contemporary paintings
i...@monaco.mc
just click
http://www.monaco.mc/imd/gallery/
You will not be disappointed.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
tlo...@cci-29palms.com
Thank you for your invitation. I did visit your gallery. Here is mine:
http://members.tripod.com/~TomLoretta
mdeli
To summarize it in one sentence, Webber's work is furniture store
no-skill-realism presented in larger sizes. He is a tenth rate Raphael
Soyer (spelling my be off).
Soyer's drawing is a bit schmiery but contains detail while Webber is
incapable of defining much of anything. I don't know where Webber got
his copy from but it looks like little more than done over
photographs.
In these pictures Webber shows no ability at drawing other than to
fudge any detail with fuzzy schmier. I'm sure his excuse is that he
wanted it that way. However, I doubt that viewers will care.
On the positive side Webber is better than most net artists. He knows
how to cover up his incompetence by fashionably blowing up what
amounts to a 4X6 inch sketch into something around 3X5 feet. He
intergrates his composition by conventionally putting timid
transparent geometric overlays on parts of the painting. I guess this
is to assure us that he is being modern.
Webber conforms to modern academic standards with his lack of craft
(this even shows in the web reproductions) detail, solid form and
complexity. Well, at least his work doesn't look like the usual "no
sight for sore eyes ultra modern put-on." This of course may not bode
well for him. It seems that Webber doesn't realize that if one must
be conventional one must at least have the skill to do it well.
Webber is among one of millions of examples of the I-can-do-that
School of Modern Academic art. Members of this ill informed lot look
at the likes of Cezanne and Matisse etc. and are motivated by the idea
"I like this stuff because hey, I can do that ."
Little does Webber realize that he is actually better than Cezanne, in
color, drawing and composition and all without schmiering around to
excess. However he doesn't realize that Cezanne is mainly admired not
for what is really there but rather for what artzy fartzies have been
led to imagine is there. All the critical gas generated about
Cezanne's genius has fired their imaginations to such a degree that
they rarely look closely enough at Cezanne to see what a conventional
dithering fumble-klotz he really was.
Webber's exhibition of conventional incompetence is just about 90
years too late to really fire any ones imagination. It seems that
Cezanne beat him to it.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Philip Ayers
I find it hilarious that this mani is so ignorant that he can't even level
a credible criticism.
Comparisons to Soyer or Cezanne are laughable.
A painter who loves Balthus too much, (it happens to be a common
affliction), deserves criticism, but I'm not into explain'n shit just now,
so I 'll just say -good luck.
In article <361e6586...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
: > Just looked at Webber's paintings on the web.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
(snip)
> Comparisons to Soyer or Cezanne are laughable.
Personally, I don't see strong connections there in this work either.
> A painter who loves Balthus too much, (it happens to be a common
> affliction), deserves criticism, but I'm not into explain'n shit just now,
> so I 'll just say -good luck.
Since you actually went to the show, I would have appreciated hearing what
you have to say, Philip (even though you spun through rather quickly.)
Yes, a lot of painters share the "affliction." I do think Balthus is one
of the great living painters. However, criticism directed at the work
seems more valid than criticism of what someone "loves". That begins to
sound more to the direction of personal taste than what I usually hear
from artists.
At any rate, when you feel like "splainin' shit", pop back in and do so,
and thanks for the wish for good luck!
Mark
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
Mark-
Your paintings were poorly lite. &I was in a hurry, end of the day with my
son and the 60th gallery I walked into. I'm not trying to be mean here but
if they look an awful lot like things I've seen before by students back in
the 80s, I can't help it. The raw influence of Balthus is a little
tiresome these days. I like Balthus' paintings too, but I never tried to
paint like him, I ran from the "look" although I was influenced,
especially the big street scene at the Modern.
I want to make -my- paintings, so I was never tempted by his
look...surface or subject, nor Brueghel, even though I find both are
fantastic at composition. I say this because you are exhibiting your work
in a grown-up artist's gallery. I assume you aren't formally a student.We
are all students in some ways except Mani who already knows it all. I
wouldn't say these things if you were an undergraduate, but you haven't
pushed this stuff far enough to survive, to make it your own. I saw
nothing as good as Balthus there and nothing to add to THIS approach.
Balthus seems to push forward except the late stuff which isn't very good,
and at least his bad work is still his work.
So... the "card game" series by Balthus is too pervasive in the image for
me too acceptance...and I'd say the same about some of W.Bailey's early
work without taking a breath. Sorry I can't be more positive, but I'll
try to keep an open mind.
I got intouch with Gabriel and have had fun exchanging e-mail. Thanks
mark webber
I really have to say that I can't disagree with what you've
pointed out. I feel I have a long way to go, and shaking off Balthus'
influence is a big part of that.
No need to apologise for tough criticism when it is valid, either.
>
> I got intouch with Gabriel and have had fun exchanging e-mail. Thanks
>
I'm glad to have been a little help.
Thanks for your input,
Mark
Marilyn
could have been emailed.
M.
Philip Ayers
: > This opinionated response to your artwork
: > could have been emailed.
: >
: > M.
Marilyn,
My opinion wasn't asked for in e-mail. It was asked for in this Newsgroup.
Marilyn, opinions are all any of us have.....except Mani of course, he
speaks the words of god.
Opinions are painful sometimes, especially if they ring true. But never
has anyone level a negative opinion about my work that I couldn't better
myself. We should be our own worst critics
-or- you shouldn't go out of your house!
Philip Ayers
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
Actually it wasn't like I said anything half as critical as I've recieved
in my day. You won't make it if you're too thin skinned & you shouldn't
even try., because people have opinions and some are pretty sharp. Besides
you have to keep a persective on things. If you don't have some balance in
your life, it's deadly when your ego loses it's grip.
: > In article <3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn wrote:
: >
: > : > This opinionated response to your artwork
: > : > could have been emailed.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
On 12 Oct 1998, Marilyn wrote:
> This opinionated response to your artwork
> could have been emailed.
>
> M.
>
>
Sorry, Marilyn, you're probably right. But perhaps some of it will
develop into an interesting thread. Lauri's post, which I just replied
to, raises some interesting questions.
On the other hand, if one of the replies wasn't so deranged I'd be
flattered. Consider the source of a remark that I am better than
Cezanne. Let's see it as some of the humor that you rightly want more
of in here.
regards,
Mark
mark webber
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Philip Ayers wrote in reply to Marilyn:
> In article <p.ayers-1210...@ip141.princeton3.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
>
> Actually it wasn't like I said anything half as critical as I've recieved
> in my day. You won't make it if you're too thin skinned & you shouldn't
> even try., because people have opinions and some are pretty sharp. Besides
> you have to keep a persective on things. If you don't have some balance in
> your life, it's deadly when your ego loses it's grip.
