Cezanne Crit #3
Flying_Naked_People
All figures are out of proportion. This is inconsistency. Some women have ass
cracks while one does not. This is inconsistency. Some women have round
shoulders while some do not. This is inconsistency. Some women have spines,
while other do not. This is inconsistency. There are lost and found lines in
the background. Why are they not in the foreground? This is inconsistency. One
poor women doesn’t even get to have feet, while others do. This is
inconsistency. Is that purple thing in the lower center Cookie Monster? This
is just plain bad.
http-www.artchive.com-artchive-C-cezanne-garden.jpg
Nothing in this painting remotely resembles a garden.
Marc Sabatella
>
> All figures are out of proportion. This is inconsistency.
If they are *all* out of proportion, that is consistent.
> Some women have ass
> cracks while one does not. This is inconsistency. Some women have
round
> shoulders while some do not. This is inconsistency. Some women have
spines,
> while other do not. This is inconsistency.
This is *variety*. Virtually all paintings have this; it is normally
considered a Good Thing.
Look, I truly don't undersatand how someone can be arrogant enough to
assume that everyone should share their opinions on matters of
aesthetics, but I rerally wish you would shut up about it.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> > http-www.artchive.com-artchive-C-cezanne-bathers3.jpg
> >
> > All figures are out of proportion. This is inconsistency.
>
> If they are *all* out of proportion, that is consistent.
The rate at which they are out of proportion is non-rythmic making it
Inconsistent.
> > Some women have ass
> > cracks while one does not. This is inconsistency. Some women have
> round
> > shoulders while some do not. This is inconsistency. Some women have
> spines,
> > while other do not. This is inconsistency.
>
> This is *variety*. Virtually all paintings have this; it is normally
> considered a Good Thing.
Yes, when they fall into a rhythm. His <cough> variety <cough> indicates
ignorance, a mental illness, or sheer laziness. It certainly isn't rhythm.
> Look, I truly don't undersatand how someone can be arrogant enough to
> assume that everyone should share their opinions on matters of
> aesthetics, but I rerally wish you would shut up about it.
I'll tell you what. Wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which one
fills up faster.
Flying_Naked_People
> Look, I truly don't undersatand how someone can be arrogant enough to
> assume that everyone should share their opinions on matters of
> aesthetics, but I rerally wish you would shut up about it.
A clown statement. Did you read what you just wrote? LOL
*I* am arrogant to assume I can share *my" opinion? WTF do you think you are?
Do you think you can stop me?
Marc Sabatella
> The rate at which they are out of proportion is non-rythmic making it
> Inconsistent.
In your eyes. To others, it is simply variety. Again, your opinion is
not Truth. It is just opinion. And no amount of insisting can make
anyone else hold the same opinion as you.
> > This is *variety*. Virtually all paintings have this; it is
normally
> > considered a Good Thing.
>
> Yes, when they fall into a rhythm.
A subjective determination.
Marc Sabatella
> > Look, I truly don't undersatand how someone can be arrogant enough
to
> > assume that everyone should share their opinions on matters of
> > aesthetics, but I rerally wish you would shut up about it.
>
> A clown statement. Did you read what you just wrote?
Not well enough to correct the typos, obviously, but I stand behind
what I said.
> *I* am arrogant to assume I can share *my" opinion?
*Sharing* an opinion is fine - that's one of the purposes of this
newsgroup. Insisting your opinion is Truth, and everyone else is wrong
for having a different opinion - that is wrong, and rude beyond
belief.
> Do you think you can stop me?
Unfortunately, no. But I can always ask. Please, stop insulting
everyone else on this newsgroup by insisting that your opinion on
aesthetics is more correct than theirs.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Again, your opinion is
> not Truth. It is just opinion.
Why do you keep calling this "my" stuff?? I didn't make up the Rules of art. I
am not responsible for them! And stop calling them opinions too. Good Lord!
The Fact that converging lines meet at a vanishing point is not a freakin'
opinion! The Fact that there *is* light and color in shadows is not an
opinion! These are the things that I observe are missing in Cezannes art, and
you keep calling them opinions.
Why?
Mani Deli
..The painting "Sleeping Peasants" (1919) is perhaps the Picasso
painting most often held up as a perfect example of his all round
technical superiority. Yet even here in a work which can not be
accused of flatness, ugliness, gross distortion or even poor
drawing, I still maintain that although a careful look reveals
Picasso at his best, it shows nothing beyond a superior art
student standard or at best a very average illustrator.
I believe that this work is called a masterpiece because it is
superior to thousands of ugly schmiery canvases which are little more
than hack drivel. Anything is a slight relief after a dose of that
stuff.
His "Paulo on a Donkey," a painting of his son, is another matter.
Poorly copied from a photograph, this painting not only exposes the
artist's leanings toward utter incompetence but also his
ordinary, bourgeois, middle-class taste, which appears when he
lets his guard down and decides to produce something other than
his usual repetitive intellectual kitsch. This painting is the real
Picasso really expressing himself. Had it been done by a retiree who
just entered art school, it would not merit a comment. It exhibits all
manner of drawing errors and laziness. Even some outspoken
critics get meekly negative about this sort of Picassoid drivel
modestly saying, "Not his best."
Challenging questions:
Is Picasso’s " Sleeping Peasants" really an example of such superior
draftsmanship as critics claim that it should rank as a masterpiece?
Is it unconventional?
In what way is it exceptional?
Is there some hidden essence in "Paulo on a Donkey" that makes this
museum worthy?
Is there any noteworthy composition, drawing, color, expression,
intellect, inventiveness, anything, in P&D?
And I have to ask the usual question even though I doubt an answer
will be forthcoming. If you saw this work at a county fair signed R.
Mutt do you think it would sell?
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
>> The rate at which they are out of proportion is non-rythmic making it
>> Inconsistent.
>
>In your eyes. To others, it is simply variety.
