is not as ecstatic as Hughes'.
Reproduced here are three paintings, FLOWERING
TREES, RED MILL and BROADWAY BOOGY WOOGY. This should
really be enough to show where M. is really at;
nowhere. Hughs even indicates that some of M's
paintings are in such a poor technical state that they
can't be moved. "Fragility" he calls it.
I regard Mondrian as one of the primal idiots of
Modern Academic Art. He is pure hype and possessed no
talent whatever. On the hype end M. is regarded as the
ultimate of the ultimate. Hughs quotes the great
master. "the beauty of nature does not satisfy me
entirely. I cannot enjoy a beautiful summer evening for
instance. Perhaps then I feel ... how everything ought
to be, while at the same time I am aware of my own
impotence to make it so in my life." He sure couldn't
express how "everything ought to be" and apparently was
more aware of his "impotence" than either Hughs or the
MOMA.
Here are a couple of prize pretentious and somewhat
meaningless quotes from the Hughes article and some
comments.
"Mondrian may have wanted to transcend nature, but
the Dutch landscape was in him like a DNA code."
The sentence sounds nice until you think about what it
may mean. DNA indeed. Mondrian's landscapes should rank
as sub-student. No one would bother with them if the
were signed R. Mutt. They are about as Dutch as chow
mein.
"Mondrian's work unfolds at a deliberate, ruminative
tempo and in accord with a growing sense of inner
logic, quite unlike the fits and starts by which most
other artists develop."
I like the "ruminative tempo" bit. Nice Artspeak
insert. "Inner logic," as opposed to the "outer"
variety I presume. Whatever that means. Or is that the
sort of filling one has to insert in order to fill up
the required space?
"Was any painter worse served by reproduction?
Probably not... once reduced to printer"s ink on glossy
paper, lose almost everything."
Having infested the MOMA for years I've seen quite a
bit of M. in the original. I don't see the amount of
loss that Hughs refers to but whatever the amount of
loss, it takes little away from whatever is there in
the original. Mondrian's painting surface besides being
"fragile" has that magic out-of-the-tube paint by
number quality.
"And the color on either side of it is painted right
up to the edge, not as if done with masking tape but
with sensitivity and care that you see at the meeting
of the shapes in Mondrian's great predecessor Vermeer."
This quote conforms to the usual Modern Academic
idiocy of mentioning M. in the same sentence as
Vermeer. Perhaps comparing M. to the back of a Vermeer
might be more fitting. Mondrian is about as close to
Vermeer as a blank paper is to a painting. To this
Hughes adds a personal observation the masking Tape
bit. Now all you Modern Academics out there know,
because of Hughes' gigantic insight that masking tape
is a no-no.
Mani Deli
... If it needs a long sermon to claim its art its
probably bullshit.
Mdeli
For the past fifty years there has been an uncontested
stream of orgasmic praise for the real modern artists
as opposed to their mere followers. Our esteemed holy
critics who the public believes are sensitive enough to
be able to distinguish a worthwhile schmier from trash,
describe works of mere followers as "derivative." This
is the polite way of infering that thes works were
executed by outright fakers..
I’m reminded here of Robert Hughes’ criticism of the
Golden Oldies show reviewed in the April 15 issue of
TIME Magazine.
In his review of this show Hughes states:
"It gives too much prominence to Barnett Newman the
most overrated Abstract Expressionist though the
inclusion of Olga Razanova’s vertical green stripe on a
white ground painted some thirty years before Newman
came up with his vertical zip, is a neatly deflating
touch."
This criticism really refers to the prevalent Modern
Academic Art assumption that anything seen as the first
use novel idea NO MATTER HOW STUPID, is worthy of
lengthily discussion and artistic consideration if
critics believe it to be a true art historical first
and very personal expression of a particular
eccentricity (which it usually isn't).
Here we have the critic praising one work as
containing the real and stripe painting as opposed to
the unimportant later strip inferring that it is really
a no good fake.
I think that any painting of a few stripes whatever
the size, its date of origin, color or its critical
appendage, attempting to pass itself off as fine art
is really a representative of "stupid Art." There
millions of stripe paintings around and none, the real
or the fake are worthy of being classified as anything
more.
The winners among the stripe painters, those that get
the critical raves and sell to rich nitwits for
astronomical prices, were really chosen by the
fortunate outcome of a series of random events rather
than for their abilities. These few chosen ones are the
winners in the Modern Academic Art lottery.
One should always remember that for every lottery
winner who attains fame and fortune for his particular
set of stripes there a thousands of disgruntled losers
who can’t understand why their "fake" set of stripes
doesn’t give the critics orgasms or get richy
collectors to part with their mountains of cash.
Mani DeLi
...…no skill no art
Mdali
Mdeli wrote:
>
> From my book "no skill no art"
Your book, my ass. Why do you write superficial critiques about dead
artists? Why would anyone be interested in your opinion about artists
from the past? You're not an art historian, you're not even an art
critic. If you want to write valid art criticism, you need to write
about living artists, artists who are creating art now. You need to
write about specific art exhibits and have your criticism published in a
newspaper or magazine (print or electronic) on a regular basis. Then
people will take you seriously.
Taking superficial swipes at the entire Art World is futile. Your
writing seems to be grounded in pseudo-mathematics more than art
comprehension. What are you, a bookkeeper?
Mani Dali
...no brain no art
--
Mdali
Mdeli wrote:
>
> From my book "no skill no art"
Your book, my ass. Why do you write superficial critiques about dead
Mani Dali
...no brain no art no book, no shit!
richfield
In article <4udniv$g...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
> I think that any painting of a few stripes whatever
> the size, its date of origin, color or its critical
> appendage, attempting to pass itself off as fine art
> is really a representative of "stupid Art."
If you think art must be validated by the ability of its maker to paint
landscapes, then I suggest you stand back from your paint-by-number world
and consider doing a little research on the works you so despise. When you
know the purpose and the significance of the work, then you can state your
argument and only then will I, or anyone else, discuss it with you.
> Mani DeLi
> ...…no skill no art
Thought requires skill, doesn't it?
Mdeli
wes...@salsgiver.com (richfield) wrote:
As to your point about landscapes:
Modern Academic Art Misconceptions:
-Realism when the term is used as a negative
description is conceived as a photographic rendition of
reality.
-a belief in dualism in relation to the arts produced
in this century. There is fine art, which conforms to
precepts demanded of our Modern Museums and the
majority of teaching institutions and then there is all
that "other stuff." That is, Painting not holy-critic
approved, illustration, animation and anything to do
with commercial art, etc.
What counts is what is on the wall. That is what has to
convey the thought.
Stripes aren't part of the paint-by-number world
because anyone can count to 5.
Having perused many five pound Mondrian books and
stripe appraisals I find no significance or purpose to
any of these works beyond making money.
If you think there is significance JUST TELL US WHAT
IT IS if you have anything more to say.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no artI
R Blanchard
Mdeli wrote:
> I think that any painting of a few stripes whatever
> the size, its date of origin, color or its critical
> appendage, attempting to pass itself off as fine art
> is really a representative of "stupid Art."
I have seen original Mondrians and 'stripe paintings' and always ask
myself why the art world has elevated these particular artists above
others.
What I find is that these paintings are looking at a very small part of
the process of creating art, of identifying and adding to the catalog of
the total art experience a single sentence. At the time the paintings
were done, other painters were doing the same thing in other areas such
as color (Albers) or shape (Rothko). Painting like Rockwell or Wyeth is
fine and good, but there is more to the art experience than
representation.
No matter how many 'derivatives' of Mondrians work I see, there is a
difference from the originals. Find a copy of a painting in one of the
collections on the web and select a section, then move it over a pixel.
The compositional balance is lost. That may be the comparison to Vermeer
- that great care was a part of the painting process. When you can see
this difference, your appreciation of art is altered.
The fact that he didn't use tape sounds like a critic's need to fill up
his newspaper or magazine column, as is most artbabble. Total waste of
space usually.
Stripe paintings, pencil textures, and their ilk appear to me as a much
more minor derivative of Mondrian's work. The few that I saw that
'worked' just did not contain the same impact, even though they were
larger and had more colors. ;o}
--
Rick Blanchard
richfield
> What counts is what is on the wall. That is what has to
> convey the thought.
What hangs on the wall is just the surface value of what any piece is
about. How can you develop a relationship with the image without knowing
who when and why? Without context, it might as well be wallpaper hanging
on the wall.
Bruce Attah
In article <wesayso-1308...@news.alterdial.uu.net>,
wes...@salsgiver.com (richfield) wrote:
> In article <4um1k1$5...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
>
>
> > What counts is what is on the wall. That is what has to
> > convey the thought.
>
> What hangs on the wall is just the surface value of what any piece is
> about. How can you develop a relationship with the image without knowing
> who when and why?
As usual, I don't understand a word you say.
"surface value"?
"develop a relationship with a piece"?
> Without context, it might as well be wallpaper hanging
> on the wall.
As for that last sentence, let me ask you to take part in a thought
experiment: Imagine that one day you visited a relative you'd not seen for
many years and discovered that their drawing-room was decorated with
murals that looked very much as if they might have been created by
Botticelli. The style was similar, and so was the standard of execution.
However, neither you nor your relative was able to determine who the
artist was or when the work was created, even after calling in experts.
Also, the precise subject matter was a mystery. What would be your
reaction if your relative were suddenly to pipe up "I've decided I'm going
to destroy the murals, because I've found this great new wallpaper that I
think would go very well with the furniture"?
I think you've got things upside down. The who, when and why of a work of
art only become interesting after the work _itself_ has proved
interesting.
Bruce Attah
> I have seen original Mondrians and 'stripe paintings' and always ask
> myself why the art world has elevated these particular artists above
> others.
So do I, and I think I have a *rough* idea of what the answer is, which
I've been trying to communicate in such posts as the recent one entitled
"The real meaning of avant garde".
> What I find is that these paintings are looking at a very small part of
> the process of creating art, of identifying and adding to the catalog of
> the total art experience a single sentence. At the time the paintings
> were done, other painters were doing the same thing in other areas such
> as color (Albers) or shape (Rothko). Painting like Rockwell or Wyeth is
> fine and good, but there is more to the art experience than
> representation.
Absolutely right. Modernism has created an atmosphere in which two kinds
of artists come to the fore: madmen and specialists. The former are the
highly neurotic individuals whose art satisfies the Romantic yearning for
all things fearful, morbid, and overblown. The latter are the
tunnel-visioned nerds who are happy to spend their entire lives focussed
exclusively on such subject matter as the texture effects that thick paint
provides, or the juxtaposition of certain pairs of colours, or the range
of compositions that can be created using stripes only. Neither sort of
person can ever be a great artist, though both can produce art of a kind.
> No matter how many 'derivatives' of Mondrians work I see, there is a
> difference from the originals. Find a copy of a painting in one of the
> collections on the web and select a section, then move it over a pixel.
> The compositional balance is lost. That may be the comparison to Vermeer
> - that great care was a part of the painting process. When you can see
> this difference, your appreciation of art is altered.
There are artists who are worse than Mondrian, some are so much worse that
Mondrian almost seems the equal of Vermeer by comparison. Then, when you
*do* compare Mondrian directly to Vermeer, it is obvious that Mondrian is
nothing. Mondrian was an early Specialist. He concerned himself with
creating balanced compositions of a particular, very narrow, kind. In his
'mature' style, he abjured not only representation, but also most of the
colours of light, as well as curves, diagonals, jutting lines, graduated
tones and a million other things. With what was left, he proceeded to
create his apparently delicately balanced compostitions.
It is not true, indeed it is a long-standing myth, that Mondrian's
compositions are so sensitively balanced that any slight change would
render them less attractive. A little experimentation will reveal that it
is perfectly possible to create new pseudo-Mondrians by slightly altering
actual Mondran paintings, producing compositions that appear quite as
well-balanced as the originals. Furthermore, the work of other
abstractionists who were influenced by Mondrian shows that some of the
rules Mondrian made up for himself were quite arbitrary: some of
Mondrian's colleagues used diagonals and jutting corners (the latter
tending to give the appearance of overlapping shapes) to no apparent
disadvantage.
The great advantage of a narrow scheme such as Mondrian employed is that
it makes it extremely easy to come up with picture after picture that
possesses a prettiness and balance that will please the eye (though
briefly), while avoiding ugly mistakes. At the same time, with an
instantly recognizable style, one carves a little art-world niche for
oneself which no-one else dare infiltrate too deeply, for fear of being
called derivative.
Vermeer, by contrast, does not specialize anywhere near as narrowly. His
paintings contain all sorts of form and all sorts of light, harmoniously
disposed with a skill that must have been quite beyond Mondrian. The
satisfaction Vermeer's images bring to the viewer is deep and enduring,
and his contribution to art unquestionable. In bringing together a wide
variety of textures, colours and forms, and composing them so that their
relatedness rather than their variety comes to the fore, Vermeer
demonstrates the generalist skill of a real artist. Real art, unlike
Mondrian's poor shadow of art, tries to encompass the richness of the
world, rather than blot it out.
Mondrian was a decorator, nothing more.
Bruce Attah
In article <wesayso-1108...@news.alterdial.uu.net>,
wes...@salsgiver.com (richfield) wrote:
> In article <4udniv$g...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
>
> > I think that any painting of a few stripes whatever
> > the size, its date of origin, color or its critical
> > appendage, attempting to pass itself off as fine art
> > is really a representative of "stupid Art."
>
> If you think art must be validated by the ability of its maker to paint
> landscapes, then I suggest you stand back from your paint-by-number world...
I wonder if *anybody* believes that "art must be validated by the ability
of its maker to paint landscapes"? I wonder, too, what such people, if
they exist, think of Michelangelo, who did not do very much by way of
landscape painting.
