Abstracts
Robert Millard
new to me. Bette Ridgeway makes large poured abstracts on canvas with
acrylics. Does anyone know more about her, and her work?
Bob
Jaxart
says...
It's just pure coincidence that I know about her at all.
I've recently been having discussions with a couple of
artist friends of mine about two galleries in Santa Fe
and ran across her work. She was formerly represented by
Waxlander but more recently has moved to Expressions.
You can read her bio on this page, and see some of her
work as well:
http://www.expressionsinfineart.com/ridgeway.html
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
Alison A Raimes
Millard <rgmi...@home.com> writes
>Just returned home from Santa Fe, where I was very impressed with an artist
>new to me. Bette Ridgeway makes large poured abstracts on canvas with
>acrylics. Does anyone know more about her, and her work?
>
>Bob
A very accomplished *pourer*. She has total control over the process and
still maintains the spontaneity necessary for formless art. Of course
the *form* here is the process. I can't help thinking her work is just a
little too *nice* and would like to see some element that really
challenged that. Something that would just make the viewer say* ok,
there must be more to this than just bands of colour*. I was surprised
she worked in acrylics - the veils of paint don't usually work as well
as they do in oils, but she seems to have succeeded.
Incidentally, we are just having a discussion on Artlives about Richard
Diekenborn, whose work is relatively unheard of in Britain. I searched
through several art history books and didn't come across him at all,
except in the Oxford Dictionary of Art - and no image to go with it. A
quick search on the Internet took me to several sites and even after
seeing the images his work was unfamiliar. The Americans on the list
were shocked !
Alison A Raimes
http://www.alisonraimes.com
http://artlives.homestead.com
Jiri Borsky
> Incidentally, we are just having a discussion on Artlives about Richard
> Diekenborn, whose work is relatively unheard of in Britain.
When I was at art school, in England, in the late seventies, we were force-fed
Diebenkorn until it was coming out of our ears.
Jiri Borsky
--
remove all zzz from address
http://www.borsky.dial.pipex.com/
Alison A Raimes
<bor...@dialz.pipexz.comz> writes
>Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, we are just having a discussion on Artlives about Richard
>> Diekenborn, whose work is relatively unheard of in Britain.
>
>When I was at art school, in England, in the late seventies, we were force-fed
>Diebenkorn until it was coming out of our ears.
>
>Jiri Borsky
I stand corrected then ! Where did you go to school ? I took a look at
his work and found it very accomplished, although from descriptions by
others who brought him to my attention, I suspect a lot is lost in the
reproductions across the net. I still have trouble with the idea of
switching between abstract and figurative, though not about abstraction
of the figure. Reading about this artist showed that it was very much an
unresolved problem for him and that his later works, where he eliminated
the figure almost completely, had all but brought him to pure abstract.
Fortunately, I wasn't *force fed* anything at Art School. It was very
much a *teach yourself* experience and we were exposed to such a vast
range of disciplines and artists. And it was a chance to develop
alongside a peer group that were as hungry to soak up everything that
was thrown at them. Self motivation was high on the requirements of
entry to Manchester. In the Galleries magazine this month, there is an
article by Brian Morley, who was my professor of art there, in which he
discusses the lack of resources for teaching staff in today's art
schools and the affect it has had on the teaching practises. At
Manchester we were very short of tutors and there was no teaching
structure other than being in the studio and hoping that you could grab
the attention of a passing tutor once in a while. When you managed it
was a tough and challenging experience - there were no free rides there.
Brian Morley writes that art schools have now become a place for
personal development rather than being taught. I can't help wishing that
was just a reflection of the state of Manchester art school only, but my
peer group assure me that every art school is like that now. There are
pros and cons to both sides, but the heavy competition to get into art
schools now means that they select high achievers who already have
achieved a strong focus in their work and can show that they will
develop their work independently of being *taught*. I don't think that
is a bad thing.
sharon
*was very much a *teach yourself* experience and we were exposed
*to such a vast range of disciplines and artists. And it was a
*chance to develop alongside a peer group that were as hungry to
*soak up everything that was thrown at them.