Like in kiddie painting only worse.
> Again, your opinion is
>not Truth.
Truth in this case is what a painting looks like. A look at your work
leads to a very negitive opinion.
> It is just opinion. And no amount of insisting can make
>anyone else hold the same opinion as you.
An obvious lack of technique isn't just an opinion.
Marc Sabatella
> > Again, your opinion is
> > not Truth. It is just opinion.
>
> Why do you keep calling this "my" stuff?? I didn't make up the Rules
of art.
You did not make up the "rules" you keep referring to, but you are the
one who keeps stating that they represent some sort of truth. They do
not. They are suggestions, which is followed will often lead to
paintings that will be liked by people who like paintings that follow
these suggestions. Nothing more.
> The Fact that converging lines meet at a vanishing point is not a
freakin'
> opinion!
Agreed. But whether or not a painting needs to have this happening
correctly in order to be successful - *that* is a matter of opinion.
Marc Sabatella
> Truth in this case is what a painting looks like.
But it looks different to everyone. That is why it is not truth, but
opinion.
Andrew D
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> Truth in this case is what a painting looks like.
>
>But it looks different to everyone. That is why it is not truth, but
>opinion.
It worries me that some people can "see" things so differently. I hope
some of these people don't drive.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Marc Sabatella
> >But it looks different to everyone. That is why it is not truth, but
> >opinion.
>
> It worries me that some people can "see" things so differently. I hope
> some of these people don't drive.
When I used the term "looks" in this context, I didn't mean that
different people perceive a different image. They *interpret* what they
see differently.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> "Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote:
>
> > >But it looks different to everyone. That is why it is not truth, but
> > >opinion.
> >
> > It worries me that some people can "see" things so differently. I hope
> > some of these people don't drive.
>
> When I used the term "looks" in this context, I didn't mean that
> different people perceive a different image. They *interpret* what they
> see differently.
Right. Like when you ask people "what is rain?" You get:
H2O
money! (farmers)
romance
boring board games (kids)
a dry cleaning bill (business wo/men)
flowers!
etc.
BUT!! Only one of these objects is "true unto itself," meaning that it is an
absolute truth, meaning that it can not be reduced to anything less than
itself.
And that is H20.
If you were to strip your (emotional and opinionated) associations from
Cezanne's art, I think you would see the it in its truest (objective,
non-opinionated) form.
Erik A. Mattila
Marc Sabatella wrote:
> "Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote:
>
>
>>>But it looks different to everyone. That is why it is not truth, but
>>>opinion.
>>
>>It worries me that some people can "see" things so differently. I hope
>>some of these people don't drive.
>
>
> When I used the term "looks" in this context, I didn't mean that
> different people perceive a different image. They *interpret* what they
> see differently.
Personally, I'd take it further than than, Marc. Actually, I took a
peek at your website and it, plus this discussion, made me think of Les
McCann, or actually Eugene McDaniels:
"The president, he got his war.
Folks don't know just what it's for.
Nobody gives us a rhyme or reason,
Have one doubt they call it treason.
We're chicken feathers all, without one nut.
Goddammit: Try to make it real, compared to what?"
The Impressionists, as I understand it, were actually engaged in a
project to paint +more+ realistically than their predecessors, under the
influence of the philosophy of French Naturalism. That fleeting
"impression" of the visual field is closer to the human experience of
seeing than a sharply rendered descriptive drawing or painting - such as
the Arnofini pntg or a Vermeer, Ingres, and so on. We just don't see
the world that way. If anyone doesn't believe this, just go look. The
human eye has a rediculously short depth of field, and everything
outside of that tiny range is out of focus.
That is how we see. On the other hand, we have a very rapid focus
mechanism - so fast that most of us don't even notice it. It just takes
a little concentration to be aware of it, however. As you scan the
depth of the visual field you can feel your iris focusing.
So I have to ask "Compared to what" whenever I hear the term "realism"
in the context of drawing and painting. If you render a scene, say like
Norman Rockwell, where everything is in perfect sharp focus, you are
actually constructing an ideological account of vision over time. It's
quite unnatural. As is any of the fine camera optical systems we have
at our disposal. The status of the photograph in our culture, which is
akin to the "truth of vision" raises interestng questions about the
truth of vision itself. We learn to see the photo as "realism" when in
fact it is dramatically different than our sense of sight.
So I would say that people do see things differently, and that
difference goes even beyond interpretation. Much of vision is
ideological, as discussed above. Other cultures than European regularly
make duel imagery - which is like our "optical illusion" of the rabbit
that you can see as a duck. It's common in Oceanic art, for example.
But Oceanic people can easily see both images at once. It is very
difficult for us to do this, and instead we see it as either a duck or a
rabbit, not both at once.
Erik
Flying_Naked_People
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
> In article <2q6Ka.797$1I2.1...@news.uswest.net>, "Marc Sabatella"
> <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
> >"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Truth in this case is what a painting looks like.
> >
> >opinion.
>
> It worries me that some people can "see" things so differently. I hope
> some of these people don't drive.
I have two worries: (1) What the hell are we artists bustin' our asses for if
people like this will "like" half of our effort? (2) Could this be an insult
to artists who strive for perfection?
mar...@myrealbox.com
>It exhibits all manner of drawing errors and laziness.
Can you provide a URL for a site showing your own work so that we can
compare it with Picasso's?
Thanks
Marcus
Seagull Manager
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9g5hfvk2hjbkvi4c0...@4ax.com...
> I'll mention two Picasso masterpieces
>
reveals
> Picasso at his best, it shows nothing beyond a superior art
> student standard or at best a very average illustrator.
I agree, but I'll add that the woman's hands look pretty terrible.
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EF92BE...@oco.net...