As for landscape painting having anything to do with painting by numbers,
I wonder what JMW Turner would have thought of the idea?
> When you
> know the purpose and the significance of the work, then you can state your
> argument and only then will I, or anyone else, discuss it with you.
If someone does not understand the purpose and significance of a work, and
you do, is that not a good reason for discussing the work with that
person? I'd have thought you'd be glad of the opportunity to enlighten
such a person.
> Thought requires skill, doesn't it?
Thought does not require skill. Thinking is an inevitable consequence of
being human, alive and conscious. There are whole monastic traditions
that focus around the idea of *stopping* thought, if only temporarily.
However, *useful* thought often requires skill, skill which finds
expression in many ways: chess-playing, mathematical proofs, essays and
disquisitions, practical inventions, entrepreneurship, astute politics, a
good bedside manner, and so on, almost endlessly.
I know you are trying to say that conceptual art represents the successful
expression of useful and skilful thought, but I think you are wrong. IMO,
the ideas behind conceptual art are usually confused, banal and fatuous,
and often meretricious, and the only reason this fact is not obvious to
everyone is that the art itself is very poor at communicating the ideas of
the artist.
R Blanchard
richfield wrote:
> What hangs on the wall is just the surface value of what any piece is
> about. How can you develop a relationship with the image without knowing
> on the wall.
If you don't get it, it may as well be wallpaper. Pretty hard to ask
Leonardo what he was really up to when he painted the 'Last Supper'.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."-Dylan
--
Rick Blanchard
Morris & Manzo
Bravo! Go get 'em Mani!
K.Manzo
Mdeli
R Blanchard wrote:
>No matter how many 'derivatives' of Mondrians work I see, there is a
>difference from the originals. Find a copy of a painting in one of the
>collections on the web and select a section, then move it over a pixel.
>The compositional balance is lost. That may be the comparison to Vermeer
>- that great care was a part of the painting process. When you can see
>this difference, your appreciation of art is altered.
Yes, you are more sensitive than the rest of us. You
and a few other rarefied souls can sense "compositional
Balance" lost and found. How many bath towels and floor
coverings and Tee shirts have you seen?
The only way Mondrian got close to a Vermeer was by
standing next to one..
>Stripe paintings, pencil textures, and their ilk appear to me as a much
>more minor derivative of Mondrian's work.
Malavich did that sort of crap 20 years before Mondrian
and gets far less credit. Neither deserve any.
Mdeli
The problem with Abstract Expressionism and lots of
other stuff.
-AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
-If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased and
were signed Joe Schmo it would be considered worthless
garbage.
-the public depends on critics to distinguish the
so-called masterpiece from the mere imitation.
-the abstract element in AE is neither new or in
anyway unique.Vastly superior abstract work (in terms
of skill and attractiveness) can be found in the
decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel
designs. (all of which are flat images and were flat
images long before AE made its debut.)
-Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically
oriented people to imagine that these works have
transcendental significance.
-in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all
negative criticisms are ultimately answered with
cryptic appeals for the understanding of the
non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
-AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry
can talk about and sell to people with "Emperor’s New
Clothes" syndrome. These people in turn can claim deep
but inexplicable understanding and feel that they are
more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
folk. This fulfills there need to feel exceptional.
-In the context of today’s fashions if it didn't look
like a put-on no one would be interested or have
anything much to talk about.
-AE and lots more should be renamed DON"T LAUGH ART.
-The excuse that AE makes people feel good while it is
in fashion is of no consequence. Remember, hated Salon
painting made people feel good throughout the 19th
century. Today it is considered so bad that hardly
anyone is able to see it and judge for himself.
Vyvyan Hope-Scott
>
> -AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
>
So is representational art. Visit a Sunday Market.
> -If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased and
> were signed Joe Schmo it would be considered worthless
> garbage.
Again, the same for traditional art. Witness the drop in value
once an Old Master turns out to be "school of ..."
> -the public depends on critics to distinguish the
> so-called masterpiece from the mere imitation.
The public is mind-numbingly ignorant about nearly everything, and
is encouraged to remain so by a media which panders to
the lowest common denominator. Just look at the sort of crap-in-a-frame
sold by department stores; people BUY this stuff! (I'm talking about
the UK, BTW.)
> -the abstract element in AE is neither new or in
> anyway unique.Vastly superior abstract work (in terms
> of skill and attractiveness) can be found in the
> decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
> rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel
> designs. (all of which are flat images and were flat
> images long before AE made its debut.)
>
OK, you think it's superior.
> -Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically
> oriented people to imagine that these works have
> transcendental significance.
>
If there's one thing guaranteed to lose an argument, it's telling
people their views are not their own ;)
> -in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all
> negative criticisms are ultimately answered with
> cryptic appeals for the understanding of the
> non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
>
This is true of all art - the whole point is that you can't
put into words why an art work gets you going.
> -AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry
> can talk about and sell to people with "Emperor?s New
> Clothes" syndrome. These people in turn can claim deep
> but inexplicable understanding and feel that they are
> more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
> folk. This fulfills there need to feel exceptional.
>
Are you seriously claiming that all those artists were sniggering
in their hands for all those years? Can you imagine what it would
be like to have to produce hundreds of canvases if you did't believe
any of it had any merit whatsoever? OK, you might produce one or two
and try to sell them but you'd get bored after a while, not continue
to produce work that develops over the years.
> -In the context of today?s fashions if it didn't look
> like a put-on no one would be interested or have
> anything much to talk about.
>
> -AE and lots more should be renamed DON"T LAUGH ART.
>
> -The excuse that AE makes people feel good while it is
> in fashion is of no consequence. Remember, hated Salon
> painting made people feel good throughout the 19th
> century. Today it is considered so bad that hardly
> anyone is able to see it and judge for himself.
>
Have you ever tried producing an AE work? Just for the hell of it,
limit yourself to two colours and nothing representative. Oh, and make
it at least 5 feet square.
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
If skill's what you want - become a mechanic.
--
Vyvyan Hope-Scott
Richfield
In article
<Bruce.Attah-14...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> > What hangs on the wall is just the surface value of what any piece is
> > about. How can you develop a relationship with the image without knowing
> > who when and why?
>
> As usual, I don't understand a word you say.
In all seriousness, I would be more than happy to elaborate--what part
confuses you?
> I think you've got things upside down. The who, when and why of a work of
> art only become interesting after the work _itself_ has proved
> interesting.
The work itself would not be interesting if it were not for the
environment and influences that contributed to its creation. What drives
you to make your work? Without that drive, would your work be of any
interest--or would it be simply decorative (like wallpaper)?
Richfield
> If skill's what you want - become a mechanic.
Go get'em. I was getting tired. He's persistent, you gotta give him that.
Vyvyan Hope-Scott, perhaps we should talk and get some meaningful
dialogue going.
Richfield
In article
<Bruce.Attah-14...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> If someone does not understand the purpose and significance of a work, and
> you do, is that not a good reason for discussing the work with that
> person? I'd have thought you'd be glad of the opportunity to enlighten
> such a person.
You are 100% right, I stand corrected. I send my apologies to mdeli and
the rec.arts.fine community for being so harsh. I was in a pissy mood and
overwhelmed by the attitude in some of the comments made by mdeli.
> I know you are trying to say that conceptual art represents the successful
> expression of useful and skilful thought, but I think you are wrong. IMO,
> the ideas behind conceptual art are usually confused, banal and fatuous,
> and often meretricious, and the only reason this fact is not obvious to
> everyone is that the art itself is very poor at communicating the ideas of
> the artist.
...It looks as though I'm going to have to take this opportunity to
enlighten several people; I think that as artists you could benefit by
opening your minds and experiencing some alternative forms of art.
Painting is just a fraction of the art scene (and a dying one at that
[said with a smile in reference to the situationists!!Dont get all in an
uproar!!]). Check out the art links on my page, and tell me what you
think--actually, read them first, consider what they have to say, and then
tell me what you think.
It seems that once you admire a piece for its aesthetics, it should have
much more to offer. Verimeer does have much more to offer beneath the
surface--and so does Mondrian. It is far too easy to be seduced by surface
qualities and just end your search there, but is that what you really
want?
Mdeli
I wrote:
>> -AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
>>
>So is representational art. Visit a Sunday Market.
Does this make AE any better?
>> -If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased and
>> were signed Joe Schmo it would be considered worthless
>> garbage.
>Again, the same for traditional art. Witness the drop in value
>once an Old Master turns out to be "school of ..."
Even "school of " maintains some monitory value. I
think that if any Vermeer were really "school of"
Vermeer it wouldn’t matter as far as quality were
concerned. Imagine the value of a "school of " Rothko
or Pollock.
>The public is mind-numbingly ignorant about nearly everything, and
>is encouraged to remain so by a media which panders to
>the lowest common denominator. Just look at the sort of crap-in-a-frame
>sold by department stores; people BUY this stuff! (I'm talking about
>the UK, BTW.)
...and the mindless rich buy
Modern-Academic-crap-without-a-frame..
The media panders modern art and the average public
doesn’t buy it; with good reason.
...and better furniture store sell big schmiers.
>> -in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all
>> negative criticisms are ultimately answered with
>> cryptic appeals for the understanding of the
>> non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
>This is true of all art - the whole point is that you can't
>put into words why an art work gets you going.
Worhtwhile artwork contains a combination of technique
and ideas these can be clearly discussed to a degree.
>Are you seriously claiming that all those artists were sniggering
>in their hands for all those years?
Most charlatans believe in themselves.
>Can you imagine what it would
>be like to have to produce hundreds of canvases if you didn’t believe
>any of it had any merit whatsoever? OK, you might produce one or two
>and try to sell them but you'd get bored after a while, not continue
>to produce work that develops over the years.
The evidence that I gathered from some of the AE
artists I have known was that they were bored silly.
Many blew themselves away on drink and drugs. But that
is not the point.
>Have you ever tried producing an AE work? Just for the hell of it,
>limit yourself to two colours and nothing representative. Oh, and make
>it at least 5 feet square.
You happen to be asking the wrong person.
I’ve sold big schmiers to big idiots and as I’ve said
before I’ve won some nice scholarships in my student
days by bamboozling artzy jurors with even bigger
schmiers (6x11 ft.). I used lots of cheap enamel and
mattress ticking. You can read about it in my book when
it comes out.
>If skill's what you want - become a mechanic.
if your artwork shows no skill and you don’ have the
right connections and you don’t want to become a
mechanic you can become a misunderstood pauper like
most failure artists.
Mani DeLi
...Those who denigrate skill usually lack it.
Bruce Attah
In article <840316...@vyvyanhs.demon.co.uk>,
Vyv...@vyvyanhs.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <4v2jae$9...@news.interlog.com> hu...@interlog.com "Mdeli" writes:
>
> >
> > -AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
> >
>
> So is representational art. Visit a Sunday Market.
But that is not true of *good* representational art. "Good" AE is not
much more difficult than bad AE to produce. Good representational art is
A LOT more difficult than bad.
> > -If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased and
> > were signed Joe Schmo it would be considered worthless
> > garbage.
>
> Again, the same for traditional art. Witness the drop in value
> once an Old Master turns out to be "school of ..."
Usually, when a painting originally attributed to an Old Master is
reattributed to his studio or school, the apparent low quality of the work
is a major factor in the reattribution -- even then, the collapse in value
is not total. If the name of the artist were means so much in the case of
Old Masters, then can you explain to me how it is that priceless works
exist about whose author nothing whatsoever is known? There are many old
works attributed to the "master of this" and the "master of that" which
enjoy equal ranking with works by artists whose biography is
well-documented.
Somehow I don't think future generations will be seeing AE works by the
"Master of Brooklyn" or the "Master of Key West".
> > -the public depends on critics to distinguish the
> > so-called masterpiece from the mere imitation.
>
> The public is mind-numbingly ignorant about nearly everything, and
> is encouraged to remain so by a media which panders to
> the lowest common denominator. Just look at the sort of crap-in-a-frame
> sold by department stores; people BUY this stuff! (I'm talking about
> the UK, BTW.)
Rich people's taste is just as undiscriminating as poor people's, but they
have to buy work that is noticeably *different* from poor people's (or
there'd be no point in paying huge prices for it). THAT's one reason why
they buy works your average Mr & Mrs Bloggs could not fit through their
front door.
> Are you seriously claiming that all those artists were sniggering
> in their hands for all those years? Can you imagine what it would
> be like to have to produce hundreds of canvases if you did't believe
> any of it had any merit whatsoever? OK, you might produce one or two
> and try to sell them but you'd get bored after a while, not continue
> to produce work that develops over the years.
Jackson Pollock grew less and less prolific as he became more tightly
smothered in AbEx. He went as long as 18 months without painting or
drawing a thing. His drinking increased; he worried (correctly) that he
had no talent, and eventually he destroyed himself. Years after Mark
Rothko had settled into his pat formula of coloured smudges, he would try
from time to time to vary it a little. Buyers simply would not take
anything from him that "wasn't him" (ie, wasn't patently an example of the
Rothko formula).
Think about it. It's a scary situation. There you are, lauded by all and
sundry for the stuff you do that you know is crap. Every painting you do
earns you not just a five or six figure sum of money, but adulation, too
-- and you know it will continue as long as you stick to your formula.
You'd like to do something else, but you know the risks. Perhaps you
recall the example of others: the critical flak that Picasso took when he
embarked on his neo-Classical phase, the mockery that was turned on
Magritte when he exhibited his "impressionist" paintings, the total
rejection DeChirico experienced. You know it could happen to you. Who
wants to be banished to the wilderness after enjoying such fame as the
abstract expressionists did? Yet some of them DID turn their back on the
style. Of course, they got what was coming to them: "reevaluation" and
subsequent neglect.