*Alison A Raimes
Personally I cannot understand going to art school and paying
for information that is available for free, unless it is to
teach or because that degree represents some form of
accomplishment. I can see the value of being in the company of
others of like mind and networking and again this is available
outside of the academy. I was once told that I should attend art
school to learn discipline, tell me, is discipline taught in art
degreed courses today?
sharon
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
christopher moss
I stand corrected then ! Where did you go to school ? I took a look at
his work and found it very accomplished, although from descriptions by
others who brought him to my attention, I suspect a lot is lost in the
reproductions across the net. I still have trouble with the idea of
switching between abstract and figurative, though not about abstraction
of the figure. Reading about this artist showed that it was very much an
unresolved problem for him and that his later works, where he eliminated
the figure almost completely, had all but brought him to pure abstract.
_Alison, you've just stumbled upon one of my early heroes. If you're
interested the Whitney Museum of American Art and University of
California Press at Berkeley produced a monograph written by Jane
Livingston. It was published back in 1997. You also may want to look for
some of Diebenkorn's colleagues in California such as Elmer Bishoff and
David Park. All were obviously influenced by NY school abstraction, the
figurative work being a reaction to NY's popularity. Personally I think
Park was also a better painter than Diebenkorn. Historians have slapped
the label 'bay area figurative artists" on this little group of art
school teachers. Some of their students went on to make a name for
themselves too. I think Art in America recently did an article on one of
their students, a woman painter whose name escapes me now, in a review
of contemporary realists.
_Have you seen Diebenkorn's "July"? interesting Jasper Johns reference
there playing w/ a park bench that looks like an american flag. And
Park's most famous painting of boys on bicycles is probably one of the
most interestingly composed works to come out of 1950's american art.
There's an interesting reaction to Diebenkorn over here now, a lot of
detractors say he took a few Matisse phrases and based an entire career
on them. I wouldn't go that far, but there's a certain air of repetition
that gets bothersome at times, one of the reasons I haven't looked at
his work in a while. Interesting stuff here nonetheless.
-cm
christopher moss
symbols by michael duncan was the article and it was about joan brown
and gregory gillespie. brown was trained in the uc school system
(university of california) and that's where diebenkorn, park, et. al.
were teaching in the 50's 60's and 70's. Brown's very early work comes
right out of that thick painterly figurative style that the bay area
painters developed.
_see you in 2 weeks group, I'll be away for a while, hunting down art in
and around some obscure town in northern france. you know, the one with
the big steel tower and a gothic church named after an american
university. heh, heh. _have fun.
-cm
Alison A Raimes
<sharonb...@francomm.com.invalid> writes
>
>Personally I cannot understand going to art school and paying
>for information that is available for free, unless it is to
>teach or because that degree represents some form of
>accomplishment. I can see the value of being in the company of
>others of like mind and networking and again this is available
>outside of the academy. I was once told that I should attend art
>school to learn discipline, tell me, is discipline taught in art
>degreed courses today?
>sharon
Education at degree level in Britain, was, until this last year,
government subsidised for British students. A mandatory grant of around
2,250 per annum was paid to the student, and the course fees were paid
for by the local authority in which the student lived prior to starting
the degree. It was assessed on possible parental contribution for those
under 21. It offered the opportunity for students to study free of the
worry of financial concerns, although in recent years the awards have
decreased and students are now dependant on student loans.
Like most degree courses, the students are expected to research most of
their subject independently and attend lectures and relevant seminars
when scheduled. Unlike most degree courses, there was no set assessment
criteria until final degree show for art students. This has changed now
to a modular system where ongoing assessment now takes place in almost
all art schools at degree.
As in all degree courses, a level of discipline is necessary in order to
progress well enough to achieve any decent mark at the end of the
course. In art, self discipline in studio practise is probably the most
important factor. A good student will learn that fast at art school, and
will carry it forward into their professional practise. A bad student
will more than likely not be making art a couple of years after degree.
Erik A. Mattila
I'm just speculating, but I could believe that Park influenced Motherwell,
especially the 'Spanish Civil War' series.
Another speculation. I'm assuming that RD lived in the Bay area during the
figurative years, and then moved to LA. Does this coincide with his switch
form figures? Another question - would you consider Diebenkorns 'abstract
expressionism' or 'landscape painting?' I see landscape written all over
his abstract works. I'm just asking because the experience of LA is very
landscapey, especially considering the great urbanization that marked RDs
period of residency there. Growing up in LA, the spectacle of parking on
Mullhulland Drive and seeing the great sprawl was pretty awesome. Then
when smog came, the lighting effects were quite charming, making the city
resemble a Michelangelo D'Antonioni film - bleak, desperate and timeless.