>
> The Impressionists, as I understand it, were actually engaged in a
> project to paint +more+ realistically than their predecessors, under the
> influence of the philosophy of French Naturalism. That fleeting
> "impression" of the visual field is closer to the human experience of
> seeing than a sharply rendered descriptive drawing or painting - such as
> the Arnofini pntg or a Vermeer, Ingres, and so on. We just don't see
> the world that way. If anyone doesn't believe this, just go look.
The Impressionists (the good ones) and Vermeer are both realistic, or
naturalistic, in their different ways. In effect, they emphasise different
aspects of the experience of vision. Cezanne, on the other hand, is not
realistic, because his paintings invariably fail.
> So I have to ask "Compared to what" whenever I hear the term "realism"
> in the context of drawing and painting. If you render a scene, say like
> Norman Rockwell, where everything is in perfect sharp focus, you are
> actually constructing an ideological account of vision over time. It's
> quite unnatural.
It is no more unnatural than a good Impressionist painting. It just takes a
different approach. As your eye scans the Rockwell painting (or a Vermeer),
different parts of it come into focus, just as they do in real life.
> We learn to see the photo as "realism" when in
> fact it is dramatically different than our sense of sight.
Not that dramatically.
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:FRRJa.403$Hs2.2...@news.uswest.net...
>
> Insisting your opinion is Truth, and everyone else is wrong
> for having a different opinion - that is wrong, and rude beyond
> belief.
Is that true? Are you sure?
> Please, stop insulting
> everyone else on this newsgroup by insisting that your opinion on
> aesthetics is more correct than theirs.
When you pipe up to "correct" FNP's posts, are you not implicitly insisting
that your opinion is the more correct?
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>The Impressionists, as I understand it, were actually engaged in a
>project to paint +more+ realistically than their predecessors, under the
>influence of the philosophy of French Naturalism.
ANd they failed completely
That fleeting
>"impression" of the visual field is closer to the human experience of
>seeing than a sharply rendered descriptive drawing or painting - such as
>the Arnofini pntg or a Vermeer, Ingres, and so on.
You will find impressionist passages in the detail of much classical
painting.
The
>human eye has a rediculously short depth of field, and everything
>outside of that tiny range is out of focus.
It doesn't.
>So I have to ask "Compared to what" whenever I hear the term "realism"
>in the context of drawing and painting.
ie. Mondrian, Pollock
> If you render a scene, say like
>Norman Rockwell, where everything is in perfect sharp focus, you are
>actually constructing an ideological account of vision over time. It's
>quite unnatural. As is any of the fine camera optical systems we have
>at our disposal. The status of the photograph in our culture, which is
>akin to the "truth of vision" raises interestng questions about the
>truth of vision itself. We learn to see the photo as "realism" when in
>fact it is dramatically different than our sense of sight.
POMO nonsense. Why do photos stand up in court?
>So I would say that people do see things differently, and that
>difference goes even beyond interpretation.
That's why we have eye doctors.
> Much of vision is
>ideological, as discussed above.
POMO nonsense.
> Other cultures than European regularly
>make duel imagery - which is like our "optical illusion" of the rabbit
>that you can see as a duck. It's common in Oceanic art, for example.
>But Oceanic people can easily see both images at once. It is very
>difficult for us to do this, and instead we see it as either a duck or a
>rabbit, not both at once.
More POMO nonsense.
I suspect Mattila tries not to obey the laws of thermo dynamics at
home.
Marc Sabatella
> BUT!! Only one of these objects is "true unto itself," meaning that it
is an
> absolute truth, meaning that it can not be reduced to anything less
than
> itself.
>
> And that is H20.
Actually, it isn't just H20 - it is a number of other substances
suspended in H20. And not just any such suspension, but only when this
suspension falls from the sky in liquid form.
And that's the difference between aesthetics and science - with science,
it is possible to define things objectively. With aesthetics, it is
not. You can define individual elements of art scientifically - what is
oil paint, what is canvas, what is perspective - but not what is good or
bad.
> If you were to strip your (emotional and opinionated) associations
from
> Cezanne's art, I think you would see the it in its truest (objective,
> non-opinionated) form.
This is impossible, because there is no objective, non-opinionated form
of art. I can measure that his perspective is not accurate - that much
is objective. I can also measure that his canvases do not wiegh more
than 700 pounds each. I do not see any need to consider either relevant
for determining what is important - whether the work is pleasing to me.
Marc Sabatella
> The Impressionists, as I understand it, were actually engaged in a
> project to paint +more+ realistically than their predecessors, under
the
> influence of the philosophy of French Naturalism. That fleeting
> "impression" of the visual field is closer to the human experience of
> seeing than a sharply rendered descriptive drawing or painting - such
as
> the Arnofini pntg or a Vermeer, Ingres, and so on. We just don't see
> the world that way. If anyone doesn't believe this, just go look.
The
> human eye has a rediculously short depth of field, and everything
> outside of that tiny range is out of focus.
This is true, and is just more evidence that even some of the things we
think of as being objectively measurable in fact are not. Which is more
realistic - a painting that is mostly out of focus except for a center
of interest, thus micing how we see in a single glance, or a painting in
which each area of the paintings is as in focus as our eyes are able to
perceive on examing a scene in more detail? There are arguments to be
made for both, and there is no way to resolve it except admit it is a
subjective determination.
Marc Sabatella
> Why do photos stand up in court?
Because they capture detail. This has nothing to do with whether or not
they reflect how our eyes see.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> When you pipe up to "correct" FNP's posts, are you not implicitly
insisting
> that your opinion is the more correct?
No. My opinion that Cezanne's art is pleasing to me is no more correct
than anyone else's opinion that it is not pleasing to them. TThese are
opinions, and there is nothing to correct. What I am correcting is the
false claim that Cezanne's work objective bad, which is just as false as
the claim that it is objectively good. If I claimed the latter, I'd be
guilt of what I'm accusing others, but I haven't claimed anything like
that. I would agree that Cezanne's influence can be established more or
less objectively, but then, if I say that my assessment is correct and
someone else's is wrong, I am not correcting their opinion, but their
assessment of facts. When someone expressed the opinion that the
influence of Cezanne was not apparent in the work of various other
artists, I disagreed, but I cannot say they are *wrong* for not seeing
this influence.