> Have you ever tried producing an AE work? Just for the hell of it,
> limit yourself to two colours and nothing representative. Oh, and make
> it at least 5 feet square.
Large size gives spurious monumentality to trivial work. That's the other
reason why people buy this stuff.
> If skill's what you want - become a mechanic.
This remark is symptomatic of the widespread misunderstanding of the role
of skill in art (which is central). Skilful artists are not like
mechanics. In some ways, they are like *exceptionally* skilful mechanics,
those strange people of whom you hear stories who need only look at a car
to know exactly what is wrong with it, no matter how obscure the problem,
and seem able to fix it by a magical laying on of hands. A skilful artist
has a skill that enters the realm of magic. He or she is an "adept", with
all the quasi-mystical connotations that word carries.
Skilful artists do things with their medium that seem impossible --
sometimes even to other artists of comparable skill. In this respect,
they are not just like mechanics, they are also like great athletes, whose
performances at times astonish themselves as much as everyone around
them. The purpose of skill in art is to produce magic. Have you ever
heard of a skill-less magician?
Yet skilful artists differ from mechanics and athletes in one particular
respect: their work is expressive, in whole and *_in_every_detail_*, of
their freedom of choice. And that is what artists need skill for: to
express their freedom of choice.
Richfield
In article
<Bruce.Attah-20...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> What do you mean by "surface value"? How does this differ from other
> sorts of value? What other sorts of value are there?
> The work would not EXIST if it were not for the environment and influences
> etc. Plenty of works exist that are not aesthetically interesting. These
> works have an environment and influences, too. If we are responding
> aesthetically to a work of art, our primary response is to the work
> *itself*, as presented to us, not to its history or the conditions of its
> making. If our primary interest is in those things, we are responding as
> anthropologists, psychologists, historians, rather than as an art
> audience.
First response is visceral, second response is to undersatand why it makes
us feel the way it does.
> It is possible for a great work of art to exist about which little or
> nothing is known or knowable. Such a work is nonethelesss great. If the
> work has the power to stand out from its background, to grab, hold and
> direct your attention and to move you, and to comment on the world,
like primitive art...more grabbing than any 19th century portrait, I'd say.
> A person who cannot respond to art
> without knowing the name, nationality and date of birth of an artist
> CANNOT RESPOND TO A WORK OF ART AT ALL.
Those anal details are not what I am talking about at all. I am talking
about a purpose. I would hope you would want to learn something more about
art rather than stand back and say ooh how nice.
I think many of you are trying to defend ignorance. I am frustrated by
this apathy--this is really dead end.
Bruce Attah
In article <wesayso-1808...@news.alterdial.uu.net>,
wes...@salsgiver.com (Richfield) wrote:
> In article
> <Bruce.Attah-14...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> > > What hangs on the wall is just the surface value of what any piece is
> > > about. How can you develop a relationship with the image without knowing
> > > who when and why?
> >
> > As usual, I don't understand a word you say.
>
> In all seriousness, I would be more than happy to elaborate--what part
> confuses you?
What do you mean by "surface value"? How does this differ from other
sorts of value? What other sorts of value are there?
Is the value of "what a piece is about" different from the value of the
piece itself? How? Why should we be interested in the value of what the
piece is about rather than in the value of the piece?
What is it to "develop a relationship" with an image. Surely, we always
are in some relation or another to any given image? Is this development
of a relationship in any way akin to the process that, between people,
sometimes leads to marriage?
> > I think you've got things upside down. The who, when and why of a work of
> > art only become interesting after the work _itself_ has proved
> > interesting.
>
> The work itself would not be interesting if it were not for the
> environment and influences that contributed to its creation. What drives
> you to make your work? Without that drive, would your work be of any
> interest--or would it be simply decorative (like wallpaper)?
The work would not EXIST if it were not for the environment and influences
etc. Plenty of works exist that are not aesthetically interesting. These
works have an environment and influences, too. If we are responding
aesthetically to a work of art, our primary response is to the work
*itself*, as presented to us, not to its history or the conditions of its
making. If our primary interest is in those things, we are responding as
anthropologists, psychologists, historians, rather than as an art
audience.
It is possible for a great work of art to exist about which little or
nothing is known or knowable. Such a work is nonethelesss great. If the
work has the power to stand out from its background, to grab, hold and
direct your attention and to move you, and to comment on the world, it is
obviously doing things we do not normally expect of wallpaper. It is
certainly not "simply decorative". A person who cannot respond to art
Bob Speel
Excuse a late intruder on this thread...
In article: <wesayso-1908...@news.alterdial.uu.net>
wes...@salsgiver.com (Richfield) writes:
>
> > <Bruce.Attah-20...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> snip
> > It is possible for a great work of art to exist about which little or
> > nothing is known or knowable. Such a work is nonethelesss great. If
the
> > work has the power to stand out from its background, to grab, hold and
> > direct your attention and to move you, and to comment on the world,
>
> like primitive art...more grabbing than any 19th century portrait, I'd
say.
Yet a truly great portrait - 19th Century or otherwise - can encapsulate
the way we think about a person. When we think of Henry VIII, do not most
of us think of him as a huge, richly dressed proud man with a girth to
match as in the famous portrait? When we think of Rembrandt, into the mind
comes a self-portrait of him and we feel we know the artist a little, while
so many of his countrymen remain a bit vague and indistinguishable from one
another because we don't have the portraits which bring to us who those
people were. In the museum, looking at a sculpture of one of the great
pharoahs or an Assyrian ruler, we can admire it in many ways, but cannot
feel understanding of that person, because the portrait is ideal. But on
going to Athens and seeing the bronze figures stare back at one, who cannot
feel the sense of facing a real living person? The primitive art has a
force and vitality of its own, but the portrait remains unique.
> > A person who cannot respond to art
> > without knowing the name, nationality and date of birth of an artist
> > CANNOT RESPOND TO A WORK OF ART AT ALL.
>
> Those anal details are not what I am talking about at all. I am talking
> about a purpose. I would hope you would want to learn something more
about
> art rather than stand back and say ooh how nice.
Some art has a purpose - I suppose over the whole period of art history,
most has had a religious purpose. As Bruce Attah mentioned earlier, the
problem of most modern art is that the purported purpose (!) is rather
mundane and feeble, and could be expressed in a few short words and not
require a large heap of twisted iron, two sailing-boats worth of splodged
canvas, a photographically recorded trip round a lake tossing a found
pebble or whatever. In addition, much art, historically at least, has as
its purpose beauty. Much of what used to be called craft but has now been
exalted to the status of art is entirely concerned with making utilitarian
objects look beautiful. What is wrong with that? The skillful artists of
the past were able to produce their art with a purpose - often a purpose
now of little relevance to the viewer today - and still make it beautiful.
So many of today's artists are incapable of producing anything except
ugliness, and pretend to a purpose - usually too abstract for the bored
viewer to notice - to justify their failure to master the techniques they
profess skill at.
> I think many of you are trying to defend ignorance. I am frustrated by
> this apathy--this is really dead end.
>
I might with justification attempt to defend ignorance :) . However, we
could say that the triumph of modern artists is a spectacular demonstration
of the power of ignorance to triumph over ability and training.
bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Speel EMail b...@speel.demon.co.uk
"ignorant but never silent"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip May
I liked your response on the criticism of abstract expressionism.
I've always liked abstract expressionism myself (well, not all of it) and
agree with your points.
I would add that of particular importance in Abstract Expressionism is a
desire to express "individualism." In a sense, you can just the success
of an artist by being able to say "that's a Rothko" from 20 feet away.
That's part of what they were trying to do: find something original.
Also significant is that the "art culture" made up of museum curators,
critics, etc, have decided that Abrastract Expressionism IS art.
Afterall, I would argue that art is at least in part what a society
DECIDES it is: what it puts in a museum to represent itself. In this way,
Abstract Expressionism has been a significant success.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Philip Mayor
Westwood, Los Angeles CA.
graphic artist/filmmaker/pianist/composer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mdeli
(Philip May) wrote:
>…I would add that of particular importance in Abstract Expressionism is a
>desire to express "individualism." In a sense, you can just the success
>of an artist by being able to say "that's a Rothko" from 20 feet away.
That is true if you go to the museum. But if you see a
Rothko forgery or imitation your likely to say the same
thing. There is nothing original about Rothko other
than the fact he hangs in the museum. Others who dare
paint the same nonsense can’t make it past the
curators.
>That's part of what they were trying to do: find something original.
>Also significant is that the "art culture" made up of museum curators,
>critics, etc, have decided that Abrastract Expressionism IS art.
Glad you find this reassuring.
But let me remind you that in the 19th century the
worst academic trash was considered art and in this
century the best academic art is considered trash.
>Afterall, I would argue that art is at least in part what a society
>DECIDES it is: what it puts in a museum to represent itself.
>In this way,
>Abstract Expressionism has been a significant success.
It is indeed.
However, for each success there are thousands of
failures with equal and superior skills (which amounts
to almost no skill) who are pooh-poohed by the critics
as imitators and get no further into the museums than
the men’s room.
Mani DeLi
---no skill no art
Mdeli
For years I have read article which denigrating
Bouguereau it seems is the essence of artistic evil. He
was described as a pornographer, woefully dishonest,
disgusting, dirty, foul, repugnant, nauseating and
paradoxically a creator of candy box top art. I always
liked the candy box description.
I once got a metal candy box with an academic print on
the outside. When I opened the candy box I noticed that
the individual paper wrappings were Abstract
Expressionist along with the design on the inside
lining. There were some Henry Moor style chocolates and
some three dimensional Mondrian licorice.
That was long ago. Today we have soup can paintings and
uninspiredly wrapped candy bars. Even the Twinky box is
a bore. The only place you can get your candy box
pictures now is in the poster stores where they compete
with the artwork that was inside the candy box.
Candy boxes aren’t what they used to be, but thank
goodness we still have the American flag, which is
really an overworked early pre-Barnett Newman. No stars
but stripes forever.
Mani Deli
Mdeli
The problem with Abstract Expressionism and lots of
other stuff.
-AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
-If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased and
were signed Joe Schmo it would be considered worthless
garbage.
-the public depends on critics to distinguish the
so-called masterpiece from the mere imitation.
-the abstract element in AE is neither new or in
anyway unique.Vastly superior abstract work (in terms
of skill and attractiveness) can be found in the
decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel
designs. (all of which are flat images and were flat
images long before AE made its debut.)
-Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically
oriented people to imagine that these works have
transcendental significance.
-in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all
negative criticisms are ultimately answered with
cryptic appeals for the understanding of the
non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
-AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry
can talk about and sell to people with "Emperor’s New
Clothes" syndrome. These people in turn can claim deep
but inexplicable understanding and feel that they are
more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
folk. This fulfills there need to feel exceptional.
-In the context of today’s fashions if it didn't look
like a put-on no one would be interested or have
anything much to talk about.
-AE and lots more should be renamed DON"T LAUGH ART.
-The excuse that AE makes people feel good while it is
in fashion is of no consequence. Remember, hated Salon
painting made people feel good throughout the 19th
century. Today it is considered so bad that hardly
anyone is able to see it and judge for himself.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
W.S. Parker
Mdeli wrote:
>
> The problem with Abstract Expressionism and lots of
> other stuff.
>
>
forward in an inflammatory style, I wonder how many people glance at
this and turn off and go to the next posting. Then they eventually
glance at you name and go to the next name. Eventually you only attract
people who agree with your "massive generalizations."
An entire chapter of American art is rendered totally insignificant by
just a few strokes of your keyboard based upon your driving desire to
promote your singular point of view.
Why not try to genuinely listen, and consider; generate some
understanding rather than proclaim, and pontificate?
Gordon Fitch
hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli):
| The problem with Abstract Expressionism and lots of
| other stuff.
|
In most other fields, this would be a point in its favor.
In fact, what I think is interesting about contemporary
abstract expressionism is that it is showing up, cheaply
produced, in places like malls, discount art print stores,
and women's fingernails. Humbled and far from its days
of glory, it seems to have found some favor among the
people.
--
[[[ Gordon Fitch ||| gor...@panix.com ||| http://www.etaoin.com ]]]
Mdeli
"W.S. Parker" <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
>Mdeli wrote:
>>
>> The problem with Abstract Expressionism and lots of
>> other stuff.
>>
>>
>Don't you mean "*your* problem?" Again another series of claims that you
>forward in an inflammatory style, I wonder how many people glance at
>this and turn off and go to the next posting. Then they eventually
>glance at you name and go to the next name. Eventually you only attract
>people who agree with your "massive generalizations."
>An entire chapter of American art is rendered totally insignificant by
>just a few strokes of your keyboard based upon your driving desire to
>promote your singular point of view.
"An entire chapter of American art is rendered totally
insignificant" by artzy fartzy magazines, museums and
critics. They call it all kisch, commercial and
illustration, not to mention 9/10's of the great works
ot the 19th century.
Thing are just beginning to change.
>Why not try to genuinely listen, and consider; generate some
>understanding rather than proclaim, and pontificate?
Well why not defend what you like instead of
complaining about my claims.
You might start with Matisse's Dance and move on to
Guernica and end up in Duchamp's urinal.
Joshua Heuman
Hello all -- Joshua Heuman here again with another installment of
debate with Mani Deli!
Mani Deli wrote:
>-AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
Is skill the only criterion in your mind of what is good and what is
not good? (If so, it is certainly your right, but warn other people
that this is your opinion please.)
>-If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased and
>were signed Joe Schmo it would be considered worthless
>garbage.
Would this not also apply to a Rembrandt, a Michelangelo, a Poussin?