Just some thoughts. I'm really keen on David Parks myself. And then
there's Guston.
Erik
Marilyn
A view from his studio window, and the overpowering west coast light
inspired him. Have you ever seen his huge works on paper book? All the
oil paintings were built from preparatory works on paper.
Marilyn
mdeli
>Fortunately, I wasn't *force fed* anything at Art School. It was very
>much a *teach yourself* experience and we were exposed to such a vast
>range of disciplines and artists.
You can see the miserable result of Alison's *teach yourself*
experience. Her drawings are grade school level.
Why waste time in school if you have to teach yourself?
Suggestion for art students:
If you attend art school and you are in a class full of students and
instructors who draw as badly as Alison, consider the fact that you
might just be wasting your time and money.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>As in all degree courses, a level of discipline is necessary in order to
>progress well enough to achieve any decent mark at the end of the
>course.
A decent mark will get you nowhere in art. Check out my painting "Art
Degree take one" on my web page.
mdeli
Definitely Art!
Their work was absolutely on today's artzy fartzy professional level.
Perhaps someone here will find them on the net and compare their
output to Fox's work, which he churned out before firing his
chimpanzee assistant.
Of course they didn't show any drawings by the elephants but judging
from the paintings I suspect that they would be close to Alison's
*teach yourself experience" level.
I definitely believe that there should be a monkey room in the MOMA
and all art students should be required to study elephant art in order
to get grades as good as Alison's.
I also suggest that Fox give a course in how to get the best artwork
out of a chimpanzee. This should certainly give any serious student
the avant garde post modern experience necessary to reach Fox's level
of achievement.
Erik A. Mattila
> Diebenkorn's Ocean Park series was a result of his move to the west coast.
> A view from his studio window, and the overpowering west coast light
> inspired him. Have you ever seen his huge works on paper book? All the
> oil paintings were built from preparatory works on paper.
>
> Marilyn
I was wondering if he first settled in the Bay Area and then moved to LA, and
changed his style. Do you know?
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
that. You can never teach anybody anything - you can only help them to
learn.
Of course, some people do best when they have somebody to guide them,
others work best from books and others from experience, going to school
isn't the only route to knowledge or wisdom.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alison A Raimes
writes
> Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
>>Fortunately, I wasn't *force fed* anything at Art School. It was very
>>much a *teach yourself* experience and we were exposed to such a vast
>>range of disciplines and artists.
>
>You can see the miserable result of Alison's *teach yourself*
>experience. Her drawings are grade school level.
>
>
>If you attend art school and you are in a class full of students and
>instructors who draw as badly as Alison, consider the fact that you
>might just be wasting your time and money.
>
>Mani DeLi
Sorry everyone, Mani forgot to give you the URLs ..... just as I thought
I had him trained ....
Student drawing at Foundation course and level one Degree
http://raimes.homestead.com/StudentWork.html
and current drawings at
http://raimes.homestead.com
and
http://www.alisonraimes.com
Cheers !
Marilyn Welch
No I don't know off hand. From what I remember he never "changed" his
style, it was a stylistic evolution. This is clear from the way his work
slowly became more expressive and then more abstract over the years.
Try his Works on Paper book to watch how the Ocean Park series came about.
One of his great influences into abstraction was a single painting by
Matisse, The Black Door.
Marilyn
>
>
>
>
lake
else's perception, is best left unanswered.
- Lake
mdeli
>In article <394171c0...@news.psi.ca>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why waste time in school if you have to teach yourself?
>>
>As somebody who has spent many years teaching, I think that I can answer
>that. You can never teach anybody anything - you can only help them to
>learn.
Speak for yourself.
School is a place to pass on information. If you possess hardly any I
guess the best you can do is imagine that you helping your students
learn.
Art schools are full of students at the mercy of teachers who are
fifth generation failures who do little more then spout Artspeak.
It is ludicrous to imagine that knowledge which took the best minds
centuries to discover will be conveyed by a teacher who believes that
"You can never teach anybody anything."
Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of an artzy
fartzy.
>Of course, some people do best when they have somebody to guide them,
>others work best from books and others from experience, going to school
>isn't the only route to knowledge or wisdom.