It wasn't all that painful, Philip. I said I thought it was legitimate
criticism.
Mark
DFRussell
|> This opinionated response to your artwork
|> could have been emailed.
So why didn't you? :)
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > It wasn't all that painful, Philip. I said I thought it was legitimate
: > criticism.
: >
: > Mark
I didn't think so either but really I don't like telling someone who wants
my approval (not that you do) that they'd better go back to the drawing
board, even worst than this rather impersonal forum, is being honest face
to face. I could be tenured with an office right now in a pretty good
program but I dreaded the job back when. Not so much now 'cause frankly
the older you are you come to see it for what it is..only my opinion.
"..an artist's talent the size of an atom, with an ego like an atomic bomb."
quote from G .Laderman
Philip Ayers
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
: > > : > It wasn't all that painful, Philip. I said I thought it was legitimate
: > > : > criticism.
: > > : >
: > > : > Mark
: > > I didn't think so either but really I don't like telling someone who wants
: > > my approval (not that you do) that they'd better go back to the drawing
: > > board, even worst than this rather impersonal forum, is being honest face
: > > to face.
: >
: > Are you sure this is what you mean, Philip? The man who can't take
face-to-face
: > responsibility for his statements and actions is lacking in moral
courage. I'll
: > readily agree that it isn't an easy thing, and that at times one might
feel it
: > best NOT to be honest face to face, but to use the comforting shield of this
: > "rather impersonal forum". But to live like that is to abdicate your
own right
: > to make judgments - it is to suggest that you mightn't stand by them
when the
: > crunch came.
: >
: > This is why I asked whether you meant what you wrote above.
I was thinking of it from Weber's or anyone -taking- opinions here, point
of view. This is a rather impersonal venue for criticism, don't cha think?
If I say anything it has to be taken less seriously here than if we were
physically in the same space breathing the same air, so to speak. Of
course I did see Weber's paintings , however poorly lite and few works,
and not much time there was. Just a glid thru, I was there. However, I did
form an impression which was turned into an "opinion".
And I'm not "afraid" to voice my opinions face to face, but I'd prefer not
having to make someone feel bad, for doing something as harmless as
painting a picture, no mater how bad, but I'm a sucker for a "low ball".
: > > "..an artist's talent the size of an atom, with an ego like an
atomic bomb."
: > > quote from G .Laderman
Can't remember. Problably refering to some overblown jerk like Eric Fishbate.
: > That's witty - in what context was the statement made? ... actually, don't
: > worry, I'll ask Gabriel himself - he might tell me the story behind
it. :-)
: >
: > Regards,
: >
: > Iian Neill.
: > ________________________________________________________________________
: > If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
: > in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
: >
: > http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
: >
: > My personal home-page (with my own art work) can be found here:
: > http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
Iian Neill
> : > criticism.
> : >
> : > Mark
> I didn't think so either but really I don't like telling someone who wants
> my approval (not that you do) that they'd better go back to the drawing
> board, even worst than this rather impersonal forum, is being honest face
> to face.
Are you sure this is what you mean, Philip? The man who can't take face-to-face
responsibility for his statements and actions is lacking in moral courage. I'll
readily agree that it isn't an easy thing, and that at times one might feel it
best NOT to be honest face to face, but to use the comforting shield of this
"rather impersonal forum". But to live like that is to abdicate your own right
to make judgments - it is to suggest that you mightn't stand by them when the
crunch came.
This is why I asked whether you meant what you wrote above.
> "..an artist's talent the size of an atom, with an ego like an atomic bomb."
> quote from G .Laderman
That's witty - in what context was the statement made? ... actually, don't
Marilyn
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
>
>In article [5]<3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn wrote:
>
>: > This opinionated response to your artwork
>: > could have been emailed.
>: >
>: > M.
>
>Marilyn,
>My opinion wasn't asked for in e-mail. It was asked for in this Newsgroup.
>Marilyn, opinions are all any of us have.....except Mani of course, he
>speaks the words of god.
We can have more than opinions, we can have knowledge based on serious
study, we can have wisdom based on experience and observation.
"I don't know what I like, but I know a lot about art."
From the movie: "Afterglow"
M.
Marilyn
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
>
>|> This opinionated response to your artwork
>|> could have been emailed.
>
>So why didn't you? :)
>
Referring to Philip Ayer's critique.
You are not "nobody" anymore?
I just think of you as anti-everything except money & technology.
>Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
You have a job?!
Philip Ayers
Semantics!
Get real. ...maybe we should have double-blind studies.
I gave you wisdom based on observation and experience.
: > >
: > > Newsgroups:
: > > [2]rec.arts.fine
: > > Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
: > > References:
: > > [4]<3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
: > >
: > >In article [5]<3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn wrote:
: > >
: > >: > This opinionated response to your artwork
: > >: > could have been emailed.
: > >: >
: > >: > M.
: > >
: > >Marilyn,
: > >My opinion wasn't asked for in e-mail. It was asked for in this Newsgroup.
: > >Marilyn, opinions are all any of us have.....except Mani of course, he
: > >speaks the words of god.
: >
: > We can have more than opinions, we can have knowledge based on serious
: > study, we can have wisdom based on experience and observation.
: >
: > "I don't know what I like, but I know a lot about art."
: >
: > From the movie: "Afterglow"
: >
: > M.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Philip Ayers
in IMHO.
in short..I don't understand?
In article <3622c...@news.victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn wrote:
: > >
: > > Newsgroups:
: > > [2]rec.arts.fine
: > > Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
: > > References:
: > > [4]<3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
: > >
: > >In article [5]<3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn writes:
: > >|> This opinionated response to your artwork
: > >|> could have been emailed.
: > >
: >
: > >So why didn't you? :)
: > >
: >
: > Referring to Philip Ayer's critique.
: >
: > You are not "nobody" anymore?
: >
: > I just think of you as anti-everything except money & technology.
: >
: > >Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
: >
: > You have a job?!
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
DFRussell
>>In article [5]<3621d...@news.victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn writes:
>>|> This opinionated response to your artwork
>>|> could have been emailed.
>>
>
>>So why didn't you? :)
>>
>
>Referring to Philip Ayer's critique.