>-The public depends on critics to distinguish the
>so-called masterpiece from the mere imitation.
Would this not also apply to a Rembrandt, a Michelangelo, a Poussin?
>-the abstract element in AE is neither new or in
>anyway unique.Vastly superior abstract work (in terms
>of skill and attractiveness) can be found in the
>decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
>rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel
>designs. (all of which are flat images and were flat
>images long before AE made its debut.)
First, little in art is new or unique. Was Rembrandt unique in
painting portraits? Was Michelangelo unique in painting the Creation
of Adam and Eve? Was Poussin unique in painting The Intervention of
the Sabine Women? Nope.
Second, flatness was never considered a value in itself by the
Absract Expressionists or the critics who supported the Abstract
Expressionists. In fact, in his essay "Collage," Clement Greenberg
clearly stated that absolute flatness resulted in nothing more than a
poster...that 'greatness' was achieved by the tension between flatness
and indeterminate space. (I do not agree with Greenberg, but use him
to refute Mani Deli's accusation.)
Third, the Abstract Expressionists were the first to admit to
international influences. Certainly in the 1940s and 1950s, they used
the politically incorrect term 'primitive,' but so too did European
painters during the Renaissance, Baroque and Neoclassical periods.
>-Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically
>oriented people to imagine that these works have
>transcendental significance.
Does not Christianity provide a similar transcendental framework for
religious works painted since Early Christianity during Roman Imperial
times up to the present day? Are Michelangelo's paintings not
considered to be embodiments of rational/logical as well as spiritual
significance? The line between mysticism, spirituality, magic on the
one hand and religion on the other is very thin...I would argue that
it is non-existent. As R.G. Collingwood wrote in 1938, "What is
commonly called 'practicing' a religion is practicing its magic." In
fact, Christianity is merely an organized, sanctioned form of magic
and nature worship.
>-in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all
>negative criticisms are ultimately answered with
>cryptic appeals for the understanding of the
>non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
Can one rationally criticize Renaissance works? Certainly one can
try, but the issue always returns to a matter of belief. Do you
believe that Jesus was the son of God, regardless of whether a painted
representation of him is good or bad? Do you believe that the saints
were divinely inspired? Do you believe in God? in Creation? in the
Apocalypse? Belief in anything can be very powerful...enough to
convince millions of people to kill millions of other people...enough
to build devises to get men on the Moon...enough to maintain a
completely conceptual global economy going while not one person
actually understands it! Can you prove that belief in the Absract
Expressionists is right or wrong? I can't and don't believe you can
either. It is a matter of opinion, but according to idealistic
democracy, one should tell all others that this is only opnion...my
opinion and Mani Deli's opinion. Neither is right or wrong, unless
you so chose one or the other.
>-AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry
>can talk about and sell to people with "Emperor’s New
>Clothes" syndrome. These people in turn can claim deep
>but inexplicable understanding and feel that they are
>more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
>folk. This fulfills their need to feel exceptional.
So too did artists like Michelangelo, Rubens and Charles Lebrun impose
such an elitist comprehension of their work and style. No celebrity
is immune from a swollen head!
>-AE and lots more should be renamed DON"T LAUGH ART.
Certainly this label would encompass all Christian art which is not
meant to cause laughter, rather it is meant to impose guilt, impose
emotional and spiritual suffering, and worse, meant to terrify and
frighten the viewer into belief that the Apocalypse will come soon,
and when it does, you had better have been good.
>-The excuse that AE makes people feel good while it is
>in fashion is of no consequence. Remember, hated Salon
>painting made people feel good throughout the 19th
>century. Today it is considered so bad that hardly
>anyone is able to see it and judge for himself.
Only the close-minded can not separate what they have been told about
a work of art from what they think about a work of art. What is in
the history books, the university lectures, on television is, like
every message over the Internet, pure opinion. If someone
relinquishes their right to make their own judgment, it is their
fault. Nobody can make anyone else believe anything...one must be a
willing participant to be indoctrinated.
Joshua Heuman
jhe...@yorku.ca
Darren Reynolds
In article <53jjso$g...@panix.com>,
gor...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
>hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli):
>| The problem with Abstract Expressionism and lots of
>| other stuff.
>|
>| -AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
>| ...
>
>In most other fields, this would be a point in its favor.
>In fact, what I think is interesting about contemporary
>abstract expressionism is that it is showing up, cheaply
>produced, in places like malls, discount art print stores,
>and women's fingernails. Humbled and far from its days
>of glory, it seems to have found some favor among the
>people.
>
>--
Today artists are quoting abstract expressionism ironically, taking the
rise out of the worthy aspirations and masculiness of it. Thing is Jasper
Johns was in there, doing this, whilst Pollock's stuff was still drying. He
took the expressionistic brushstroke and completely subverted it;
controlled it.
Darren
G*rd*n
hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli):
| >| The problem with Abstract Expressionism and lots of
| >| other stuff.
| >|
| >| -AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
| >| ...
gor...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
| >In most other fields, this would be a point in its favor.
| >In fact, what I think is interesting about contemporary
| >abstract expressionism is that it is showing up, cheaply
| >produced, in places like malls, discount art print stores,
| >and women's fingernails. Humbled and far from its days
| >of glory, it seems to have found some favor among the
| >people.
dar...@reinwood.demon.co.uk (Darren Reynolds):
| Today artists are quoting abstract expressionism ironically, taking the
| rise out of the worthy aspirations and masculiness of it. Thing is Jasper
| Johns was in there, doing this, whilst Pollock's stuff was still drying. He
| took the expressionistic brushstroke and completely subverted it;
| controlled it.
I don't the the folks in the mall or the fingernail emporia
are being ironic; I think they just like the stuff. I think
ab-ex carried Meaning and Power badly, but now it's free.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Bruce Attah
Hello all -- Bruce Attah here again disagreeing Joshua Heuman!
In article <325d6c3c...@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>, jhe...@yorku.ca wrote:
> Hello all -- Joshua Heuman here again with another installment of
> debate with Mani Deli!
>
> >-If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased and
> >were signed Joe Schmo it would be considered worthless
> >garbage.
>
> Would this not also apply to a Rembrandt, a Michelangelo, a Poussin?
No. If a large sculpture were discovered in Rome that showed all the
accomplishment of a Michelangelo and in the same hallmark style, but
signed with some name other than Michelangelo's, it would immediately be
proclaimed a masterpiece, and a race would begin to find out who the
artist was. Great skepticism would greet the claim that Michelangelo was
not the artist who created the work, and proof either way would be
sought. If it were indeed proved that Michelangelo could not have created
the work, and that it was the effort of some unknown contemporary, the
fresco would be attributed to the 'Master of XXX' (XXX being the place
where the work was found) and the market value of the work, while probably
not as high as an actual Michelangelo would nevertheless be considerable.
By contrast, a reattributed Rothko would become completely worthless, and
there would be no debate about how it was possible that someone could
imitate Rothko with such deceptive accuracy -- because everyone knows that
anyone can do that stuff.
> >-The public depends on critics to distinguish the
> >so-called masterpiece from the mere imitation.
>
> Would this not also apply to a Rembrandt, a Michelangelo, a Poussin?
Those guys got their reputations before critics were invented. Granted, a
talented pupil who worked in Rembrandt's studio could produce imitations
convincing enough to fool both the public _and_ connoisseurs, but that is
a testament to the pupil's above average talent and access to privy
knowledge of Rembrandt's working practices. Even more so, it is often a
testament to wishful thinking on the part of the painting's owners. But
this special circumstance excepted, the means of telling 'great' from
'minor' abstract expressionist paintings are available to no-one but art
world insiders, while great 16th Century Dutch painting can be reliably
told apart from minor examples of the same by anyone who cares to spend a
reasonable amount of time looking at examples of the genre.
> >-the abstract element in AE is neither new or in
> >anyway unique.Vastly superior abstract work (in terms
> >of skill and attractiveness) can be found in the
> >decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
> >rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel
> >designs. (all of which are flat images and were flat
> >images long before AE made its debut.)
> First, little in art is new or unique. Was Rembrandt unique in
> painting portraits? Was Michelangelo unique in painting the Creation
> of Adam and Eve? Was Poussin unique in painting The Intervention of
> the Sabine Women? Nope.
In each case, the uniqueness lay not in the subject matter, but in the
execution -- and that is as it should be, because art is not primarily in
what you say but in how you say it. Sure, each Abstract Expressionist had
a 'unique' style, but this was a gimmick, and the only reason that each
painter can be told apart from the others is that they were careful to
stick to the confines of their gimmick and not tread on each other's
stylistic 'territory'. By contrast, Rembrandt, Michelangelo and Poussin
had each devised an approach to painting that fulfilled a particular
purpose -- it was not style-as-style -- and their uniqueness owed much to
the fact that their accomplishments were darned difficult to emulate.
There is more: Rembrandt's, Michelangelo's and Poussin's art is not
primarily valued for its having been a 'new' invention, but Abstract
Expressionism depends for a good part of its prestige on the claim that
the artists were somehow 'breaking new ground' when they adopted their
non-objective style. Therefore, the existence of 'prior art' existing,
shatters the edifice of esteem for Abstract Expressionism.
I have used the phrase 'patentable ideas' to describe the phenomenon in
modern, late modern and 'postmodern' (which is still modern) art whereby
an artist has a simple idea -- the sort you could describe on the back of
an envelope, and bases a career around that idea. Once officially
recognized as originator, the artist is granted an effective monopoly of
the idea for the space of about a generation. The artist relies on
critics to fend off imitators, since difficulty is not available as a
deterrent. Primacy or precedence is considered of the utmost importance,
and the discovery of 'prior art' can ruin someone's career plans
altogether.
Abstract Expressionism is very much a system of patentable ideas, one of
which is flatness:
> Greenberg clearly stated that...that 'greatness' was achieved by the tension
> between flatness
> and indeterminate space.
The 'flat' forms of abstract art described by Mani Deli _also_ display
this 'tension between flatness and indeterminate space'. Gaps in the
matrix, overlapping forms, the use of light and shade, all these are
employed to produce precisely the effect Greenberg describes.
> Third, the Abstract Expressionists were the first to admit to
> international influences.
That's a strange claim. Do you mean that the Abstract Expressionists were
the first _American_ artists to admit foreign influence that was _not_
_European_ and _not_ _Oriental_? If so, it is not _much_ of a claim,
though it may be granted. It is primacy of a sort, but even a modernist
wouldn't value that sort of primacy very highly. One wonders, in any
case, if the 'admission' is not in fact a cynical reaching out for extra
modernness credentials. The abstract expressionists were aware that the
Cubists and later the Surrealists had taken an interest in 'primitive
art', so they, emulous and behind the times as usual, decided to follow
suit. If this primitive art did actually have any influence on them, it
was absorbed to the point of unrecognizability.
> >-Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically
> >oriented people to imagine that these works have
> >transcendental significance.
>
> Does not Christianity provide a similar transcendental framework for
> religious works painted since Early Christianity during Roman Imperial
> times up to the present day? Are Michelangelo's paintings not
> considered to be embodiments of rational/logical as well as spiritual
> significance?
Art that is any good can be appreciated _without_ reference to the
spiritual role it served and framework in which it was originally
understood. Enjoyment of Abstract Expressionism _depends_ on the viewer's
acceptance of the quasi-mystical claims made on its behalf.
> >-in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all
> >negative criticisms are ultimately answered with
> >cryptic appeals for the understanding of the
> >non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
>
> Can one rationally criticize Renaissance works?
Yes.
> Certainly one can
> try, but the issue always returns to a matter of belief. Do you
> believe that Jesus was the son of God...
One does not need to believe the things the artists believed in order to
appreciate their art. Understanding what they believed may help, but that
is rational.
> Can you prove that belief in the Absract
> Expressionists is right or wrong? I can't and don't believe you can
> either.
I can present some pretty strong evidence to show that it does not live up
to its claims. I can also provide evidence that its results are not as
rewarding as those of certain other approaches to art -- either for the
artist, or the viewer. If these do not amount to proof to you...I do not
have access to mind-control technology.
> ...my
> opinion and Mani Deli's opinion. Neither is right or wrong, unless
> you so chose one or the other.
When two propositions clash, at least one is false.
>
> >-AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry
> >can talk about and sell to people with "Emperor’s New
> >Clothes" syndrome. These people in turn can claim deep
> >but inexplicable understanding and feel that they are
> >more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
> >folk. This fulfills their need to feel exceptional.
>
> So too did artists like Michelangelo, Rubens and Charles Lebrun impose
> such an elitist comprehension of their work and style. No celebrity
> is immune from a swollen head!
Rubens might well have had a swollen head, but he hardly needed to
"impose...an elitist comprehension of [his] work and style" on anyone.
His contemporaries had no difficulty in recognizing that he was a member
of an elite of one, and they'd have been as happy to impose that fact on
him as the other way round. Even to someone who cared not a jot for art,
it would have been apparent that this guy was special.
This is rather different from the situation with the abstract
expressionists, where there is no _apparent_ reason why the painters of
the New York school are regarded a special band of geniuses.
> >-AE and lots more should be renamed DON"T LAUGH ART.
>
> Certainly this label would encompass all Christian art which is not
> meant to cause laughter, rather it is meant to impose guilt, impose
> emotional and spiritual suffering, and worse, meant to terrify and
> frighten the viewer into belief that the Apocalypse will come soon,
> and when it does, you had better have been good.
Well, _some_ of it had that purpose, but whether it did or not, there was
rarely a _temptation_ to laugh, as there is with Abstract Expressionism
and much that has appeared since.
> Only the close-minded can not separate what they have been told about
> a work of art from what they think about a work of art.