Not going to school is usually the route to a life of ignorance.
Peter H.M. Brooks
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> , Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> >In article <394171c0...@news.psi.ca>,
> > hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Why waste time in school if you have to teach yourself?
> >>
> >As somebody who has spent many years teaching, I think that I can
answer
> >that. You can never teach anybody anything - you can only help them
to
> >learn.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
>
> School is a place to pass on information. If you possess hardly any I
> guess the best you can do is imagine that you helping your students
> learn.
>
>
> Art schools are full of students at the mercy of teachers who are
> fifth generation failures who do little more then spout Artspeak.
>
quite so strongly myself. However, it has nothing to do with my point
regarding teaching and learning.
>
> It is ludicrous to imagine that knowledge which took the best minds
> centuries to discover will be conveyed by a teacher who believes that
> "You can never teach anybody anything."
>
Why not try an think about it? If you learn from a book, then who has
been the teacher?
>
> Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of an artzy
> fartzy.
>
True. However, your misunderstanding of a fairly simple point doesn't
really go well with your implicit claim to intelligence.
>
> >Of course, some people do best when they have somebody to guide them,
> >others work best from books and others from experience, going to
school
> >isn't the only route to knowledge or wisdom.
>
> Not going to school is usually the route to a life of ignorance.
>
True, in a simple way, again. However, many manage to go to school and
live a life of ignorance - a point that you appear to be making higher
up in your posting.
Peter H.M. Brooks
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> Opinion, when it is pure, clear and strong, unadulterated by anyone
> else's perception, is best left unanswered.
>
I don't think that it is truly possible to have an opinion that is
'unadulterated by anyone else's perception'.
Thomas Ziorjen
Marilyn Welch wrote:
The two Matisse paintings that Gerald Norland, in his book on Diebenkorn (NY 1987)
cites as influencing his move from the figurative work to the Ocean Park series,
are 'Open Window, Collioure' and 'View of Notre Dame' both from 1914.
Thomas
mdeli
> There is so much knowledge out there (about art) to be attained that
>the most important think you may learn in college is how to go about
>learning.
Check out Scarlet"s miserable artwork and see how much her college has
taught her.
>But, I see on another thread that your favorite art magazines are
>"American Artist" and "The Artist's Magazine" - both nice duck & fowl,
>barnyard scenes and plenty of nature scene genre mags. You aren't even aware
>of the enormity of information available.
I presume you read Art Forum for the latest schmierer talk and
inflated Artspeak gas. Little wonder Scarlet hates anything that
contains skill and craft. She can't even draw a rock.
iian_...@my-deja.com
> > Why waste time in school if you have to teach yourself?
Because you get to hang out with the arty sect and call yourself an
intellectual. Because you have a piece of paper on the wall that
justifies your failure to succeed in worldly matters. Or maybe you're
one of those pseudo-intellectuals that gets a turn on from postmodernist
dialectic and likes to introduce quotes from Sartre or Husserl at dinner
parties. Perhaps all of the above.
But then you always get the naive ones who believe that the universities
of today represent an unbroken tradition of schooling in the arts.
Rather than participation mystique, we might call this
phenomenon 'academia mystique'.
The root of the problem is not that art can't be taught. Indeed, I would
say that the sheer number of great artists produced by the studio and
atelier systems over the past six hundred years is proof enough that
something was being taught. Even if you think Bouguereau and Gerome fit
only for the chocolate box, you will have to bow to the fact that Renoir
, Degas and Manet were products of the atelier system. Certainly, they
wouldn't have become the artists they were without their training.
The master transmitted something to his pupil, even if it was as basic
as the manipulation of his tools, lessons in perspective, anatomical
drawing, colour theory, or something as vague as an aesthetic ethos. "I
paint to perfect reality," for example, or, "I paint the world as it
truly is, with no idealised illusions."
> As somebody who has spent many years teaching, I think that I can
answer
> that. You can never teach anybody anything - you can only help them to
> learn.
If this is truly the case, then all institutionalised art education
should have been replaced by a textbook - a hypothetical Art Students
Bible - fifty or sixty years ago. There would be no need to go to
classes, no need to cram for assignments, no need to shell out thousands
of dollars to be taught that you can't be taught.
That kind of message is as about as profound as the concept that a
canvas is flat. It doesn't take a genius to convey it.