>
>You are not "nobody" anymore?
Trying to change the subject? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!! :)
>I just think of you as anti-everything except money & technology.
:-) And that opinion is as well supported and logical as the rest of your opinions.
Bottom line was that Mani's summary was accurate, even if harsh:
Mark's paintings were poor, redundant, and demonstrated little
potential... and his "friends" have been trying all sorts of evasions
to keep from telling him.
If he wants to be a painter, he has to consider criticism. Feeding
him nonsense about "lighting" does him little good.
Philip Ayers
: > Bottom line was that Mani's summary was accurate, even if harsh:
: > Mark's paintings were poor, redundant, and demonstrated little
: > potential... and his "friends" have been trying all sorts of evasions
: > to keep from telling him.
: >
: > If he wants to be a painter, he has to consider criticism. Feeding
: > him nonsense about "lighting" does him little good.
Hey frank-
Read the fucking post or shut the fuck up, before I get mad. I made a
reasonable critique considering the LIGHTING WAS..and I repeat WAS BAD!
What I said was based on what I could see and I think pretty much to the
point. If you got anything more educated to say, say it., otherwise be
factual! That gallery--Prince Street? is poorly lite...who knows maybe
being a CO-OP gallery people are cheap...at any rate it does a dis to the
members.
I didn't crit the eletronic images and I won't seriously ever for obvious
reasons. You and mani both have a problem with getting your facts
straight.
Marilyn
An opinion is an unproven belief or judgement;
a view held as probable.
M.
Marilyn
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>Marilyn mindlessly babbled on about:
>
Even babbling requires a mind.
Your command of the language is rather poor.
>
Your opinion of the digital representations of Mark Webber's work
are uneducated opinions, as you lack the visual language
to describe a work, and the art historical background.
opinion: an unproven belief: a view held as probable (Oxford)
I'm sure that you are more appreciated in the geek world.
M.
DFRussell
>In article <36238338...@news.mindspring.com>, nobody@localhost wrote:
>
>: > Bottom line was that Mani's summary was accurate, even if harsh:
>: > Mark's paintings were poor, redundant, and demonstrated little
>: > potential... and his "friends" have been trying all sorts of evasions
>: > to keep from telling him.
>: >
>: > If he wants to be a painter, he has to consider criticism. Feeding
>: > him nonsense about "lighting" does him little good.
>
>Hey frank-
>Read the fucking post or shut the fuck up, before I get mad.
Hey, Phil... I did.
My point was that it was an excuse. It was, and goodness knows we
wouldn't want you to get any madder than you are.
> I made a
>reasonable critique considering the LIGHTING WAS..and I repeat WAS BAD!
OK. So use the ones that were posted to the web. Problem solved.
Go back and look again. Problem solved.
E-X-C-U-S-E
[snip]
>I didn't crit the eletronic images and I won't seriously ever for obvious
>reasons. You and mani both have a problem with getting your facts
>straight.
Yeah. Sure. Whatever.
Even assuming a loss of resulution and color. The paintings were
not good. No amount of artspeak will change that.
If you actually think they were *good* say so. Tell me how wonderful
they were. Tell me you like them and will send Mark a check ;-)
DFRussell
>>Marilyn mindlessly babbled on about:
>Even babbling requires a mind.
Not so. Brooks babble.
I like to think of you as a pure, shining mountain stream... running
cold and clear through the virgin forests... :-)
>Your command of the language is rather poor.
LOL ;-))))
Say it often enough, loud enough and you'll eventually believe it.
>Your opinion of the digital representations of Mark Webber's work
>are uneducated opinions, as you lack the visual language
>to describe a work, and the art historical background.
ROTFLMAO :-))))))))))))))))))))
Artspeak translation: "Hmmmmm, they're pretty bad... but hey, he
usually sides with my silly blather so I'll try to talk around it,
change the subject, and see if I can take the offensive."
Marilyn, prove how much *you* like them: Buy one and hang it where
you have to look at it everyday.
>opinion: an unproven belief: a view held as probable (Oxford)
Well, he asked for opinions. He didn't ask for good opinions. Again,
when are *you* sending the check to him?
>
>I'm sure that you are more appreciated in the geek world.
Probably substantially more so than are you... and that proves...?
Philip Ayers
Just soos I don't have to pistol wipe your ass, I'm reposting my original
critique.
..even so you're so ignorant? of contemporary art (since1900) you
probably won't even get the point.
: > Mark-
: > Your paintings were poorly lite. &I was in a hurry, end of the day with my
: > son and the 60th gallery I walked into. I'm not trying to be mean here but
: > if they look an awful lot like things I've seen before by students back in
: > the 80s, I can't help it. The raw influence of Balthus is a little
: > tiresome these days. I like Balthus' paintings too, but I never tried to
: > paint like him, I ran from the "look" although I was influenced,
: > especially the big street scene at the Modern.
: > I want to make -my- paintings, so I was never tempted by his
: > look...surface or subject, nor Brueghel, even though I find both are
: > fantastic at composition. I say this because you are exhibiting your work
: > in a grown-up artist's gallery. I assume you aren't formally a student.We
: > are all students in some ways except Mani who already knows it all. I
: > wouldn't say these things if you were an undergraduate, but you haven't
: > pushed this stuff far enough to survive, to make it your own. I saw
: > nothing as good as Balthus there and nothing to add to THIS approach.
: > Balthus seems to push forward except the late stuff which isn't very good,
: > and at least his bad work is still his work.
: > So... the "card game" series by Balthus is too pervasive in the image for
: > me too acceptance...and I'd say the same about some of W.Bailey's early
: > work without taking a breath. Sorry I can't be more positive, but I'll
: > try to keep an open mind.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
DFRussell
>In article <3623d58...@news.mindspring.com>, nobody@localhost wrote:
>
>Just soos I don't have to pistol wipe your ass, I'm reposting my original
>critique.
> ..even so you're so ignorant? of contemporary art (since1900) you
>probably won't even get the point.
[snip]
I read it before... and the "point" was pretty obvious :-)
As I said, tell me his paintings are good and you're sending him a
check.
Marilyn
"Bottom line (cliche) Mani was right."
Mani says that Webber's work is better than Cezanne's
but Webber's work isn't good.
Here is a fact, not an opinion:
CEZANNE WAS A MASTER PAINTER!!! HIS WORK IS GREAT ART!
Marilyn
DFRussell
>Listen to yourself nobody:
Um, Ms. "command of the language," check your puctuation on the
above.