I think it is the other way around: If one needs to close one's mind off
from what one has read about a particular work -- in order to see it with
fresh eyes -- this can be difficult, because the information one has read
will tend to come crowding in, and the carelessly openminded will find the
work fogged in a cloud of words.
> What is in
> the history books, the university lectures, on television is, like
> every message over the Internet, pure opinion.
That is a postmodernist, anti-realist exaggeration. _Some_ things are
fact, even when they come over the Internet.
> Nobody can make anyone else believe anything
Not true.
> ...one must be a willing participant to be indoctrinated.
Not true, though it helps.
Bruce Attah.
Joshua Heuman
>"W.S. Parker" <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
>>Why not try to genuinely listen, and consider; generate some
>>understanding rather than proclaim, and pontificate?
>Mdeli <hu...@interlog.com> replied:
>Well why not defend what you like instead of
>complaining about my claims.
>You might start with Matisse's Dance and move on to
>Guernica and end up in Duchamp's urinal.
Mani,
How old are you? How capable of analytic thought are you? Do you
actually beleve that nihilism and anarchy will get you anywhere?
Just because you experience nothing when looking at Abstract
Expressionism does not disqualify it as valuable for other people!
Most Art Historians find the style intriguing because of the formal
issues, the political situation, the artist's statements, etc.
Oh, but I forgot...you clearly haven't read anything on the subject!
You have displayed your ignorance one time too many, for any opinion
is acceptable from an informed person...but from you, an opinion isn't
worth the time it takes to read! I congratulate you on your skills
with the golden shovel, but your brain has miles to go before it
catches up to your mouth!
Joshua Heuman
jhe...@yorku.ca
JKearman
In article <32649176...@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>, jhe...@yorku.ca
(Joshua Heuman) writes (in reference to Mani Deli):
>Just because you experience nothing when looking at Abstract
>Expressionism does not disqualify it as valuable for other people!
>Most Art Historians find the style intriguing because of the formal
>issues, the political situation, the artist's statements, etc.
>
>Oh, but I forgot...you clearly haven't read anything on the subject!
>You have displayed your ignorance one time too many, for any opinion
>is acceptable from an informed person...but from you, an opinion isn't
>worth the time it takes to read! I congratulate you on your skills
>with the golden shovel, but your brain has miles to go before it
>catches up to your mouth!
>
>
Having taken my share of swings at Mani, let me now come to his defense,
not that he needs it.
Mani never ruled out an alternative point of view; he merely stated his
own point. (It so happens I don't agree with his blanket dismissal of
A.E., either.)
Mani's focus is on technical proficiency, which does rule out aspects of
art some of us find equally important. He said recently though, that
concentration on technique can lead to insight, with which I agree. So,
opinionated he may be, and occasionally a little crude, but I would not
characterize him as ignorant. The simplest concepts are often the most
profound.
I mean, have you really looked at what Kooning's "Woman" series? Can you
not see that it is equally possible that it is what Mani claims it to be:
A fraud?
There have been a couple of postings lately that purport to "fire" or
otherwise dismiss Mani. Why would you want to do that? Is it essential to
surround yourself only with those who share your beliefs and opinions? We
certainly won't learn from one another if we always agree.
So rage on, Mani (and you too, Bruce). Sometimes I even agree with you!
Jim Kearman
Katy Odell
Forgive me - I forgot to say what my point was. It was this - I do
believe that there are people who want art to remain unaccessable to the
mainstream. The mainstream does not appreciate being snubbed and yells
"Bullshit!" Then, the elite accuses the mainstream of being ignorant.
I think both sides have merit.
That's all!
-katy
Katy Odell
OOH! I wanna say my piece!
OK, I will admit that I do not know a lot about AE, or even much about
modern art in general. It will be difficult for me to avoid broad
generalizations, but I'll try.
Everyone has an opinion on modern art, and I'm not surprised that it's
turned into a flame war here. Here's a couple of things I can say with
some small measure of authority:
First, things that are loved by the masses are generally considered
lowbrow. (I personally know a lot of people who seem to go out of their
way to dislike anything that's popular on a large scale - haven't we all
seen hot new bands suddenly hit the top ten and be disdainfully dropped
by their origional fans?)
I've noticed that it's not very "cool" to think Salvidor Dali was
awesome. That's left to the ignorant middle class. They like Dali
because his stuff is interesting, skillfully done, and, for all it's
weirdness, fairly easy to understand. No one who gets a PhD in Art
History thinks Dali is so cool that they plaster their living rooms with
posters of his paintings.
Illustrations by Norman Rockwell are easily accesible to anyone in our
culture. They raise simple sentiment in the American breast. There's no
mystery to them, they're skillfully executed, and they have that
"attention to detail" often touted in advertisements for things from the
Franklin Mint. I personally have never seen Norman Rockwell in an Art
History text or hanging in a museum. But, I happen to think he's an
amazing artist, and I hold him in higher esteem than I do any of the
AE's I studied in my survey class at school. Treacly? Cheap? Maybe - but
it says something about our culture, who we are as a people, so clearly
and perfectly that I have to admire him.
I don't understand a lot of modern art. I wish I did. But I can't help
but wonder what's going to be in the text books five centuries from now.
For all I know, it will be automobile design that defines our asthetic
culture. Maybe it will be Hummel Figurines or velvet paintings of Elvis
that seem to sum us up to the scholars of the future. "Those greedy,
materialistic barbarians stopped patronizing real art in favor of
horrible, mass-produced plastic lawn sculptures of pink flamingos..."
Actually, that would be pretty cool.
-katy
Joshua Heuman
Joshua Heuman here disagreeing, yet again, with Bruce Attah:
*NOTE*
Joshua is presenting his own opinions unless otherwise noted by
reference to art historian or art critic. Thank you.
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>...a reattributed Rothko would become completely worthless, and
>there would be no debate about how it was possible that someone could
>imitate Rothko with such deceptive accuracy -- because everyone knows that
>anyone can do that stuff.
I disagree completely. One can tell a Rothko by the surface, as most
Rothko paintings have dry pigment sprinkled all over. Also, Rothko,
as do most modern painters of 'quality,' kept a detailed notebook
about his works. Artists like Rothko record(ed) every work, noting
down if the work was sold (for how much and to whom) or whether the
work was destroyed because it was not 'good enough.' Other artists
who did this include David Smith, Sir Anthony Caro and Jack Bush,
among many others.
Mani Deli wrote:
>> >-The public depends on critics to distinguish the
>> >so-called masterpiece from the mere imitation.
To which I replied:
>> Would this not also apply to a Rembrandt, a Michelangelo, a Poussin?
To which Bruce replied:
>Those guys got their reputations before critics were invented.
No. Actually, Grecian philosophers dealt with questions of
aesthetics, as did Roman philosophers. In late Medieval times,
Boccacio made various statements about Cimabue and Giotto which may be
deemed to be 'critical commentary.' And by the mid-16th century,
nearly a contemporary with the three artists mentioned above, Vasari
certainly produced a most handy biographical art-historical/critical
work on the 'great' artists of the 13th through 16th centuries in
Italy.
In terms of modern critical writing on art, how far back would you
like to start? How about Kant in the late 18th century? Or Ruskin in
the 19th? What about Hegel? Wolfflin? Focillon? Panofsky?
Warburg? One can label them all art historians, however, a good deal
of their writing included various judgments of quality and artistic
merit which is the indication of art criticism.
Bruce also wrote:
>...the means of telling 'great' from 'minor' abstract expressionist
>paintings are available to no-one but art world insiders, while great
>16th Century Dutch painting can be reliably told apart from minor
>examples of the same by anyone who cares to spend a reasonable amount
>of time looking at examples of the genre.
Actually, what you say about Dutch 16th century works applies to any
time and style. Why do you assume that there is one universally
defineable 'good' versus 'bad.' Clearly you are a neo-Kantian,
neo-Greenbergian, believing that there are quality differences in art.
I believe that anyone can, and should, make their own judgments
about quality. Quality can not be judged as a universal because no
one person has the right to tell anyone else what is 'good' and what
is 'bad.' If this is your big critique of Modernism and/or Abstract
Expressionism, you have not developed beyond the superficial!
I wrote:
>...little in art is new or unique. Was Rembrandt unique in
>> painting portraits? Was Michelangelo unique in painting the Creation
>> of Adam and Eve? Was Poussin unique in painting The Intervention of
>> the Sabine Women? Nope.
Bruce wrote:
>In each case, the uniqueness lay not in the subject matter, but in the
>execution -- and that is as it should be, because art is not primarily in
>what you say but in how you say it.
I disagree, on the basis that many art critics and historians have
been turning away from pure formalism, toward a social historical
approach which involves a study of the underlying concepts. This is
the category that Kant called, 'the Good,' in other words, artwork
that is based on a priori concepts, and therefore, is disqualified
from the category of "the Beautiful."
I am, frankly, surpised to here you, an anti-Greenbergian, using
strictly formal terms in defining greatness in art! A little ironic,
displaying your utter ignorance of what Modernism and Greenberg were
all about. I suggest you brush up on your historical and theoretical
knowledge.
>Sure, each Abstract Expressionist had a 'unique' style, but this was
>a gimmick, and the only reason that each painter can be told apart
>from the others is that they were careful to stick to the confines of
>their gimmick and not tread on each other's stylistic 'territory'.
Have you actually investigated Abstract Expressionism in an academic
endeavor? Or do you merely spout uninformed opinion, based on your
seeing photographic reproductions of the works in question?
I bet you have no idea what meaning, subject and content the
Abstract Expressionists were using as assumptions...probably because
you've never even allowed the possibility that they accomplished
anything. It is true, their finished products may be visually boring,
but haven't you read your Croce? Croce, in 1909 (way before the
Abstract Expressionists), wrote that a work of art is produced in the
head, through concept, and that a physical existence (painting,
sculpture, etc.) is merely to aid an audience in understanding the
underlying concepts. If you don't think that sounds possible, I guess
you must dismiss all work since...oh...the mid-19th century.
Certainly your own work, if you are 'artists' (and I use the term
loosely), falls into the category of trash because it must be based on
some concept and is not merely a virtuosic display of technique,
representing shallow, empty heads?
Bruce also wrote:
>By contrast, Rembrandt, Michelangelo and Poussin had each devised an
>approach to painting that fulfilled a particular purpose -- it was not
>style-as-style -- and their uniqueness owed much to the fact that their
>accomplishments were darned difficult to emulate.
Don't you think that you are mythologizing about past painters as much
as others mythologize the Abstract Expressionists? Just because you
enjoy older painting styles doesn't make you right and doesn't make
those who admire newer styles wrong! Clearly, however, you have never
studied the Abstract Expressionists if you feel they can be dismissed
as non-skilled painters...most painters today work within a strongly
theoretical, abstract, conceptual community of artists and scholars.
I wrote:
>> Does not Christianity provide a similar transcendental framework for
>> religious works painted since Early Christianity during Roman Imperial
>> times up to the present day? Are Michelangelo's paintings not
>> considered to be embodiments of rational/logical as well as spiritual
>> significance?
Bruce replied:
>Art that is any good can be appreciated _without_ reference to the
>spiritual role it served and framework in which it was originally
>understood. Enjoyment of Abstract Expressionism _depends_ on the viewer's
>acceptance of the quasi-mystical claims made on its behalf.
No offense to anyone, but I'm not Christian. Frankly, good quality
or not, I get sick to my stomach seeing a St. Sebastian with five or
six arrows sticking through his torso, head, legs, etc. I find that
repulsive...even if it was painted by Andrea Mantegna. Some would
call that great art because it is technically painted well. So
what...the actual subject is meant to draw gasps from the crowd,
affecting people's emotional states as R.G. Collingwood described, in
"entertainment" style.
And what about those Crucifixions? A dead body hanging from a
wooden cross. Historically questionable, as Romans did not often nail
criminals to crosses; rather, they slung them up with ropes to die
from exposure to the hot sun...bleeding to death was too fast. How
many crucifixion scenes are considered to be great art and yet I find
them repulsive.
All this Christian art requires that one be Christian, believing in
saints and the Trinity and the existence of god on earth in the form
of man. Sounds pretty quai-mystical to me...but then again, I'm a
heretical unbeliever, right?
I asked:
>> Can one rationally criticize Renaissance works? Doesn't one have to
>>believe in Jesus as the son of God to admire such paintings?
Bruce replied:
>One does not need to believe the things the artists believed in order to
>appreciate their art. Understanding what they believed may help, but that
>is rational.
True, one doesn't have to believe what the artist believed to think
it is 'great' art, and yet how many non-Christians do you know who are
awed at the sight of a Crucifixion, proclaiming it 'great' art? I
never do, seeing as the subject means nothing to me, and the concept
of art requires more than technical skill to please me.
Bruce claimed:
>I can present some pretty strong evidence to show that it does not live up
>to its claims. I can also provide evidence that its results are not as
>rewarding as those of certain other approaches to art -- either for the
>artist, or the viewer. If these do not amount to proof to you...I do not
>have access to mind-control technology.
O.K. I'm waiting for an annotated bibliography of sources
(newspaper reviews, periodical articles, books, catalogue raisonee,
etc.) which 'prove' all that you claim. I am confident that there are
others in the newsgroup who would appreciate a copy too, so ask around
immediately before you send it out!
>When two propositions clash, at least one is false.
Unless both a pratially right, or both are completely right! One
need not discount the other(s) completely. For instance: you hate
Abstract Expressionism, and I see academic value in it, and I'm sure
other people like it. Who is right and/or wrong?
Keep in mind that academic scholarship is not a majority wins
system. In academia, all opinions should be considered before making
a final, individual, personal judgment. You have clearly skipped
ahead to making your own decision without making yourself aware of all
other opinions.