Marc Sabatella
> > >But it looks different to everyone. That is why it is not truth,
but
> > >opinion.
> >
> > It worries me that some people can "see" things so differently. I
hope
> > some of these people don't drive.
>
> I have two worries: (1) What the hell are we artists bustin' our asses
for if
> people like this will "like" half of our effort? (2) Could this be an
insult
> to artists who strive for perfection?
I don't think there is anything to worry about on the second count.
There is no reason to be insulted if someone does not like your art, and
this is true whether the reason they don't like is because it is not
realistic enough, or because it is too realistic, or any other reason.
Why not simply accept that different people have different tastes?
The first worry might be more more valid in that it is absolutely true
that the extra effort you expend making you work more realistic will
indeed have the effect of making it *less* interesting to some people
(but not all, of course). This could be an issue if you are trying to
maximize your profits in art, or garner more awards, or some other goal
that depends on pleasing people. There may well be a point of not only
diminishing returns, but actually negative returns, for a given artist
with respect to realism, where more realism will translate into fewer
sales or less critical acclaim. On the other hand, that depends on your
intended audience - some audiences will value realism more than others.
This is also true of any other decision to be made in art.
But if you aren't concerned with pleasing the maximum possible
particular audience, but instead pleasing yourself and whatever audience
happens to share your tastes, there is nothing to worry about. Paint
the way you like. The world is big enough that someone is bound to
enjoy it. Realism obviously has a large number of fans, so doing it
will will still garner you success in that world.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
> > I have two worries: (1) What the hell are we artists bustin' our asses
> for if
> > people like this will "like" half of our effort? (2) Could this be an
> insult
> > to artists who strive for perfection?
>
> I don't think there is anything to worry about on the second count.
> There is no reason to be insulted if someone does not like your art, and
> this is true whether the reason they don't like is because it is not
> realistic enough, or because it is too realistic, or any other reason.
> Why not simply accept that different people have different tastes?
I’m not worried that people wouldn’t like it - I’m worried that people
wouldn’t appreciate the artist’s adherence to the discipline. That’s the
insulting part - viewers wouldn’t seem to even acknowledge it. Just "poo-poo"
it as if it were nothing, when in fact, it requires much more work than not
and reflects higher effort and dedication on the artist’s part.
> The first worry might be more more valid in that it is absolutely true
> that the extra effort you expend making you work more realistic will
> indeed have the effect of making it *less* interesting to some people
Ø (but not all, of course).
Ø
I don’t understand this thinking at all.
Ø This could be an issue if you are trying to
> maximize your profits in art, or garner more awards, or some other goal
> that depends on pleasing people. There may well be a point of not only
> diminishing returns, but actually negative returns, for a given artist
> with respect to realism, where more realism will translate into fewer
> sales or less critical acclaim. On the other hand, that depends on your
> intended audience - some audiences will value realism more than others.
> This is also true of any other decision to be made in art.
What are the reasons for this?
Seagull Manager
works of art are nothing more than personal expressions of taste. I in fact
think that your opinion is quite wrong. I think you are arrogant in
insisting it is right.
As to Cezanne's influence, you greatly overrate it.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> I do not agree with your insistence that that statements about the
value of
> works of art are nothing more than personal expressions of taste.
Then it is up to you to prove how it can be objectively measured.\
Marc Sabatella
> I'm not worried that people wouldn't like it - I'm worried that people
> wouldn't appreciate the artist's adherence to the discipline. That's
the
> insulting part - viewers wouldn't seem to even acknowledge it. Just
"poo-poo"
> it as if it were nothing, when in fact, it requires much more work
than not
> and reflects higher effort and dedication on the artist's part.
OK, I can see that, although I think you in turn disrespect people who
concentrate on other aspects of art, in saying that realism takes
"higher effort and dedication". You can acknowledge your hard work
without denigrating others. In any case, I suppose that is just one of
the dangers inherent in art - having your effort not be appreciated.
> > The first worry might be more more valid in that it is absolutely
true
> > that the extra effort you expend making you work more realistic will
> > indeed have the effect of making it *less* interesting to some
people
> Ø (but not all, of course).
> Ø
>
> I don't understand this thinking at all.
It isn't "thinking", it is aesthetics. What makes you find one person
more attractive than another? Do you think you have to have a reason
for this? Why should it be any different for art? We like what we like
for our own reasons, but it is not like we consciously set out to only
like like art that has particular qualities.
> Ø This could be an issue if you are trying to
> > maximize your profits in art, or garner more awards, or some other
goal
> > that depends on pleasing people. There may well be a point of not
only
> > diminishing returns, but actually negative returns, for a given
artist
> > with respect to realism, where more realism will translate into
fewer
> > sales or less critical acclaim. On the other hand, that depends on
your
> > intended audience - some audiences will value realism more than
others.
> > This is also true of any other decision to be made in art.
>
> What are the reasons for this?
Not sure I understand the question. Reasons for what? As I implied
above, there are no reasons to explain what makes people like a
particular piece of art. Some people just like some things, others like
other things. What makes me like Coke better than Pepsi, and someone
else feel oppositely?
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Subject: Re: Cezanne Crit #3
> From: "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com>
> OK, I can see that, although I think you in turn disrespect people who
> concentrate on other aspects of art, in saying that realism takes
> "higher effort and dedication". You can acknowledge your hard work
> without denigrating others.
Listen - I don't believe realism is the epitomy of art. However I don't think
Pollock (Jack the Dripper) spent as much time on his splashies as realist
artists either. Surely you can't deny that?
Ok... "more" effort and dedication (to *time* for Pete's sake).
> In any case, I suppose that is just one of
> the dangers inherent in art - having your effort not be appreciated.