The subject is really Mark's work, not Cezanne.... I noticed you have
yet to say it was good work and are sending a check to him....
hypocrite.
>
> "Bottom line (cliche) Mani was right."
>Mani says that Webber's work is better than Cezanne's
>but Webber's work isn't good.
Um, Ms. "command of the language", "better" is a comparitive term;
that is, the fact that B is better than A doesn't imply that B is
"good."
And, considering Mani's stated view of Cezanne, it is a logical
statement.
[Endless blather about Cezanne deleted]
mdeli
Ayers) wrote:
>In article <36238338...@news.mindspring.com>, nobody@localhost wrote:
>
>: > Bottom line was that Mani's summary was accurate, even if harsh:
>: > Mark's paintings were poor, redundant, and demonstrated little
>: > potential... and his "friends" have been trying all sorts of evasions
>: > to keep from telling him.
>: >
>: > If he wants to be a painter, he has to consider criticism. Feeding
>: > him nonsense about "lighting" does him little good.
>
>Hey frank-
>Read the fucking post or shut the fuck up, before I get mad. I made a
>reasonable critique considering the LIGHTING WAS..and I repeat WAS BAD!
>What I said was based on what I could see and I think pretty much to the
>point. If you got anything more educated to say, say it., otherwise be
>factual! That gallery--Prince Street? is poorly lite...who knows maybe
>being a CO-OP gallery people are cheap...at any rate it does a dis to the
>members.
I couldn't care less if the lights in the gallery were out. If
something looks like run-of-the-mill -crap on the net the world's best
lighting won't help.
>I didn't crit the eletronic images and I won't seriously ever for obvious
>reasons.
Name one "obvious" reason.
> You and mani both have a problem with getting your facts
>straight.
You have all sorts of problems. Facts included.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
>On the other hand, if one of the replies wasn't so deranged I'd be
>flattered. Consider the source of a remark that I am better than
>Cezanne. Let's see it as some of the humor that you rightly want more
>of in here.
Webber like many here is simply a victim of Modern Academic Art
nincompoopery and art school indoctrination. He can spout loads of
blow-baggy artspeak but when it comes to painting he's a hasn't
enough skill to copy a Hallmark card. He has all the makings of a life
long Artzy fartzy.
Its not that Webber has no talent. His work well demonstrates what
happens when there is nothing in addition to talent. He probably spent
years in art school learning how to concoct aesthetic gas by teachers
who taught hardly any fundamentals. I suspect that what little Weber
does know he figured out on his own.
All this has left Webber's abilities on the level of an average art
school inmate. His only hope is to blindly teach the next generation
of failures that like him they should aspire to the incompetence of
Matisse and Cezanne; that is if he has the political pull to get a
teaching position.
Webber unlike many artzy fartzies is in a schizophrenic position. He
likes Carravagio etc. and has a desire to paint realism in some sort
personal manner. However he sees art as a dualistic phenomena; extreme
competence vs. incompetence posing as something new and something like
Webber's painting. The only reason he subscribes to the astounding
ignorance of the likes of Cezanne is because his technical abilities
are on about the same level.
Unless he learns that originality, which he sorely lacks, also
requires skill and competence, he will go through life imagining that
Artspeak is a substitute for competence and never understand why his
unlearned product evokes little more than a casual polite yawn. If
that.
mdeli
won't make it in furniture store art because his competition is far
better and faster than him.
I doubt that Webber can work fast enough to compete. He doesn't
realize that furniture store art on his level of competence is
knocked out at the rate of at least two a day. Perhaps he could
increase his speed.
Webber like most artzy fartzies believes in self imposed naivety. This
usually leads to purely abstract money and a feigned hatred of the
real stuff. There is an exception. Those lucky enough to win the
Modern Academic Art lottery. They experience a sudden change in this
attitude.
Iian Neill
> Mani says that Webber's work is better than Cezanne's
> but Webber's work isn't good.
>
>
> CEZANNE WAS A MASTER PAINTER!!! HIS WORK IS GREAT ART!
It is not a fact - it is an opinion. There is evidence - of course - to show
that Cezanne was an artist, but you will not get universal agreement as to his
supposed "greatness". Of course, universal agreement is unnecessary when we are
talking about objective facts - if you accept that technical skill matters at
all in painting, then one would have to examine very carefully the assertion
that Cezanne is a great painter. How much has this assertion is due to our
artistic education? - how much is due to "artistic politics", or how much is
actually based in reality?
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
(in reply to Marilyn)
> > "Bottom line (cliche) Mani was right."
> > Mani says that Webber's work is better than Cezanne's
> > but Webber's work isn't good.
> >
> > Here is a fact, not an opinion:
> >
> > CEZANNE WAS A MASTER PAINTER!!! HIS WORK IS GREAT ART!
>
> It is not a fact - it is an opinion. There is evidence - of course - to show
> that Cezanne was an artist, but you will not get universal agreement as to his
> supposed "greatness".
We don't need universal agreement that the earth is round, but it is a
fact, whether some believe it or not - and I know that it doesn't follow,
then, that Cezanne is great; I'm only pointing out what I think you'll
agree is faulty logic.
> Of course, universal agreement is unnecessary when we are
> talking about objective facts - if you accept that technical skill matters at
> all in painting, then one would have to examine very carefully the assertion
> that Cezanne is a great painter. How much has this assertion is due to our
> artistic education? - how much is due to "artistic politics", or how much is
> actually based in reality?
I know we've been through this before, my friend, but perhaps if I'm more
specific it might bemore productive.
Let's disregard the early works of Cezanne - the earliest of which I doubt
we would be familiar with if he hadn't lived to make his late work.
If you look at the brushwork of, say, one of the late still lives or
landscapes, it can certainly be said that the technique is lacking - if
technique is only about rendering. But Cezanne's technique, his brushwork,
is excellently suited to the sort of decision making in which he is
involved.
The small, chiseled marks which he makes with a flat ended brush are ideal
for contrasting colors and creating recessional spaces. More so than
highly realistic representation, because that sort of technique would
conceal the issues in his work.
Now you can call this artspeak if you like, and you can disregard the work
if it isn't realistic enough for you. But I'll tell you that I have as
much suspicion about the moden art world as you do; I have questions just
as you do about quality and esthetics. But I've looked at a lot of
Cezannes and whether you want to believe it or not (and really that is
what it boils down to - whether you *want* to see something different or
you don't) I see greatness in this late work. I don't see immorality or
ugliness as you have said you do, and further, I don't know where you see
this.