Bruce wrote:
>Rubens...<snip>...contemporaries had no difficulty in recognizing that
>he was a member of an elite of one, and they'd have been as happy to
>impose that fact on him as the other way round. Even to someone who
>cared not a jot for art, it would have been apparent that this guy
>was special.
Bruce, you surely must be aware that this is completely your
opinion, supported by many, but dismissed by many others! I think
that Rubens was a great businessman, capable of signing so many
contracts that he earned much money and paid assistants to do complete
paintings in his name without so much as lifting a finger! He was a
fraud and no genius!
>This is rather different from the situation with the abstract
>expressionists, where there is no _apparent_ reason why the painters of
>the New York school are regarded a special band of geniuses.
Just like Rubens, the New York School painters were no geniuses,
however, they did paint their own works with their own hands. Most
were well educated, many having Master's degrees in philosophy,
science and other disciplines. So while it is true their paintings
are abstract and could be painted, technically, by nearly anyone,
North America does pride itself on rewardeing innovation.
Perhaps you should try readings Serge Guilbaut's "How New York Stole
the Idea of Modern Art." It gives full details on the potential
socio-political background to the development of Abstract
Expressionism. The thesis is the following: after WWII, needing a
cultural weapon for the Cold War which was already being waged in
politics and economics, the United States turned to Abstract
Expressionism.
>If one needs to close one's mind off from what one has read about
>a particular work -- in order to see it with fresh eyes -- this can
>be difficult, because the information one has read will tend to come
>crowding in, and the carelessly openminded will find the work fogged
>in a cloud of words.
Is that the fault of the work of art, a static, non-living object? or
perhaps the viewer, who should be capable of change and objective (as
well as subjective) thought, is too limited?
>_Some_ things are fact, even when they come over the Internet.
In history, the facts are names (artists, critics, patrons), dates
and titles of works. The rest of history is interpretation.
In terms of truth over the Internet: I would never read something
and accept it at face value. If you do, there's something wrong with
your method of scholarship!
In summary, I think that both Bruce Attah and Mani Deli repeatedly
display their own opinion, using no respectable sources of historical
or critical scholarship as support. Surely the sign of amateur
critics who mouth-off at any given opportunity. I at least admit when
I present my own opinion...they just spew, wanting everyone to believe
their so-called 'facts.'
Joshua Heuman
jhe...@yorku.ca
JKearman
In article <3269bf94...@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca>, jhe...@yorku.ca
(Joshua Heuman) writes:
> In summary, I think that both Bruce Attah and Mani Deli repeatedly
>display their own opinion, using no respectable sources of historical
>or critical scholarship as support. Surely the sign of amateur
>critics who mouth-off at any given opportunity. I at least admit when
>I present my own opinion...they just spew, wanting everyone to believe
>their so-called 'facts.'
>
>
Everyone presents her or his own opinion here. I think anyone intelligent
enough to be reading this list ought to know an opinion from a fact. I
also think the consistent confidence Mani and Bruce exhibit in their
postings offends you, as much as what they have to say. Once upon a time,
it was okay to be opinionated and confident. Now we're supposed to be
sensitive and wishy-washy about what we believe. I disagree with Bruce and
Mani more often than not, but I respect them for taking a stance.
Furthermore, it is everyone's option to ignore any mail she or he finds of
no interest. I routinely delete without reading, mail with subject lines
I'm not interested in reading. If you don't want to read what Bruce and
Mani have to say, I encourage you to do likewise. Please don't, however,
presume to dismiss them with the same certainty in your convictions as
they exhibit in their criticism. I can think for myself, and so, I'm sure,
can everyone else reading this newsgroup. We don't need you to play
censor.
Jim Kearman
Bruce Attah
> Joshua Heuman here disagreeing, yet again, with Bruce Attah:
>
> *NOTE*
> Joshua is presenting his own opinions unless otherwise noted by
> reference to art historian or art critic. Thank you.
NOTE: This is usenet, not an academic journal: I do not have to assume
that people here are so lacking in common sense as to be unable to
separate opinion (reasonable or unreasonable) from fact (verifiable or
falsifiable) in my statements that follow -- however, as a precautionary
measure, I will include reminders from time to time.
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> >...a reattributed Rothko would become completely worthless...
>
> ...Artists like Rothko record(ed) every work...
...because their work is very easy to forge.
Let's put it another way: would a painting that very closely imitated
Rothko (so only an expert could tell it was not by him) be worth more than
a few hundred dollars -- if it could be sold at all?
How much would a good contemporary imitation of Rembrandt go for? $800,000?
That's the difference.
> I said the Michelangelo, Rembrandt & Poussin:
> >Those guys got their reputations before critics were invented.
>
> No. Actually, Grecian philosophers dealt with questions of
> aesthetics, as did Roman philosophers.
I mentioned Pliny, did I not? I'm not pretending there was no criticism
back then, but observing that criticism was not professionalized.
> Bruce also wrote:
> >...the means of telling 'great' from 'minor' abstract expressionist
> >paintings are available to no-one but art world insiders, while great
> >16th Century Dutch painting can be reliably told apart from minor
> >examples of the same by anyone who cares to spend a reasonable amount
> >of time looking at examples of the genre.
>
> Actually, what you say about Dutch 16th century works applies to any
> time and style.
Let us agree to differ on this, for now.
> Why do you assume that there is one universally
> defineable 'good' versus 'bad.'
That distorts my position somewhat, because I believe there are 'good' and
'bad' in art which are usually recognizable as such, but I do not believe
they they can be defined except in vague terms. I do not think that I or
anyone could write down a list of instructions that, if followed to the
letter, would inevitably lead to good art, and if disobeyed would
inevitably lead to bad art.
> Clearly you are a neo-Kantian,
> neo-Greenbergian, believing that there are quality differences in art.
What? Before Kant, no-one believed there were quality differences in
art? Are you kidding? As for Greenberg, I disagree with almost every
distinctively Greenbergian thing the man ever said -- I'd have thought
that would be obvious to you.
> I believe that anyone can, and should, make their own judgments
> about quality.
I believe that some people are better than others at making such
judgements, and that people who are relatively bad at making such
judgements can improve their skill. The skills I believe one needs to
develop in order to make better judgements of quality are those of paying
attention (to the work and to one's responses) and making comparisons.
> Quality can not be judged as a universal because no
> one person has the right to tell anyone else what is 'good' and what
> is 'bad.'
I have a right to tell you what is good and what is bad, and you have a
right to disagree with me.
I believe that it makes sense to speak of good and bad in matters of
morals, do you? If you do, why? I'd like to know this, because I happen
to believe that aesthetic values are as firmly (and as loosely) grounded
in reason as moral ones are.
> If this is your big critique of Modernism and/or Abstract
> Expressionism, you have not developed beyond the superficial!
The above remark says nothing whatsoever to support your case, so why have
you made it?
> I wrote:
> >...little in art is new or unique. Was Rembrandt unique in
> >> painting portraits? Was Michelangelo unique in painting the Creation
> >> of Adam and Eve? Was Poussin unique in painting The Intervention of
> >> the Sabine Women? Nope.
> Bruce wrote:
> >In each case, the uniqueness lay not in the subject matter, but in the
> >execution -- and that is as it should be, because art is not primarily in
> >what you say but in how you say it.
>
> I disagree, on the basis that many art critics and historians have
> been turning away from pure formalism, toward a social historical
> approach which involves a study of the underlying concepts.
You disagree "because many..."? Are you now following the herd? The
critics were wrong when they became formalists; they are wrong now when
they ignore the formal properties of art.
I believe an artist can go wrong by saying the wrong thing, but what
artists say (divorced from how) tends to account for only a small amount
of the difference between them, and equally good paintings can make
opposite statements about the world. There is a what, too, that is
inseparable from the how. This is much more important.
> This is
> the category that Kant called, 'the Good,' in other words, artwork
> that is based on a priori concepts, and therefore, is disqualified
> from the category of "the Beautiful."
My view: Good art expresses the good beautifully. Art that only 'good' in
the above sense, or only 'beautiful', is trivial or bad, and does not
merit to be called art.
> I am, frankly, surpised to here you, an anti-Greenbergian, using
> strictly formal terms in defining greatness in art!
That falsely characterizes my views. You've taken my statement that "art
is not primarily in what you say but in how you say it" out of the context
of my other opinions, ignored the "primarily" and imposed on it an
interpretation that comes from your accustomed classification of aesthetic
theories, which will not do for mine. And by the way, didn't you just now
call me a neo-Greenbergian?
> A little ironic,
> displaying your utter ignorance of what Modernism and Greenberg were
> all about. I suggest you brush up on your historical and theoretical
> knowledge.
This irrelevent attack, which does not help your argument, is based on an
ignorance of views I have expressed in earlier postings to this newsgroup.
> Have you actually investigated Abstract Expressionism in an academic
> endeavor? Or do you merely spout uninformed opinion, based on your
> seeing photographic reproductions of the works in question?
If I said yes to the first question and no to the second, would you
believe me?
> I bet you have no idea what meaning, subject and content the
> Abstract Expressionists were using as assumptions...probably because
> you've never even allowed the possibility that they accomplished
> anything.
I bet you've never allowed the possibility that a person might give close
consideration to Abstract Expressionism and conclude that it failed.
> It is true, their finished products may be visually boring,
> but haven't you read your Croce? Croce, in 1909 (way before the
> Abstract Expressionists), wrote that a work of art is produced in the
> head, through concept, and that a physical existence (painting,
> sculpture, etc.) is merely to aid an audience in understanding the
> underlying concepts.
I am familiar with this theory, and I (as well as others, some of whom I
am sure you will have come across in your own reading) believe it to be
wrong. You will be unsurprised to learn that I also believe Collingwood's
related theory to be wrong.
In opposition to those theories, I posit the following: that it is
impossible to create a work of art without _making_ it, partly because
there is no artistic idea simple enough to imagine without noting down in
some medium or other. The noting down is both the imagining and the
making. If the idea were simple enough to grasp in the mind at once, it
would not be art.
> If you don't think that sounds possible, I guess
> you must dismiss all work since...oh...the mid-19th century.
Does everyone in your reading who disagrees with Benedetto Croce dismiss
ALL art since the mid-19th century? No? Then why must I?
In any case, sharing Croce's views pretty much requires one to dismiss
everything prior to the mid-nineteenth century, which is a position that
strikes me as absurd.
> Certainly your own work, if you are 'artists' (and I use the term
> loosely), falls into the category of trash because it must be based on
> some concept and is not merely a virtuosic display of technique,
> representing shallow, empty heads?
Another irrelevant personal attack? You exceed yourself.
In any case, you are inconsistent. You have no right, according to you,
to tell me my art is bad. Furthermore, conceptualism is not incompatible
with "empty" virtuosic displays. Such displays might be intended to
symbolize a thought.
> Bruce also wrote:
> >By contrast, Rembrandt, Michelangelo and Poussin had each devised an
> >approach to painting that fulfilled a particular purpose -- it was not
> >style-as-style -- and their uniqueness owed much to the fact that their
> >accomplishments were darned difficult to emulate.
>
> Don't you think that you are mythologizing about past painters as much
> as others mythologize the Abstract Expressionists?
No, I do not. What in the above is mythical about the named artists? Is
it not simply true that only a small proportion of trained artists could
convincingly imitate any of the above three?
> Just because you
> enjoy older painting styles doesn't make you right and doesn't make
> those who admire newer styles wrong!
I do not dislike the new styles BECAUSE I like the old stuff. I dislike
(a lot of) the new stuff AND I like (a lot of) the old stuff.
> Clearly, however, you have never
> studied the Abstract Expressionists if you feel they can be dismissed
> as non-skilled painters...most painters today work within a strongly
> theoretical, abstract, conceptual community of artists and scholars.
There's skill and there's skill. You can pretend all you like that it
required exceptional skill to produce the Abstract Expressionist stuff,
but you know in your heart of hearts that you are kidding yourself. (Hey,
look! I can make assumptions about you, just like you can make
assumptions about me!)
The truth is, whether you admit it or not, that any fool (not merely any
artist) could produce that stuff with about three weeks' training.
Worse than that (from your point of view), the theoretical basis of
Abstract Expressionism is pure codswallop.
> All this Christian art requires that one be Christian, believing in
> saints and the Trinity and the existence of god on earth in the form
> of man. Sounds pretty quai-mystical to me...but then again, I'm a
> heretical unbeliever, right?
Bully for you. Did I ever say I was a Christian? As I have said before,
what you say counts for _something_. You can argue the toss how much, but
I will say this: good art often portrays gory stuff. I will also say that
one no more needs to be a Christian to appreciate Christian art, than be a
worshipper of Zeus to appreciate depictions of Classical mythology.
Methinks, you are allowing your anti-Christian sentiments to cloud your
aesthetic sensibilities.
Here you illustrate what I consider to be the wrongheadedness of your
manner of judging art:
> True, one doesn't have to believe what the artist believed to think
> it is 'great' art, and yet how many non-Christians do you know who are
> awed at the sight of a Crucifixion, proclaiming it 'great' art? I
> never do, seeing as the subject means nothing to me, and the concept
> of art requires more than technical skill to please me.
For a start, a Christian (let me pretend to speak for Christians, just for
a moment) does not consider all crucifixions to be great art. The subject
matter may be 'good', but the execution needs to be 'beautiful' for great
art to result.
When you go on to say that you never can find a Crucifixion to be great
art, you show a basic misunderstanding (in my view) of what distinguishes
good art from bad. You put too much weight on the subject, for a start
(ignoring the 'art'), but then you go on to ignore the manifold meanings
of a Crucifixion, and consider only the negative connotations that you
personally attach to the thing.