> It isn't "thinking", it is aesthetics. What makes you find one person
> more attractive than another?
Thought
> Do you think you have to have a reason
> for this?
Um... no. Thoughts happen all on their own!
> Why should it be any different for art? We like what we like
> for our own reasons, but it is not like we consciously set out to only
> like like art that has particular qualities.
What?! I certainly do and I'm sure others do too! Everyone has requirements.
> As I implied
> above, there are no reasons to explain what makes people like a
> particular piece of art.
Yes there are. And if you'll remember, you gave some of your reasons for
liking Cezanne's art!
> Some people just like some things, others like
> other things. What makes me like Coke better than Pepsi, and someone
> else feel oppositely?
Taste buds and electrochemical reactions.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Actually, it isn't just H20 - it is a number of other substances
> suspended in H20.
H2O is water. Period. If there are other substances in water, it's polluted.
> And not just any such suspension, but only when this
> suspension falls from the sky in liquid form.
Huh??
> And that's the difference between aesthetics and science - with science,
> it is possible to define things objectively. With aesthetics, it is
> not.
I disagree.
> You can define individual elements of art scientifically - what is
> oil paint, what is canvas, what is perspective - but not what is good or
> bad.
Ok, at the very least then, I'll say I can define whether or not a work of art
satisfies "formal" qualities.
> > If you were to strip your (emotional and opinionated) associations
> from
> > Cezanne's art, I think you would see the it in its truest (objective,
> > non-opinionated) form.
>
> This is impossible, because there is no objective, non-opinionated form
> of art. I can measure that his perspective is not accurate - that much
> is objective. I can also measure that his canvases do not wiegh more
> than 700 pounds each. I do not see any need to consider either relevant
> for determining what is important - whether the work is pleasing to me.
Well, it's obvious that you're using some sort of standard, otherwise you
wouldn't even *know* if it was pleasing or not!
Flying_Naked_People
> Subject: Re: Oh yeah, about influence
> From: Nikolaus Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
> Flying_Naked_People wrote:
> > I can think of 4 ways to get original ideas that don't involve being under
any
> > influence. (Well, better make that 3.)
>
> Spill 'em so I can steal them.
>
X. Being under the influence of drugs or alcohol or whatever.
2. Dreams
3. Meditation
4. Music
There are also some silly games to play to get ideas. One that comes to mind
is the Creative Whack Pack. I don't know the URL, but it's on the web
somewhere. An alternative to the Whack Pack is to close your eyes, open a
dictionary, and point at a word. Open eyes. Read. And apply.
If you think about it, you can find or remember all sorts of ways.
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.ca
>
Seagull Manager
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > I do not agree with your insistence that that statements about the
> value of
> > works of art are nothing more than personal expressions of taste.
>
> Then it is up to you to prove how it can be objectively measured.
INTERsubjectivity.
Seagull Manager
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> OK, I can see that, although I think you in turn disrespect people who
> concentrate on other aspects of art, in saying that realism takes
> "higher effort and dedication".
Artists like Rembrandt, Rubens and Ingres put a great deal of effort into
the "other aspects" of art, such as abstract design, colour and the handling
of paint - so much so that you can get a great deal out of their work
without even looking at the subject, or concerning yourself with the
realistic effects. I would say that as ABSTRACT artists, these guys are much
better than the much-touted abstractionists of today. Those who use
concentration on the "other aspects" of art as an excuse for ugly and clumsy
depiction deserve all the disrespect we can hurl at them.
>You can acknowledge your hard work
> without denigrating others.
One can, but one doesn't have to, and there's nothing wrong with scorning
those who deserve scorn.
> It isn't "thinking", it is aesthetics. What makes you find one person
> more attractive than another? Do you think you have to have a reason
> for this?
We DO have reasons for finding one person more attractive than another. The
study of those reasons is a very lively area of psychology.
> Why should it be any different for art?
It isn't very different. We like the art we like for reasons. Some reasons
may have nothing to do with the art itself (e.g., one likes this painting
because its a gift from mother, or that one because it is a memento of a
holiday), some are aesthetic reasons (e.g., one likes the colour
combinations, the treatment of the subject, the design). In appraising art,
the aesthetic reasons count, and the external ones don't.
> We like what we like
> for our own reasons, but it is not like we consciously set out to only
> like like art that has particular qualities.
We can train ourselves (or be trained by others) to like or dislike certain
things, and we often do. That's an important part of how fashion works, in
art, as in other matters.
>
> > Ø This could be an issue if you are trying to
> > > maximize your profits in art, or garner more awards, or some other
> goal
> > > that depends on pleasing people. There may well be a point of not
> only
> > > diminishing returns, but actually negative returns, for a given
> artist
> > > with respect to realism, where more realism will translate into
> fewer
> > > sales or less critical acclaim. On the other hand, that depends on
> your
> > > intended audience - some audiences will value realism more than
> others.
> > > This is also true of any other decision to be made in art.
> >
> > What are the reasons for this?
>
> Not sure I understand the question. Reasons for what? As I implied
> above, there are no reasons to explain what makes people like a
> particular piece of art. Some people just like some things, others like
> other things.
> What makes me like Coke better than Pepsi, and someone
> else feel oppositely?
If paintings were just colour swatches, then there'd be no cause or basis
for discussion. If a person prefers a purple Rothko over a red one, there's
very little to discuss. That's on a par with someone preferring the
sweetness of Pepsi, and someone else finding Coke more refreshing (actually,
in blind taste tests, almost no-one prefers the taste of Coke to that of
Pepsi). But most paintings are much more complicated than colour swatches -
there are potentially many things to like or dislike about a single
painting. There are also things that may escape some viewer's attention or
comprehension, that would affect their liking of the work if they noticed or
understood them. People's appraisals of paintings can be said to be wrong if
they are based on inattention or ignorance.