I would suggest, as I think I have before, that you spend more time with
Cezanne before you seal him off. What are you afraid of? (I mean this
politely.)
I say this with all respect for those paintings you hold in high regard.
You may find me saying that I *feel* Bouguereau is an insipid illustrator
who's sentimentality could only appeal to people too insensitive to enjoy
great art...
(And that is something I couldn't have said twenty years ago because I
hadn't the faintest idea what made Ingres or Raphael masters yet.)
... I may post impressions of this sort here in this group, but I don't
expect everyone to think that my word is final.
Trying to assert that representation is the only relevant issue in art is,
at best, narrow. It is what *you* like the most, and that is really fine.
But if you haven't experienced something yet, how can you diismiss it?
with respect,
Mark
Philip Ayers
(mdeli) wrote:
I wrote.
: > >I didn't crit the eletronic images and I won't seriously ever for obvious
: > >reasons.
: >
: > Name one "obvious" reason.
: > Mani DeLi
: > ...no skill
I don't see how a static electonic -images- the size of one sheet of
toilet paper can be a substite for something that weights 35 pounds has a
textured suface and pigmented colors...and details which don't get blocky
as you get closer.. If you increase the size of his Jpegs with Photoshop,
the pixels do look pretty.
You know, I love video games with crude blocky graphic. I was adicted to
WolfenStein. Love the colored squares. I love color for color sake. But
that isn't painting...not at all. A painting is something organic, not a
bunch of electrons buzzing a surface creating pixels..as nice as that
might be. ..and even though I have pictures up on the web they are only
-shadows- of what the paintings are, images of my work, which work in a
different way, possible useful, on a monitor........."image" isn't a
satisfactory substitute for a painting, if paintings are what you're
talking about. Paintings have a physicality to them which is way different
from the stuff up on the tube.
That doesn't mean that I like all paintings better than all eletronic
images cause I don't., but I do know the difference and it's BIG!
You seem to see them as interchangeable which is because your interest is
in IMAGES, and not something as complex & potentual as confusing as
painting. The question I have for you Manifried is this. Why do you paint?
Maybe you'd be better going with computer graphics..and I mean this not as
a cut, but as a positive suggestion for you to consider. If image is what
you like, go for it. Your debating points are slim because you yourself
can't reach the level of perfection that you insist others reach* and you
have a lot of anger towards yourself which you attach to other. You are in
a destructive cycle. This is something I've seen before. Most people with
this parodoxical thinking usually move away from painting or they perfect
their realism to the level they can be happy with. I suggest that you must
work harder to acheive PERFECTION, or give yourself some slack or you may
be miserable for life and make others so. Good luck.
* Other painters don't have your goals, as they see the questions related
to art and painting in a different way.
Marilyn
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>> "Bottom line (cliche) Mani was right."
>> Mani says that Webber's work is better than Cezanne's
>> but Webber's work isn't good.
>>
>> Here is a fact, not an opinion:
>>
>> CEZANNE WAS A MASTER PAINTER!!! HIS WORK IS GREAT ART!
>
>It is not a fact - it is an opinion. There is evidence - of course - to show
>that Cezanne was an artist, but you will not get universal agreement as to his
>talking about objective facts - if you accept that technical skill matters at
>all in painting, then one would have to examine very carefully the assertion
>that Cezanne is a great painter. How much has this assertion is due to our
>artistic education? - how much is due to "artistic politics", or how much is
>actually based in reality?
>
>
> Iian Neill.
Sorry to say but your above paragraph is an "opinion."
It is a thoughtful opinion, well-expressed. We've
been through the Cezanne debate before. If you wish
to go against the century of proven analysis of
Cezanne's achievements that's okay.
You base your opinion on what you think is the
basis for great art. You base your criteria on
Renaissance methods. That's okay too.
It's anachronistic though.
Now, how about you being tolerant enough to admit
that we are in a pluralist era, and there is room
for modernism & postmodernism.
Have you ever read about what C. was trying to achieve?
Have you considered his intent. Or do you just look, don't
understand and then condemn ?
M.
DFRussell
>On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
>
>(in reply to Marilyn)
>
>> > "Bottom line (cliche) Mani was right."
>> > Mani says that Webber's work is better than Cezanne's
>> > but Webber's work isn't good.
>> >
>> > Here is a fact, not an opinion:
>> >
>> > CEZANNE WAS A MASTER PAINTER!!! HIS WORK IS GREAT ART!
>>
>> It is not a fact - it is an opinion. There is evidence - of course - to show
>> that Cezanne was an artist, but you will not get universal agreement as to his
>> supposed "greatness".
>
>We don't need universal agreement that the earth is round,
Strawman argument. Pointless *and* stupid.
>but it is a
>fact, whether some believe it or not - and I know that it doesn't follow,
>then, that Cezanne is great; I'm only pointing out what I think you'll
>agree is faulty logic.
:-)
Well, I'd agree that you've demonstrated "faulty logic" :-)
>> Of course, universal agreement is unnecessary when we are
>> talking about objective facts -
That being that the earth is round?
The problem you have is that the more you insist that your opinion is
a fact, the less people will listen to you.
The balance of another long diatribe on how wonderful Cezanne was
was deleted.
DFRussell
>I don't see how a static electonic -images- the size of one sheet of
>toilet paper can be a substite for something that weights 35 pounds has a
>textured suface and pigmented colors...and details which don't get blocky
>as you get closer.. If you increase the size of his Jpegs with Photoshop,
>the pixels do look pretty.
I'm impressed!
Have you sent him his check yet?
DFRussell
>
>Sorry to say but your above paragraph is an "opinion."
True.
A dislike of Cezanne is an opinion also... as is a like of Cezanne.
If you believe one to be true, you can't agrue that opposite is false.
However, it is quite difficult to argue that he was a technically
competent painter... since there is little to no evidence of that.
Um, Marylin, did you send Mark a check yet?
I noticed that you're trying to change the subject again :-)
[another in the endless series of Cezanne arguments deleted]
>Now, how about you being tolerant enough to admit
>that we are in a pluralist era, and there is room
>for modernism & postmodernism.
Left-think translation: It's OK for me to state an opinion as a fact
but I'll call you names if you do it. Marylin, Clinton has done this
soooo much that people have caught on to it. You'll have to try a new
debate tactic.
>
>Have you ever read about what C. was trying to achieve?
Who cares what he was "trying" to do. The point is what he did do.
>Have you considered his intent. Or do you just look, don't
>understand and then condemn ?