Strikes me as a darned narrow approach. Just my opinion, mind.
> Bruce claimed:
> >I can present some pretty strong evidence to show that it does not live up
> >to its claims. I can also provide evidence that its results are not as
> >rewarding as those of certain other approaches to art -- either for the
> >artist, or the viewer. If these do not amount to proof to you...I do not
> >have access to mind-control technology.
>
> O.K. I'm waiting for an annotated bibliography of sources
> (newspaper reviews, periodical articles, books, catalogue raisonee,
> etc.) which 'prove' all that you claim. I am confident that there are
> others in the newsgroup who would appreciate a copy too, so ask around
> immediately before you send it out!
You are posting from a well-known academic institution. I am not.
Obviously, you would be in a better position than I to create a good
bibliography on Abstract Expressionism, so, why would I adopt the strategy
you suggest? Let me instead offer an alternative. Allow me to propose
some general directions in which you may point your attention in order to
test my claims about Abstract Expressionism.
First of all, Abstract Expressionism claims to be a huge innovation. I do
not need to refer you to any obscure sources to show you this is not
true. If you have a museum that has a substantial collection of abstract
art from the 1920s to the 1960s, visit it. If not, then get hold of ANY
well-illustrated monographs of three or so Abstract Expressionist painters
(if not even books are available, try the web), and get hold of some
source of pictures by Matta Echuarren, Miro, and Andre Masson, as well as
Wassily Kandinsky and any of the Russian abstractionist. Also Hans
Hartung. Look at all these pictures. Look again. Look again. Then ask
yourself, what significant innovation did the Abstract Expressionists
bring to painting that was not present in the work of these other
artists? Ask yourself also, did the Abstract Expressionists improve on
the work of their artistic forebears in any way, aside from adding the
machismo of spurious monumentality?
Another claim made on behalf of abstract expressionism is that it is
somehow profound. Looking at Abstract Expressionist paintings will,
according to the claims of certain contemporary critics, be an uplifting
experience -- it will offer proof of the spiritual (using the word in a
non-sectarian sense) depths of the artist. To test this, I suggest a very
simple procedure: stand in front of an Abstract Expressionist painting
for, say ten minutes, or perhaps twenty. Gaze at whatever holds your
attention in the picture -- allow your mind to take you on a spiritual
journey. When you get back, marvel at the profundity of your experience.
Next, find yourself an object to stare at: almost anything will do that
offers a little interest and has texture. Make sure it is not an artefact
made with artistic intent. I suggest a rough fence or wall or hedge.
Stand in a comfortable position in front of the object and gaze at it for
ten or twenty minutes. Get yourself a spiritual experience.
My third source of evidence will also be collected by you: visit an museum
that shows both Abstract Expressionist and other sorts of art. Do not go
into the main galleries, but visit instead the shop. Find out what
posters and postcards people buy. Ask yourself if what you discover has
any bearing on the question of how much reward Abstract Expressionist art
offers to the typical viewer. (Bear in mind that the people buying
posters and postcards from a museum shop are people who are interested
enough in art to visit such a museum in the first place -- and to buy
reproductions.)
> >When two propositions clash, at least one is false.
>
> Unless both a pratially right, or both are completely right! One
> need not discount the other(s) completely. For instance: you hate
> Abstract Expressionism, and I see academic value in it, and I'm sure
> other people like it. Who is right and/or wrong?
If two statements are both right, they do not clash. If they seem to
clash the perception that they do is wrong. In the list you give above,
there is no clash. Nor does the list below:
(1) I believe that the canonical works of Abstract Expressionism are all
examples of bad art, being trivial, charmless, and lacking in craft.
(2) You think Abstract Expressionism is worth studying as an historical
phenomenon.
(3) I believe that it is as worthy and as unworthy of such academic
interest as just about any other historical moment.
(4) Some people actually like Abstract Expressionism.
(5) I believe that there is virtually no art, no matter how poor, that
absolutely no-one can find it in themselves to like.
> Keep in mind that academic scholarship is not a majority wins
> system.
Did I say it was? Good thing it is not, then, since your view is the
majority view on this matter.
> In academia, all opinions should be considered before making
> a final, individual, personal judgment.
I have not neglected to consider the opinion you hold, and I am persuaded
that it is not at all well-founded. But how many times have YOU seriously
to considered the possibility that Abstract Expressionism really is
trumped-up nothingness, and that there really are good and bad in art, and
that therefore, Abstract Expressionism is an intruder in the territory of
art?
Academics in the humanities love to tell scientists that science is not as
objective as it pretends, but the humanities are prone to their own, more
severe self-mythologizing. Their propensity to pretend that they are more
objective and more humble in the face of complex reality than they really
are runs deep. The outcome is often an untenable antirealism. Let us
make it plain: YOU do not consider all opinions before you make a "final,
individual, personal" judgement. Nor do YOU intend that your judgement be
merely individual and personal. You would not be debating with me, if you
did. Indeed, if all opinions were merely individual and personal, as
opposed to reflecting with varying degrees of accuracy, the real world,
they would not be worth considering at all, since another's beliefs could
have no real bearing on one's own.
> You have clearly skipped
> ahead to making your own decision without making yourself aware of all
> other opinions.
If one holds the sort of views I do about art, one can hardly NOT be aware
of contrary views.
> Bruce wrote:
> >Rubens...<snip>...contemporaries had no difficulty in recognizing that
> >he was a member of an elite of one, and they'd have been as happy to
> >impose that fact on him as the other way round. Even to someone who
> >cared not a jot for art, it would have been apparent that this guy
> >was special.
>
> Bruce, you surely must be aware that this is completely your
> opinion, supported by many, but dismissed by many others! I think
> that Rubens was a great businessman, capable of signing so many
> contracts that he earned much money and paid assistants to do complete
> paintings in his name without so much as lifting a finger! He was a
> fraud and no genius!
Now it is my turn to ask you how many Rubens paintings you have seen! At
the very worst, Rubens was a fraud AND a genius. Paintings from his
studio that are confidently attributed to him are a marvel to behold.
Even if it turned out (and, be honest, this would be a miracle) that
Rubens had not produced any of those paintings widely regarded as his
masterpieces, those paintings would still be masterpieces. The label
'Rubens' would then just be a convenient tag to indicate approximately
their source.
Now, you might disagree with what I've said above, but let me say this: I
THINK that anyone who does not recognize that Rubens is a most
extraordinary painter must know either nothing of painting or nothing of
Rubens.
> >This is rather different from the situation with the abstract
> >expressionists, where there is no _apparent_ reason why the painters of
> >the New York school are regarded a special band of geniuses.
>
> Just like Rubens, the New York School painters were no geniuses,
> however, they did paint their own works with their own hands.
Correction: unlike Rubens, the New York School painters were no geniuses.
Another point. Not using assistants is not a virtue in art, especially
when the art you produce is so easy to make that an assistant would be a
waste of money.
> Most
> were well educated, many having Master's degrees in philosophy,
> science and other disciplines. So while it is true their paintings
> are abstract and could be painted, technically, by nearly anyone,
> North America does pride itself on rewardeing innovation.
Suddenly, you turn around and admit that the paintings are technically
unexceptional! Damn! Why were you disagreeing earlier?
As for the artists' being well-educated: would you consider a technically
inept book or a drab, inane concerto worthy of praise because the author
had a degree in law?
The very fact that you have to inform us that of these people's
educational background is firm evidence that their work does not stand up
for itself.
As for innovation:
(1) The New York School were obvious slaves of art fashion. Each of
artists career prior to the "invention" of Abstract Expressionism reveals
a clear desperation to be "modern" and "relevant".
(2) Their great "innovation" consisted of nothing more than painting in a
style that was very obviously derivative of Roberto Matta Echuarren and
Andre Masson and gradually losing the surrealist subject matter.
(3) Abstract Expressionism existed forty years before the New York School,
in the form of Kandinsky's painting. Some writers even called it that at
the time. (For instance, Herbert Read used the term in 1931.)
(4) All the core members of the New York School were very poor artists
before they became Abstract Expressionists. Rothko's social realist works
were abysmal, and Pollock was an unbelievably poor student of Thomas Hart
Benton, and then he became a surrealist who, on the evidence of his works,
possessed no subconscious whatsoever. Gorky, meanwhile, was an
unimaginative hack.
> Perhaps you should try readings Serge Guilbaut's "How New York Stole
> the Idea of Modern Art." It gives full details on the potential
> socio-political background to the development of Abstract
> Expressionism. The thesis is the following: after WWII, needing a
> cultural weapon for the Cold War which was already being waged in
> politics and economics, the United States turned to Abstract
> Expressionism.
Gee, whiz! Do you think I am unaware of this? Hell, you are making some
damned patronizing assumptions about me! Why, in heaven's name, should
the fact that it was politically expedient to promote Abstract
Expressionism turn Abstract Expressionist paintings into good art? (And
surely, in any case, you know that this fact has been used in arguments
AGAINST Abstract Expressionism's aesthetic credibility?)
Get RELEVANT, man!
> >_Some_ things are fact, even when they come over the Internet.
> In history, the facts are names (artists, critics, patrons), dates
> and titles of works. The rest of history is interpretation.
Names and dates can be a matter of interpretation, too. But more
importantly, some interpretations are more reasonable than others.
> In terms of truth over the Internet: I would never read something
> and accept it at face value. If you do, there's something wrong with
> your method of scholarship!
Come on, be serious! Do you really think I am someone in the habit of
accepting things at face value? How did I come to my not-too-common
views, then? I repeat, _Some_ things are fact, even when they come over
the Internet. That does not mean that they are self-evidently fact, of
that what seems to be fact cannot be false. What it means is that FACTS
EXIST. The world is not an unreal swirl of subjectivity (my view,
OBVIOUSLY). One implication of this is that it is worth trying to verify
claims, rather than dismissing everything as opinion.
>
> In summary, I think that both Bruce Attah and Mani Deli repeatedly
> display their own opinion, using no respectable sources of historical
> or critical scholarship as support.
In summary, I think that Joshua Heuman is seriously confused. He does not
seem able to tell the difference between art and art history. Nor does it
seem is he able to distinguish between aesthetically relevant and
irrelevant considerations (such as an artist's religion or university
degrees) in the appreciation of art. I also get the impression that he is
a follower-of-herds: he holds opinions "on the basis that many art
critics" hold those opinions too. His idea of using respectable critical
scholarship for support is to report contentious aesthetic theories as if
no-one has ever raised objections to them, and to quote historical
documents in favour of an argument, when in fact those documents are
irrelevant to the issue in question.
> Surely the sign of amateur
> critics who mouth-off at any given opportunity. I at least admit when
> I present my own opinion...they just spew, wanting everyone to believe
> their so-called 'facts.'
>
> Joshua Heuman
> jhe...@yorku.ca
My own conclusion (opinion, again) is that, on the basis of the posts he
has made so far, Joshua Heuman may well be a professional art critic, but
he is not a very good one.
Bruce Attah.
Kajojacobs
In article <544cj3$8...@venezuela.earthlink.net>, Katy Odell
<bog...@earthlink.net> writes:
>I don't understand a lot of modern art. I wish I did. But I can't help
>but wonder what's going to be in the text books five centuries from now.
>For all I know, it will be automobile design that defines our asthetic
>culture. Maybe it will be Hummel Figurines or velvet paintings of Elvis
>that seem to sum us up to the scholars of the future. "Those greedy,
>materialistic barbarians stopped patronizing real art in favor of
>horrible, mass-produced plastic lawn sculptures of pink flamingos..."
>
>Actually, that would be pretty cool.
It's hard to imagine a future that doesn't include the hands on approach
to mixing paint, plotting strategy on canvas or paper and *having at it*.
I've painted in a traditional realistic manner and, more recently, in an
abstract manner. Both styles brought a satisfaction that I would
certainly want others to experience. That of carefully composing and
executing an expression easily read - and that of exploring every
possibility of combining color forms and textural marks to reach an
expression that is open to many interpretations.
No doubt, there are a lot of scam artists out there - buyer beware, there
always have been in every profession - but history will sort out the
artists of note. I won't be one of them - but that isn't why I paint.
The work that I do is - first and foremost - for my own satisfaction. I
simply love the process. And of course, I am most appreciative when the
paintings sell - that's second. Third - it's a wonderful world that gives
us choices so we don't all have to think, do and be alike.
Enjoying the process - Karen
~Karen Jacobs~
Kajojacobs
> In summary, I think that both Bruce Attah and Mani Deli repeatedly
>display their own opinion, using no respectable sources of historical
>or critical scholarship as support. Surely the sign of amateur
>critics who mouth-off at any given opportunity. I at least admit when
>I present my own opinion...they just spew, wanting everyone to believe
>their so-called 'facts.'
>
>Joshua Heuman
>jhe...@yorku.ca
>
>
Exactly! Very well done, Joshua!
Karen
~Karen Jacobs~
Gordon Fitch
jhe...@yorku.ca (Joshua Heuman) writes:
| > In summary, I think that both Bruce Attah and Mani Deli repeatedly
| >display their own opinion, using no respectable sources of historical
| >or critical scholarship as support. Surely the sign of amateur
| >critics who mouth-off at any given opportunity. I at least admit when
| >I present my own opinion...they just spew, wanting everyone to believe
| >their so-called 'facts.'
kajoj...@aol.com (Kajojacobs):
| Exactly! Very well done, Joshua!
All I see is an argument to authority. Since part of
their (somewhat different) critiques is precisely of such
authority, citing the authorities is not an answer to
their critiques.
Gordon Fitch
(attributions lost)
| > >...a reattributed Rothko would become completely worthless...
| > ...Artists like Rothko record(ed) every work...