Marc Sabatella
> Listen - I don't believe realism is the epitomy of art. However I
don't think
> Pollock (Jack the Dripper) spent as much time on his splashies as
realist
> artists either. Surely you can't deny that?
You are probably right about that. But I wasn't talking specifically
about Pollock. Nor was I talking about the amount of time spent on one
given painting.
> > Do you think you have to have a reason
> > for this?
>
> Um... no. Thoughts happen all on their own!
Precisely. Which is why I don't think there is anything to understand
about why some people might find one work less interesting than another
because it is more realistic. These thoughts happen all on their own as
well.
> > Why should it be any different for art? We like what we like
> > for our own reasons, but it is not like we consciously set out to
only
> > like like art that has particular qualities.
>
> What?! I certainly do and I'm sure others do too! Everyone has
requirements.
My only requirement is that it pleases me. Afterwards, I might try to
understand what about it pleased me, but I don't start out with a set of
assumption about what is going to be pleasing.
> > As I implied
> > above, there are no reasons to explain what makes people like a
> > particular piece of art.
>
> Yes there are. And if you'll remember, you gave some of your reasons
for
> liking Cezanne's art!
Those aren't exactly reasons in the same sense, though. I listed the
things about his art that appeal to me. I cannot say *why* those things
appeal to me. So if I say that I find a given piece of work
uninteresting because it is too realistic, I am identifying what about
the work does not appeal to me, but I am not saying *why* excessive
realism does not appeal to me. Remember, this was in response to your
saying you didn't understand that type of thinking. I am saying, there
is nothing to understand. One say say that they don't like realism.
They don't need to have a reason *why*.
Marc Sabatella
> > Actually, it isn't just H20 - it is a number of other substances
> > suspended in H20.
>
> H2O is water. Period. If there are other substances in water, it's
polluted.
>
> > And not just any such suspension, but only when this
> > suspension falls from the sky in liquid form.
>
> Huh??
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to define "rain",
not "water".
> > And that's the difference between aesthetics and science - with
science,
> > it is possible to define things objectively. With aesthetics, it is
> > not.
>
> I disagree.
Let me rephrase, then. There are indeed some things involved with
aesthetics that can be defined objectively - a few of these are on the
list you posted. However, the final judgement - good or bad - cannot be
determined objectively. At least, not according to the dictionary,
which defines aesthetics in terms of psychological responses to beauty,
not in terms of adherence to any given set of rules. If you choose to
define "good" in aesthetics as "whatever achieves such-and-such a score
on my objective test", you have robbed "good" of its normal meaning in
aesthetics, which has to do with individual perception of beauty. That
is, a work might come out as "good", but still not be perceived as
beautiful by any particular person. And conversely - and very likely,
given the measures you proposed - a work would fail to score well, yet
still be perceived as beautiful by many people. In which case, I am not
the slightest bit interested in this measure of aesthetic "goodness".
Simply in whether it is perceived to be beautiful.
> Well, it's obvious that you're using some sort of standard, otherwise
you
> wouldn't even *know* if it was pleasing or not!
Indeed there is a standard - a subjective one.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> > Then it is up to you to prove how it can be objectively measured.
>
> INTERsubjectivity.
My dictionary does not give a definition for this term, so rather than
assume what you mean by it, I'll ask you to explain.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> Artists like Rembrandt, Rubens and Ingres put a great deal of effort
into
> the "other aspects" of art, such as abstract design, colour and the
handling
> of paint
True enough. But if you have X hours a day to spend on improving your
art, and you spend some of that time on realism, that makes that many
fewer hours to spend on these other aspects. One could have chosen to
spend the entire time on the other aspects. I'm not saying there aren't
folks I find great at all of this, but the mere fact that one chooses
not to spend as much time on realism as another does not mean he spent
less time working on his art.
> > It isn't "thinking", it is aesthetics. What makes you find one
person
> > more attractive than another? Do you think you have to have a
reason
> > for this?
>
> We DO have reasons for finding one person more attractive than
another. The
> study of those reasons is a very lively area of psychology.
There are factors, indeed. These aren't the same as reasons. That is,
some recently publicized study claims we value symmetry. Fine. But
*why* do we value symmetry?
> People's appraisals of paintings can be said to be wrong if
> they are based on inattention or ignorance.
There is a level at which I can agree with this, and it hinges on the
word "appraisal". One cannot be said to be wrong for liking or
disliking a particualr painting, and as I have said many times, I don't
beleive it makes much sense to talk about what is "good" in a painting
in any objective sense. But the term "appraisal" suggests something a
little different, and that has to do with ascertaining its value to
others. And I don't just mean monetary value. I mean, predicting what
the consensus opinion of a given group will be. If you are trying to
ascertain whether a given impressionist painting will be perceived as
good by a group of people who appreciate impressionist art, there is a
right or wrong answer, and you are more likely to hit on the right one
if you understand something about the qualities they value, are able to
judge the objective ones accurately, and are able to predict how they
will judge the subjective ones. One cannot do this from a place of
ignorance, to be sure.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> Those aren't exactly reasons in the same sense, though. I listed the
> things about his art that appeal to me. I cannot say *why* those things
> appeal to me. So if I say that I find a given piece of work
> uninteresting because it is too realistic, I am identifying what about
> the work does not appeal to me, but I am not saying *why* excessive
> realism does not appeal to me. Remember, this was in response to your
> saying you didn't understand that type of thinking. I am saying, there
> is nothing to understand. One say say that they don't like realism.
> They don't need to have a reason *why*.
Perhaps this issue is based on the differences in how far we analyze
things. I am *very* analytical and tend to look (and find) reasons in
almost everything. So the importance of any thing, I guess, depends on
the capabilities of the mind's thought process. Veddy veddy
interesting...