Quacks like a duck, walks like a duck... it's a duck.
Bark for me, Marylin -- Ms. "command of the language" 1998 :-)
Philip Ayers
Nobody....
I rule here and if yer nice I'll give you a bone.
setai
Philip Ayers wrote in message ...
>A painting is something organic, not a
>bunch of electrons buzzing a surface creating pixels..as nice as that
>might be. ..and even though I have pictures up on the web they are only
>-shadows- of what the paintings are, images of my work, which work in a
>different way, possible useful, on a monitor........."image" isn't a
>satisfactory substitute for a painting, if paintings are what you're
>talking about. Paintings have a physicality to them which is way different
>from the stuff up on the tube.
>That doesn't mean that I like all paintings better than all eletronic
>images cause I don't., but I do know the difference and it's BIG!
stop spewing this digital isn't art and prove it. of course you won't,
because you know you are wrong or do you still hang on to tired, idiotic
beliefs. do you think the earth is flat. as dfrussel says, "put up or shut
up".
here is the challenge once again for you(and everyone else) to see
from my post on 3d modeling....
i have told you i don't use 3d modeling,but digital college, but you won't
listen so i assume you think it is one and the same. you say you use a
computer all the time, but the work isn't art. you claim that their is no
individuality with a computer, just a copy. i am giving you an opportunity
to prove this.
i will give you the dimensions and every jpg that i have used on a specific
piece and we can let the others judge the individuality or the exact
likeness of the two pieces. i don't use filters, so that won't be a problem.
if you don't use photoshop that shouldn't matter, because any paintprogram
should be able to accomplish collage. i do use the rubber stamp, but you can
use cut and paste with opaque layers for the effect(if you need any further
advice or examples on this particular technique i am more than willing to
explain).
if you prove me wrong, i will bow down to your painter god wisdom and
gracefully leave the fine art forum, as you have suggested twice. i will
admit what i am doing is not art and i am not an artist, and your fine art
forum will no longer be sullied. if i prove you wrong, then all i ask is
for you to admit that a computer is a valid tool for creating art, i would
never ask anyone to leave an open forum. oh, and apologize to andrew for
saying he wasn't an artist, that was rude... i don't care what you call me,
but i respect andrew and found it insulting
if you aren't willing to do this experiment, then you are just full of hot
air and none of your words deserve any credit.
tracy
Iian Neill
> > >
> > > CEZANNE WAS A MASTER PAINTER!!! HIS WORK IS GREAT ART!
> >
> > It is not a fact - it is an opinion. There is evidence - of course - to show
> > that Cezanne was an artist, but you will not get universal agreement as to his
> > supposed "greatness".
>
> fact, whether some believe it or not - and I know that it doesn't follow,
> then, that Cezanne is great; I'm only pointing out what I think you'll
> agree is faulty logic.
My statement would have been faulty logic had I not immediately qualified it in the
line below:
> > Of course, universal agreement is unnecessary when we are
> > talking about objective facts - if you accept that technical skill matters at
> > all in painting, then one would have to examine very carefully the assertion
> > that Cezanne is a great painter. How much has this assertion is due to our
> > artistic education? - how much is due to "artistic politics", or how much is
> > actually based in reality?
>
> I know we've been through this before, my friend, but perhaps if I'm more
> specific it might bemore productive.
>
> Let's disregard the early works of Cezanne - the earliest of which I doubt
> we would be familiar with if he hadn't lived to make his late work.
It would depend on what path his art would have taken had he not abandoned the
atelier teaching ... and to speculate about that seems to me to be quite fruitless.
There simply isn't enough information.
> If you look at the brushwork of, say, one of the late still lives or
> landscapes, it can certainly be said that the technique is lacking - if
> technique is only about rendering. But Cezanne's technique, his brushwork,
> is excellently suited to the sort of decision making in which he is
> involved.
The validity of Cezanne abandoning rendering would depend on what it was he was
aiming for, and why his particular 'technique' proved superior for that task.
Perhaps you would like to go into the reasons for why Cezanne could only 'make
decisions' in the Post-Impressionist style.
> The small, chiseled marks which he makes with a flat ended brush are ideal
> for contrasting colors and creating recessional spaces. More so than
> highly realistic representation, because that sort of technique would
> conceal the issues in his work.
If we are going to refer to specific aspects of Cezanne's work, it may be useful to
illustrate our points with links to the relevant works on the internet. Can you
think, off-hand, of any sites that display good scans of his work?
> Now you can call this artspeak if you like, and you can disregard the work
> if it isn't realistic enough for you. But I'll tell you that I have as
> much suspicion about the moden art world as you do; I have questions just
> as you do about quality and esthetics. But I've looked at a lot of
> Cezannes and whether you want to believe it or not (and really that is
> what it boils down to - whether you *want* to see something different or
> you don't) I see greatness in this late work.
I certainly believe that you see greatness in Cezanne's work - you have said so many
times.
> I don't see immorality or
> ugliness as you have said you do, and further, I don't know where you see this.
I can understand how you might not see the 'immorality' to which I have refered
directly or indirectly - but I am genuinely puzzled that you do not perceive the
ugliness of Cezanne's work. This is quite apart from what other qualities he may
possess - do you really find a Cezanne portrait more beautiful than, say, a
Rembrandt or Titian? Or a Cezanne still-life more beautiful than something
equivalent by Velasquez or the 17th century Netherlands painters? Or do you find,
perhaps, Cezanne's landscape paintings more beautiful than Claude Lorrain or
Cezanne's figurative works more than Raphael, Poussin or Ingres? Or even Rubens,
Goya or Delacroix? (I name them to contrast the other three.)
Do you really find Cezanne beautiful?
> I would suggest, as I think I have before, that you spend more time with
> Cezanne before you seal him off. What are you afraid of? (I mean this
> politely.)
To be honest, Cezanne has never greatly interested me - which is why I haven't
spent as much time with him as you have. I have gone to the trouble of looking up
his work on occassion, but those occassions never left me with a strong enough
impression to warrant future exploration - the same applies with Matisse. Gaugin,
however, may find me re-visiting certain of his works at a later date.
> I say this with all respect for those paintings you hold in high regard.
> You may find me saying that I *feel* Bouguereau is an insipid illustrator
> who's sentimentality could only appeal to people too insensitive to enjoy
> great art...