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah):
| ...because their work is very easy to forge.
|
| Let's put it another way: would a painting that very closely imitated
| Rothko (so only an expert could tell it was not by him) be worth more than
| a few hundred dollars -- if it could be sold at all?
|
| How much would a good contemporary imitation of Rembrandt go for? $800,000?
| ...
I've thought about this. There are artists who do overt
imitations and copies of old masters, and as far as I know
their work goes for several thousand dollars, but nothing
like $800,000. At least not the last time I looked. I
don't know what an imitation Rothko would go for. However,
there's a sort of labor theory of value operating here;
Rothko's works are not very detailed. How about something
more difficult?
Mdeli
jhe...@yorku.ca (Joshua Heuman) wrote:
>>"W.S. Parker" <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
>>>Why not try to genuinely listen, and consider; generate some
>>>understanding rather than proclaim, and pontificate?
>>Mdeli <hu...@interlog.com> replied:
>>Well why not defend what you like instead of
>>complaining about my claims.
>>You might start with Matisse's Dance and move on to
>>Guernica and end up in Duchamp's urinal.
>Mani,
>How old are you? How capable of analytic thought are you? Do you
>actually beleve that nihilism and anarchy will get you anywhere?
This guy sound like the priest who just had his
religion questioned. His only defence is to tell you
that you don't know anything.
>Just because you experience nothing when looking at Abstract
>Expressionism does not disqualify it as valuable for other people!
I probably experience more than you do when I see this
sort of crap otherwise I wouldn't waste time writing
about it.
>Most Art Historians find the style intriguing because of the formal
>issues, the political situation, the artist's statements, etc.
They found the same in the supposedly defunkt 19th
century Academic works. Old critics are anonomous tomb
stones. The jerks who write Artspeak today are close to
the living dead.
>Oh, but I forgot...you clearly haven't read anything on the subject!
I won't give you a bibliography except to say that you
are incompetent to judge this. Or to put it bluntly
you're full of crap.
>You have displayed your ignorance one time too many, for any opinion
>is acceptable from an informed person...but from you, an opinion isn't
>worth the time it takes to read! I congratulate you on your skills
>with the golden shovel, but your brain has miles to go before it
>catches up to your mouth!
Those who have little to say write this sort of stuff.
Bruce Attah
In article <54en37$2...@panix.com>, gor...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
> jhe...@yorku.ca (Joshua Heuman) writes:
> | > In summary, I think that both Bruce Attah and Mani Deli repeatedly
> | >display their own opinion, using no respectable sources of historical
> | >or critical scholarship as support. Surely the sign of amateur
> | >critics who mouth-off at any given opportunity. I at least admit when
> | >I present my own opinion...they just spew, wanting everyone to believe
> | >their so-called 'facts.'
>
> kajoj...@aol.com (Kajojacobs):
> | Exactly! Very well done, Joshua!
>
> All I see is an argument to authority. Since part of
> their (somewhat different) critiques is precisely of such
> authority, citing the authorities is not an answer to
> their critiques.
>
> --
> [[[ Gordon Fitch ||| gor...@panix.com ||| http://www.etaoin.com ]]]
Thank you for that succinct and more than adequate defence. There is
nothing I need to add.
Bruce Attah
In article <54enh9$2...@panix.com>, gor...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:
> (attributions lost)
> | > >...a reattributed Rothko would become completely worthless...
>
> | > ...Artists like Rothko record(ed) every work...
>
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah):
> | ...because their work is very easy to forge.
> |
> | Let's put it another way: would a painting that very closely imitated
> | Rothko (so only an expert could tell it was not by him) be worth more than
> | a few hundred dollars -- if it could be sold at all?
> |
> | How much would a good contemporary imitation of Rembrandt go for? $800,000?
> | ...
>
> I've thought about this. There are artists who do overt
> imitations and copies of old masters, and as far as I know
> their work goes for several thousand dollars, but nothing
> like $800,000. At least not the last time I looked. I
> don't know what an imitation Rothko would go for. However,
> there's a sort of labor theory of value operating here;
> Rothko's works are not very detailed. How about something
> more difficult?
> --
> [[[ Gordon Fitch ||| gor...@panix.com ||| http://www.etaoin.com ]]]
You are quite right. A _new_ copy of an old master would fetch a four (or
even five) figure sum, but not $800,000. But I was not talking about
such. I spoke specifically of a "contemporary imitation" of Rembrandt,
i.e., an imitation by a contemporary of Rembrandt, not one of your and my
contemporaries. I did not pluck the price out of thin air, either, but
was alluding to a reattributed portrait whose estimated value fell from
about $14,000,000 to $800,000 on the basis that it was by an unknown
follower of Rembrandt, rather than by the famous artist himself, as
previously thought.
Part of the high price that Rembrandt's paintings fetch reflects the long
history of admiration for his work and a widespread desire among
collectors for old things. Therefore, I think it makes most sense to
compare the price of an unknown contemporary rather than an unknown
modern. That said, I'd still bet that a good modern clone of Rembrandt
would fetch substantially more than a Rothko clone (reflecting in part, no
doubt, a labour theory of value, as you note). Maybe someone should
contact some professional copyists to see if that can be confirmed. (Not
me, I'm too lazy.)
Bruce Attah.
W.S. Parker
> | >display their own opinion, using no respectable sources of historical
> | >or critical scholarship as support. Surely the sign of amateur
> | >critics who mouth-off at any given opportunity. I at least admit when
> | >I present my own opinion...they just spew, wanting everyone to believe
> | >their so-called 'facts.'
>
> | Exactly! Very well done, Joshua!
>
> All I see is an argument to authority. Since part of
> their (somewhat different) critiques is precisely of such
> authority, citing the authorities is not an answer to
> their critiques.
>
An authority is someone who knows more than you do about a particular
subject, from a particular point of view, from a particular discipline
of thinking. They have studied something longer and more intensively
than the rest of us. They are not necessarily living life more fully
than we.
Even though no one would dare say that the trained musician has more
appreciation of a piece by Mozart than the total amateur music lover. No
one would dare say that one human being in this case enjoys some piece
of art more than the other.
However: I think it is wise to say that learning all you can about
something enhances your experience of whatever it is. Of course you have
to be careful and not fall into traps like confusing the different kinds
of knowing, the different approaches to something, achieving the proper
balance, keeping perspective from whereever you find yourself.
.
Ergo, if you want to enhance your enjoyment of life you have to learn,
you have to study, and it if you have to study why not keep company with
those who have been doing it longer than you have?
Any trouble with that? Oh yes!? Authority baaad!
Regiment's Hobby Shop
>> | How much would a good contemporary imitation of Rembrandt go for? $800,000?
>>
>> I've thought about this. There are artists who do overt
>> imitations and copies of old masters, and as far as I know
>> their work goes for several thousand dollars, but nothing
>> like $800,000. At least not the last time I looked. I
>> don't know what an imitation Rothko would go for. However,
>> there's a sort of labor theory of value operating here;
>> Rothko's works are not very detailed. How about something
>> more difficult?
>
>You are quite right. A _new_ copy of an old master would fetch a four (or
>even five) figure sum, but not $800,000. But I was not talking about
>such. I spoke specifically of a "contemporary imitation" of Rembrandt,
>i.e., an imitation by a contemporary of Rembrandt, not one of your and my
>contemporaries. I did not pluck the price out of thin air, either, but
>was alluding to a reattributed portrait whose estimated value fell from
>about $14,000,000 to $800,000 on the basis that it was by an unknown
>follower of Rembrandt, rather than by the famous artist himself, as
>previously thought.
>
>Part of the high price that Rembrandt's paintings fetch reflects the long
>history of admiration for his work and a widespread desire among
>collectors for old things. Therefore, I think it makes most sense to
>compare the price of an unknown contemporary rather than an unknown
>modern. That said, I'd still bet that a good modern clone of Rembrandt
>would fetch substantially more than a Rothko clone (reflecting in part, no
>doubt, a labour theory of value, as you note). Maybe someone should
>contact some professional copyists to see if that can be confirmed. (Not
>me, I'm too lazy.)
>
>
>
>Bruce Attah.
This past summer, while I was gallery hopping during vacation, I wandered
into a gallery that specialized in hand done (not photographic) copies of
paintings. I understand that now you can go into most large cities and
find a gallery that sells these things. The paintings sold from $3,000
to about $8,000. The copies weren't the most famous museum pieces, but
second tier paintings of famous artists, reconizable to any casual art
buff, but maybe not to the general public (I guess a copy of the Mona
Lisa hanging on your dining room wall would be just *too* obvious a
fake...). There was no Abstract Ex., Pop, Minimalism, Cubism, ect. The
salesman said that these didn't sell. There were some modern living
artists represented but they were all representational. The whole
concept of copies raises interesting questions of the value of the art
vs. the value of the canvas (by this I mean, the market value of the
time, skill etc quite apart from the value of the image). Do the type of
people that would pay $8,000 for a copy think that a more complicated
image takes more skill and gives them more value for the money, or do
they simply reject the non-repesentational?
AT
Darren Reynolds
In article <54ilg8$5...@ns3.n-link.com>,
Regiment's Hobby Shop <game...@n-link.com> wrote:
. Do the type of
>people that would pay $8,000 for a copy think that a more complicated
>image takes more skill and gives them more value for the money, or do
>they simply reject the non-repesentational?
>
Both, because the two are linked. Like a majority of folk in this
newsgroup, your average punter rates the illusionistic, Renaissance concept
of art-making as being proper art. 'Cos it's clever. So good it looks like
a photograph!
But it isn't just the non-representational they reject. It's quite simple -
the nearer the artist gets to photographic clarity the better. But not the
photo-realist stuff 'cos their images of enlarged faces and shop fronts
aren't 'nice' and romantic'. Semi-naked women in a harem on the other
hand...
Darren
JKearman
>Do the type of
>people that would pay $8,000 for a copy think that a more complicated
>image takes more skill and gives them more value for the money, or do
>they simply reject the non-representational?
I think the latter. I think most people find representational art more
"comfortable." For them, perhaps, art is more for decoration than for
appreciation. And as you pointed out, the works represented are not common
enough to be recognized by the general public, so you can make it appear
that your "collection" contains "authentic" masterpieces.
The audience for non-representational art probably considers itself more
sophisticated, and more often insists on originals, not copies.
Jim Kearman
Joshua Heuman
Bruce:
I let the matter rest here. You and I have taken differing stances:
you of the art critic, I of the art historian. (I find everything to
be of interest in a purely academic sense, whether I think it 'good'
or 'bad' in a personal sense.)
I concede that your efforts at art criticism are valuable, but only
when allied closely, if not completely, with art history.
Truly,
Joshua Heuman
jhe...@yorku.ca
kashur peter james
> Gordon Fitch wrote:
> >
> > jhe...@yorku.ca (Joshua Heuman) writes:
> > | > In summary, I think that both Bruce Attah and Mani Deli repeatedly
> > | >display their own opinion, using no respectable sources of historical
> > | >or critical scholarship as support. Surely the sign of amateur
> > | >critics who mouth-off at any given opportunity. I at least admit when
> > | >I present my own opinion...they just spew, wanting everyone to believe
> > | >their so-called 'facts.'
> >
> > kajoj...@aol.com (Kajojacobs):
> > | Exactly! Very well done, Joshua!
> >
> > All I see is an argument to authority. Since part of
> > their (somewhat different) critiques is precisely of such
> > authority, citing the authorities is not an answer to
> > their critiques.
> >
> > --
> > [[[ Gordon Fitch ||| gor...@panix.com ||| http://www.etaoin.com ]]
>
>
You girls claim a whole hell'uv a lot of authority relative to the quality
of both what you write, and what you defend. Spokespersons for all art,
artists, and topics of worthy art opinion, is quite a presumption
considering that none of you are household names. Personally, none of it
has any bearing on art today or art tomorrow but I must say that I find
the aggravation that Bruce and Mani cause the rest of you twits to be
terrifically entertaining after a long day painting.
pjk
Bruce Attah
I appreciate this effort to find a satisfactory resolution to our
difference of viewpoint, and I would like to add that, as far as I am
concerned, art history is very much a subject worthy of academic
interest. The work that art historians do is often of sterling quality
and naturally interesting to artists.
However, I will repeat, to make clear, my position that art history is not
essential to art practice, though it may be useful and interesting. I
believe that good art practice is rooted, not in the history of art, but
in the history of life, and that therefore, art history is no more crucial
to the artist than are, say, botany, politics and psychology.
As I see it, artists are necessarily art critics, but only contingently
art historians; and to compel artists to be art historians when that is
not where their interests lie is to steal away from them part of their
freedom as artists. This is what is happening now, when the training of
artists involves their indoctrination into an ideology of historicism, so
that each artist, at every turn, asks him or herself "What is the current
direction of history? How can I place myself in the front carriage of the
historical train?" The outcome is that artists censor themselves in
inappropriate ways, avoiding things which they fear will make them seem
"obsolete" or "backward". As, progressively, more and more things are
declared "out of date", artists' freedoms become fewer and fewer, and art
gets worse and worse.
Bruce Attah.
W.S. Parker
kashur peter james wrote:
>the rest of you twits to be
> terrifically entertaining after a long day painting.
>
W.S. Parker
G*rd*n
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah):
| ... As, progressively, more and more things are
| declared "out of date", artists' freedoms become fewer and fewer, and art
| gets worse and worse.
I thought in postmodernity we were supposed to be free of
all that. I've got some ab-ex in my virtual art gallery
(see below -- advt.) and it's proven quite well-behaved,
as opposed to its savage ancestors.
What do you think of the idea of ab-ex as a sort of pop
art?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{ www.etaoin.com }"{
Richfield
I posted this six months ago--why is it still here??????