Seagull Manager
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Artists like Rembrandt, Rubens and Ingres put a great deal of effort
> into
> > the "other aspects" of art, such as abstract design, colour and the
> handling
> > of paint
>
> True enough. But if you have X hours a day to spend on improving your
> art, and you spend some of that time on realism, that makes that many
> fewer hours to spend on these other aspects. One could have chosen to
> spend the entire time on the other aspects. I'm not saying there aren't
> folks I find great at all of this, but the mere fact that one chooses
> not to spend as much time on realism as another does not mean he spent
> less time working on his art.
It doesn't mean he does, either. There's an abstractionist in London who
completes each of his large paintings in ten minutes flat. Another guy farms
out his work to local car body workshops, where the employees use their
spraying equipment. There's another guy who's been very successful in
selling paintings that are made with a single brushstroke (the brush being a
draught excluder). Again, they take mere minutes to complete. Howard Hodgkin
dates his childish daubs with multiple years, along the lines of "Venice,
1976-1979". Does anyone seriously believe he dedicates years of effort to
each piece? Only if they're idiots.
Some abstractionists do spend a long time on each work, but often that is
mostly unproductive faffing around. One form of abstractionism genuinely
requires a lot of work, namely, the Op Art style of Bridget Riley. However,
someone with an ordinary computer and a bit of wit can produce convincing Op
Art with only a few minutes' work - something which cannot be said of
Rubens' style.
Rembrandt's textural brushwork is as interesting as anything produced by an
Abstract Expressionist or a Tachiste. The fact that he puts it to
representational use adds focus
> > We DO have reasons for finding one person more attractive than
> another. The
> > study of those reasons is a very lively area of psychology.
>
> There are factors, indeed. These aren't the same as reasons. That is,
> some recently publicized study claims we value symmetry. Fine. But
> *why* do we value symmetry?
Because it signifies reproductive health.
> One cannot be said to be wrong for liking or
> disliking a particualr painting, and as I have said many times
Not "wrong", exactly, but "weird", or, to be more precise, aesthetically
perverse. Society tolerates mild and occasional aesthetic perversity, but
disapproves of egregious or persisent displays of such perversity. (Kids are
less tolerant than the rest of us: "Eurgh, you like cabbage!" may sound
familiar to you.) The reason for limited tolerance of aesthetic perversity
can be a sign of being out of touch with, or at odds with, or even opposed
to the community in which one lives, and too much diversity of taste works
against social cohesion.
Modernism is deliberately, aggressively aesthetically perverse. "Epater le
bourgeoisie" is its rallying cry. It is unhealthy to be so misanthropic.
> I don't
> beleive it makes much sense to talk about what is "good" in a painting
> in any objective sense.
There is definitely an objective sense of "good" in painting. Painting is a
"fine art". All such arts are essentially forms of showing off. Their
evolutionary role is in sexual selection. The way this role is fulfilled is
that the works demonstrate the intelligence and creativity of the maker.
Paintings that demonstrate to viewers that the person who made them must
have been intelligent and creative, then the painting is good (because it is
successful in its central aim) in an objective sense. On the other hand,
paintings that look as if they could have been made by any old idiot, or by
someone who lacks focus or dedication, or if the piece suggest the maker has
socially harmful values, or seriously perverse (see above) tastes, then the
painting is objectively bad. In short, art that shows its maker in the best
light is good, while art that shows its maker in a bad light is bad.
Objectively.
> But the term "appraisal" suggests something a
> little different, and that has to do with ascertaining its value to
> others. And I don't just mean monetary value. I mean, predicting what
> the consensus opinion of a given group will be.
It is more than that. It is about working out what the consensus opinion
*ought* to be. As a result, it often involves attempts at persuasion ("I
know you're not going to like this at first sight, but if you pay attention
to *this* aspect, or take *this* into account, then I think you'll find the
piece is in fact quite excellent"). Simply saying "It's by Monet, and lots
of people love anything by Monet, regardless of the aesthetic qualities of
the particular piece, therefore it is good" does not count as an appraisal
of the work.
Seagull Manager
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > > Then it is up to you to prove how it can be objectively measured.
> >
> > INTERsubjectivity.
>
>
> My dictionary does not give a definition for this term, so rather than
> assume what you mean by it, I'll ask you to explain.
"intersubjective. This term refers to the status of being somehow
accessible to at least two (usually all, in principle) minds or
'subjectivities'. It thus implies that there is some sort of communication
between those minds; which in turn implies that each communicating mind is
aware not only of the existence of the other but also of its intention to
convey information to the other. The idea, for theorists, is that if
subjective processes can be brought into _agreement_, then perhaps that is
as good as the (unattainable?) status of being _objective_ -- completely
independent of subjectivity. The question facing such theorists is whether
intersubjectivity is definable without presupposing an objective environment
in which communication takes place (the 'wiring' from Subject A to Subject
B). At a less fundamental level, however, the need for intersubjective
verification ofscientific hypotheses has been long recognized."
--- Oxford Companion to Philosophy
Erik A. Mattila
Is that something like the Collective Unconscious? I hope not, because
you just claimed (falsly, I might add) that Veristic Surrealism is widly
popular.
>
>
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EFCDD26...@oco.net...
>
> > INTERsubjectivity.
>
> Is that something like the Collective Unconscious?
No, far from it. It is an idea from analytical philosophy. You can learn
more about it by reading a book on objectivity.
> I hope not, because
> you just claimed (falsly, I might add) that Veristic Surrealism is widly
> popular.
On the basis of sales of reproductions and books about the best-known
exponents of that art, it most definitely is.
Erik A. Mattila
Really? Or do you really mean on the basis of your tele viewing habits
and your imagination? I mean, you gotta admit...whose going to believe
that you actually researched those figure and you had them at your
fingertips for this discussion? Be honest with us - we're your friends.
Fess up. You are as transparent as a jelly-fish choking in a hermit-crab.
Dali is passé, Miro rules!