Bouguereau was very rarely - if ever - an illustrator in the literal sense of the
term - as, for example, one can quite justly describe Gustave Dore or even Odilon
Redon. Bouguereau even turned more towards what some call "art for art's sake" -
which is to say, art with a very thin pretext for a subject and which is usually a
kind of meditation on beauty. Incidentally, you certainly *could* say that you felt
those who liked Bouguereau to be "too insensitive to enjoy great art", but I regret
to say that you risk defaming Degas and Monet in the process, both of whom expressed
(even if grudging at times) admiration for Bouguereau - so much so that they both
agreed he would be considered the greatest painter of the 19th century. (My source:
http://www.gandynet.com/art/Ross/Bouguereau_Revisited.htm)
Do you feel like questioning the genius of Degas or Monet?
> (And that is something I couldn't have said twenty years ago because I
> hadn't the faintest idea what made Ingres or Raphael masters yet.)
Whilst on the topic, I have given - a number of time - a list of the artists I
adore. Ingres and Raphael - and many others I am sure you have admired - were on
that list. The only reason they aren't yet up in the "Cafe" is because they are
generally speaking more famous and well-served on the internet elsewhere. I focused
on the less-well-known figures to balance the scales a little, and, of course,
because their work is so marvellous. By the way, the Ingres section has been
uploaded on the "Cafe" although it is far from finished. I have been very busy with
university; but when I have some free time, I will polish it all off.
> ... I may post impressions of this sort here in this group, but I don't
> expect everyone to think that my word is final.
One shouldn't expect impressions to be final, as you say. If you have made a
rational judgment, though, to the best of your abilities, then there is nothing at
all wrong - in fact, it is *laudable* - to state it, and to be willing to justify
your comments.
> Trying to assert that representation is the only relevant issue in art is,
> at best, narrow. It is what *you* like the most, and that is really fine.
It is not the only relevant issue, of course - but it is the only relevant one when
we are trying to seperate art from non-art in an *objective* way. You - or I, or
anyone - may happen to find some non-representational painting quite beautiful,
harmonious and uplifting - but unless the artist's intentions are clearly manifested
WITHIN the work itself - and not tacked on as commentary, theory, dogma, etc. - then
no critic can even hope to make an objective judgement on the work. He only ends up
appealing to *feeling*, or to the arrangment of abstract shapes, or the harmony of
colours, et cetera, et cetera ... Now, while I am *not* denying the validity of
judging the beauty of art by such formal concerns, I hold the view that it is
inadequate *by itself* to delineate art from non-art. Something more is needed to
raise it upon a purely instinctual, emotional and animal judgment. And that thing
has to be based on objective fact. Now, the only way that all reasonable people can
agree as to what a painting is about is if the SUBJECT IS CLEAR and not obscured.
Please note that I am not saying you can't have your own feelings about ANY kind
of work - whether it's a Gerome, a Cezanne or a found-object at the rubbish tip.
What one *feels* is beyond censure, if the causes behind that feeling are not taken
into account. But how one *acts* is immediately open to questioning, judgment and so
forth. If someone says, "I like Brancusi", and leaves it at that, giving no
explanation and asking for no acceptance, then I would merely shrug and think: "He
has admitted his feeling - that is his right." But if the same person says,
"Brancusi is a great sculptor ..." -- well, now this is a point that is open to
public debate.
If we are to make such statements, we are obliged - in a rational discussion, as
opposed to a flame-war where the brute instinct takes over - to support them with
evidence. Yet how can *feeling* ever be incontestable proof? It is not falsifiable,
and what one man feels is no more proof of the validity of an art work than what
another man feels. An art-work is an object made by human intelligence, and like all
products of human intelligence, is able to be analyzed objectively. If you can't
accept this, then you might as well not make any judgment about ANY artist in ANY
capacity. If you refute objectivity, you have no basis for claiming that Cezanne is
good or bad - merely that you like or dislike him.
Now, my recent posts haven't focused on such specific things as beauty or even
strict anatomical accuracy as the fundamental requirement for a work of art - what
the posts *have* emphasized is the importance of the WORK ITSELF and not some
attached theory or commentary. This means that the work is responsible for itself,
which means that it and it alone should be required to furnish all that is necessary
for a rational man to tell whether it is art or non-art. For a rational man to tell
whether it is art or not, he needs to know the artist's intention. He cannot
*confirm* this intention independently if he cannot find it in the art-work itself -
if he accepts the artist's word, then he is operating on faith, and art risks
becoming a Mysteriocracy with the critics as the High Priests, dispensing the dogma
for the faithful to follow.
Now I think that you would despise such a situation as much as I would, Mark. If
we are to avoid such a situation, however, it seems to me that one has to accept as
a fundamental (a basic axiom) that art must be able to stand for itself to be art.
(As opposed to illustration, for example.) For art to stand by itself, the artist's
intentions must be manifested INSIDE the art-work and not in extra-artistic
testimony (although that can prove helpful once we have ascertained the work can
stand on its own) - and these intentions cannot be objectively confirmed unless they
are represented realistically enough so that others can at the very least say, "Yes
- the artist's intention has certainly come through here."
This doesn't even begin to touch the issue of how *good* or *bad* the art-work is.
By this definition, Cezanne, Bouguereau, El Greco, and Salvador Dali are all
artists. What the definition has achieved is to give us the means to *objectively* -
without reasonable disputation - clearly seperate art from non-art in painting,
sculpture, drawing and even literature. It doesn't apply so well to architecture and
music which are much more formally based - the definition would have to be altered
slightly so as to be applicable in those fields. This isn't my aim at present
however, and it may never need to be - it may already have been done. What I do know
is that there has been some controversy as to whether anything is art just because
we *want* ("feel", "intuit") it to be - and let us not kid ourselves. Those who
assert that art is whatever you want it to be are destroying art as an activity of
any value. If we consider this situation in crude, simple terms my point will become
immediately evident:
-- If we give to the lowest form of art the value '1' and to non-art the value '0',
we can immediately observe there to be a qualitative difference between the objects.
Those who assert that art is "whatever you want it to be" are really trying to
assert that non-art has the value '1' and that art potentially has the value of '0'.
They refuse to recognize any rational difference between art and non-art. Such
people believe that instinct, emotion and one's brute nature determine what art
really is. One is obliged to give an evidence for your assertions - all one needs to
say, according to them, is that "I think it is art", or, "It **is** art!" and that's
all.
Now, this kind of "thinking" may be alright for a senseless flame war, but it will
not do for any rational discussion for the basis of art.
"Oh, come on," someone might say, "Aren't you going overboard a bit? A flame war -
who says it has to end up like that?"
Well, look at the facts yourself. If you have a number of people who believe their
views on art to be right - or at least important - and if you have *feeling* as the
only criterion for the delineation of art from non-art; and from there it's just a
short step to declare that a bad work of art - a work of non-art - is in fact a
masterpiece; and that a masterpiece, conversely, is a bad work of art, or not art at
all. How could such a situation arise? It arises when people reject their own
consciousness and reasoning capacity and instead settle down for the intellectual
equivalent of a caveman's club. That's well and good if you want to remain in the
Neolithic (or is that nihilistic?) period ... but I assume that most people on this
newsgroup aren't like that.
To be continued ....
Regards,
Iian Neill.
>But if you haven't experienced something yet, how can you diismiss it?
> with respect,
>
> Mark
--
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my own art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
DFRussell
>In article <3627ccae...@news.mindspring.com>, nobody@localhost wrote:
>
>: > p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
>: >
>: > >I don't see how a static electonic -images- the size of one sheet of
>: > >toilet paper can be a substite for something that weights 35 pounds has a
>: > >textured suface and pigmented colors...and details which don't get blocky
>: > >as you get closer.. If you increase the size of his Jpegs with Photoshop,
>: > >the pixels do look pretty.
>: >
>: > I'm impressed!
>: >
>: > Have you sent him his check yet?
>
>Nobody....
>I rule here and if yer nice I'll give you a bone.
I guess that means that you're not sending Mark a check.
Pretty much sums the situation up, eh?
lanc...@hotmail.com
Marilyn wrote:
> Listen to yourself nobody:
>
> Mani says that Webber's work is better than Cezanne's
> but Webber's work isn't good.
>
>
> CEZANNE WAS A MASTER PAINTER!!! HIS WORK IS GREAT ART!
>
>
I don't see the fascination here over Cezanne. Is it because it's hard to
appreciate his work in a jpeg format? Would it make that much difference?
I went here to see some of his landscapes:
http://sunsite.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/land/
And the only improvement I could see between his earlier works and his later
is that he filled in the holes.
What is the difference in learning art appreciation and being taught what's
proper to like? If someone's work (like Cezanne) doesn't intially grab you,
can you be taught to like, even love, it? I don't expect a hole lesson in art
appreciation, I would like for someone to summarize what to look for in
Cezzanne. Obviously I don't "get it".
lance
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Iian Neill
> >> that Cezanne was an artist, but you will not get universal agreement as to his
> >> supposed "greatness".
> >
> >We don't need universal agreement that the earth is round,
>
I qualified my statement with a line that was snipped either from your response or
another preceeding it. While it is indeed true that one will not get universal
agreement on nearly anything, I had not meant that to imply that this is proof of
Cezanne's greatness or lack thereof. I immediately added that "universal agreement is
unnecessary when we are talking about objective facts" - it doesn't matter whether
ten or ten thousand people call a tree or block of cement - the fact remains, as a
famous philosopher once said, that A is A.
> >> Of course, universal agreement is unnecessary when we are
> >> talking about objective facts -
>
> That being that the earth is round?
>
> The problem you have is that the more you insist that your opinion is
> a fact, the less people will listen to you.
One can have an opinion about paintings, sculpture or anything else. You are free to
say, "I like that", or "I hate that". But when it comes to judging the goodness or
badness of a thing, one needs to consider its function and to ascertain how
effectively it fulfills this function. In the case of art, there are at least two
things to consider: -- (a) does the object fulfill the function of Art, and (b) does
the object (supposing it is an art-work) realize the intentions of the artist. (a)
and (b) can be analyzed objectively. I have frequently touched upon (b) in the past
week, and I hope soon to tentatively offer a method of ascertaining (a) : - what is
the function of Art?
> The balance of another long diatribe on how wonderful Cezanne was
> was deleted.
It may be that you have confused my comments with those of Mark or Marylin - I
certainly did not come to praise Cezanne; my intention was to see whether the claim
that he was "great" had any basis in truth whatsoever.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Iian Neill
> appreciate his work in a jpeg format? Would it make that much difference?
>
> I went here to see some of his landscapes:
>
> http://sunsite.unc.edu/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/land/
>
> And the only improvement I could see between his earlier works and his later
> is that he filled in the holes.
>
> What is the difference in learning art appreciation and being taught what's
> proper to like? If someone's work (like Cezanne) doesn't intially grab you,
> can you be taught to like, even love, it?
I do not think so. It is possible that you can be instructed in its merits -
supposing it has any - and can learn to see them, regardless of whether you like
them or not ... but the processes underlying our emotional reactions to Art are
complex, which is probably the reason some throw up their hands in despair and
declare that there are no standards at all.
When it comes to art appreciation, I see it almost in a musical sense - you may
have heard a symphony by Mozart in your youth and thought that it was alright;
you were neither particularly impressed no repulsed by it. As you age, however,
and become more familiar with Classical Music and musicology, the chances are
that you will see the very same piece in a different light. It may be that you
now find it superficial and trite - or that it impresses you far beyond your
previous expectations.
A good example may be found especially in the contrapuntal music of such
composers as Mozart and Bach. These men had an incredible facility for making the
most hair-raising of technical challenges seem effortless. They were not
interested in impressing upon you their struggle; instead, they used their
enormous skill to *disguise* the efforts to which they went
I don't expect a hole lesson in art
> appreciation, I would like for someone to summarize what to look for in
> Cezzanne. Obviously I don't "get it".
If you consider technical skill important, then you may never "get" Cezanne. I am
highly dubious of claims as to Cezanne's supposed "greatness" - what is it that
he did which no prior artist could not do better? One will hear talk about form,
and relationships, but it is interesting to note that many of the terms they will
use to defend Cezanne can just as easily be applied to the works of artists who
were diametrically opposed to him - and, in their case, one can at least
objectively confirm (or deny) the validity of these claims without having to deal
with the mystique which has built up around their reputations.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
DFRussell
>> >> It is not a fact - it is an opinion. There is evidence - of course - to show
>> >> that Cezanne was an artist, but you will not get universal agreement as to his
>> >> supposed "greatness".
>> >
>> >We don't need universal agreement that the earth is round,
>>
>> Strawman argument. Pointless *and* stupid.
>
>I qualified my statement with a line that was snipped either from your response or
>another preceeding it. While it is indeed true that one will not get universal
>agreement on nearly anything, I had not meant that to imply that this is proof of
>Cezanne's greatness or lack thereof.
My apologies. I read it that way.
[snip]