EAM
>
>
Seagull Manager
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bdip0u$c85$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> On the basis of sales of reproductions and books about the best-known
> exponents of that art, it most definitely is.
And on the basis of the respectable performances of Dali avd Magritte at
auction.
Seagull Manager
A quick impression can be gained from the sales rankings of the most popular
dozen or so books on Dali and Miro at Amazon. Dali ranks far higher. So does
Magritte (and Miro is the ONLY automatist who is anything like popular).
Dali certainly is passe as far as certain groups are concerned, but he is
equally certainly popular. Miro turns over more than Dali at auction, but
Magritte earns more then Miro.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> > the mere fact that one chooses
> > not to spend as much time on realism as another does not mean he
spent
> > less time working on his art.
>
> It doesn't mean he does, either.
I agree. I was simply taking exception to the implication in FNP's post
that realistic artists by definition work harder than others. Some do,
some don't.
> Some abstractionists do spend a long time on each work, but often that
is
> mostly unproductive faffing around.
Note also I wasn't thinking of time per work, but time spent developing
one's craft in general. I would agree that on the average, a highly
realistic artist probably spends more time per painting than a less
realistic artist, although of course there will be exceptions.
> > But
> > *why* do we value symmetry?
>
> Because it signifies reproductive health.
Really? How do you know this? Or do you just assume it must be true
because you asusme this preference has a basis in natural selection?
You may well be right, but you might just as easily assume that liking
less realistic paintings also has some reproductive benefits, or that
trait would not survive. And elsewhere, you seem to suggest something
along those lines. In which case, you've answered your own questions
about why folks might feel the way they do. Personally, I don't need to
know reasons, so I'm not going to bother going down that path.
> > One cannot be said to be wrong for liking or
> > disliking a particualr painting, and as I have said many times
>
> Not "wrong", exactly, but "weird", or, to be more precise,
aesthetically
> perverse.
OK. That I can live with. Although I think we have different views on
just how common or uncommon these variations in taste are.
> There is definitely an objective sense of "good" in painting.
if there is, then I couldn't care less about what is good. Might as
just weigh the paintings on a scale and be done with it. All I care
about is what is beautiful.
> Paintings that demonstrate to viewers that the person who made them
must
> have been intelligent and creative, then the painting is good (because
it is
> successful in its central aim) in an objective sense. On the other
hand,
> paintings that look as if they could have been made by any old idiot,
or by
> someone who lacks focus or dedication, or if the piece suggest the
maker has
> socially harmful values, or seriously perverse (see above) tastes,
then the
> painting is objectively bad.
Interesting definition of good and bad. Especially interesting that no
dictionary in the world defines the terms this way. Again, all I can
is, I have no interest in these terms if that is the definition. OK,
that, and the fact that demonstrating to viewers that the person who
made them must have been intelligent and creative is again a subjective
determination, or you and I would be agreeing that Cezanne was a genius.
I don't see how it is possible to claim this is an objective
determination in the face of such obvious evidence to the contrary.
> > But the term "appraisal" suggests something a
> > little different, and that has to do with ascertaining its value to
> > others. And I don't just mean monetary value. I mean, predicting
what
> > the consensus opinion of a given group will be.
>
> It is more than that. It is about working out what the consensus
opinion
> *ought* to be.
I don't see any basis for saying what anyone's opinion *ought* to be.
Only what it is.
> Simply saying "It's by Monet, and lots
> of people love anything by Monet, regardless of the aesthetic
qualities of
> the particular piece, therefore it is good" does not count as an
appraisal
> of the work.
It counts as an appraisal, but not an aesthetic one. An aesthetic
appraisal would ocncentrate on the issues you mentioned, to be sure.
But I'm not saying people *ought* to take those things into
consideration - I just know they do. I might be interested in showing
these qualities to someone who doesn't see them, but I'm not going to
tell them they *ought* to like it because of them. If seeing the
qualities I point out makes them view the painting more positively,
great. If not, that's fine too.
Marc Sabatella
> Perhaps this issue is based on the differences in how far we analyze
> things. I am *very* analytical and tend to look (and find) reasons in
> almost everything. So the importance of any thing, I guess, depends on
> the capabilities of the mind's thought process. Veddy veddy
> interesting...
I wouldn't have thought that I'd run across an artist more analytical
than me - someone with a degree in mathematics and another in computer
science, with a former career as a software engineer, but you win :-)
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
>
> > Perhaps this issue is based on the differences in how far we analyze
> > things. I am *very* analytical and tend to look (and find) reasons in
> > almost everything. So the importance of any thing, I guess, depends on
> > the capabilities of the mind's thought process. Veddy veddy
> > interesting...
>
> I wouldn't have thought that I'd run across an artist more analytical
> than me - someone with a degree in mathematics and another in computer
> science, with a former career as a software engineer, but you win :-)
You are the 3RD engineer I've run across who is not concerned with detail. How
could this be? What is going on?? Lol.
Marc Sabatella
> You are the 3RD engineer I've run across who is not concerned with
detail. How
> could this be? What is going on?? Lol.
Actually, concern for detail is not necessarily something you should
expect to be associated with engineering. Often, our training has more
to do with looking at the big picture, so to speak.
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>Actually, concern for detail is not necessarily something you should
>expect to be associated with engineering. Often, our training has more
>to do with looking at the big picture, so to speak.
>
Actually?
Boy, if this guy engineering is as bad as his paintings I wouldn't
want to stand close to anything he did.
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
>ma...@outsideshore.com
>
>The Outside Shore
>Music, art, & educational materials:
>http://www.outsideshore.com/
>
>
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:09:47 -0600, "Marc Sabatella"
><ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually, concern for detail is not necessarily something you should
>>expect to be associated with engineering. Often, our training has more
>>to do with looking at the big picture, so to speak.
>>
>
>Actually?
>
>Boy, if this guy engineering is as bad as his paintings I wouldn't
>want to stand close to anything he did.
LOL! :-)