> Of course, some people do best when they have somebody to guide them,
> others work best from books and others from experience, going to
school
> isn't the only route to knowledge or wisdom.
Of course, the answer is that the studio and atelier systems DID work,
that they DID teach something, and that they paved the way for many of
history's finest painters. Ignore the rudiments of technique as taught
by the studios of the masters, and everything that you have to teach can
be done on the blackboard - or in a textbook.
-- Iian Neill
tra...@pipeline.com
>
>
>> > Why waste time in school if you have to teach yourself?
>
>Because you get to hang out with the arty sect and call yourself an
>intellectual. Because you have a piece of paper on the wall that
>justifies your failure to succeed in worldly matters. Or maybe you're
>one of those pseudo-intellectuals that gets a turn on from postmodernist
>dialectic and likes to introduce quotes from Sartre or Husserl at dinner
>parties. Perhaps all of the above.
You Goodart Listers hardly behave like real intellectuals...if you
were you would have enough knowledge of the humanities to have
educated yourselves in the art of conversation, of how to debate
properly. Rather, you goodart people use the scheer weight of
numbers to stomp out anyone with a dissenting thought.....until they
leave your little toad pond. You are not in your toad pond here.
The rest of what you have to say about art education is all very
valid....and yes, I think the French Academicians were fit for
nothing more than the chocolate box. The reason I say so is that
I believe that both the Academicians and their blathering zealot
followers, AND the "modern"Abstract types missed something
vital, and that vital thing each side missed was not some
complimentary quality supplied by the other side.
The amount of black and white thinking amazes me.
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> The master transmitted something to his pupil, even if it was as basic
> as the manipulation of his tools, lessons in perspective, anatomical
> drawing, colour theory, or something as vague as an aesthetic ethos.
"I
> paint to perfect reality," for example, or, "I paint the world as it
> truly is, with no idealised illusions."
>
that the traditional way it has been applied wouldn't go down that well
with people today!
>
> > As somebody who has spent many years teaching, I think that I can
> answer
> > that. You can never teach anybody anything - you can only help them
to
> > learn.
>
> If this is truly the case, then all institutionalised art education
> should have been replaced by a textbook - a hypothetical Art Students
> Bible - fifty or sixty years ago. There would be no need to go to
> classes, no need to cram for assignments, no need to shell out
thousands
> of dollars to be taught that you can't be taught.
>
many textbooks, they don't give you a very broad view. However, access
to a good library is certainly a substitute for a good many theoretical
lectures - an improvement on them, in fact.
>
> That kind of message is as about as profound as the concept that a
> canvas is flat. It doesn't take a genius to convey it.
>
apprentice is a good method - a well known truism for many crafts.
>
> > Of course, some people do best when they have somebody to guide
them,
> > others work best from books and others from experience, going to
> school
> > isn't the only route to knowledge or wisdom.
>
> Of course, the answer is that the studio and atelier systems DID work,
> that they DID teach something, and that they paved the way for many of
> history's finest painters. Ignore the rudiments of technique as taught
> by the studios of the masters, and everything that you have to teach
can
> be done on the blackboard - or in a textbook.
>
would find the studios of the masters. Do you think that somebody would
benefit from watching Damion Hurst splatter paint on a wheel?
Of course, some institutions have avoided the hype. The Slade uses the
old methods and works pretty unchanged, though, of course, it is not
fossilised in its scope!
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
tra...@pipeline.com
Ian, the goodart list is nothing more than a cult, delivered via the
convenience of e-mail.
Intellectuals do not tend to hang out in cults.
Therefore, you are most likely NOT an intellectual, even if you
do have some art knowledge.
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:03:42 GMT, iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> > Why waste time in school if you have to teach yourself?
> >
> >Because you get to hang out with the arty sect and call yourself an
> >intellectual. Because you have a piece of paper on the wall that
> >justifies your failure to succeed in worldly matters. Or maybe you're
> >one of those pseudo-intellectuals that gets a turn on from
postmodernist
> >dialectic and likes to introduce quotes from Sartre or Husserl at
dinner
> >parties. Perhaps all of the above.
>
> You Goodart Listers hardly behave like real intellectuals...if you
> were you would have enough knowledge of the humanities to have
> educated yourselves in the art of conversation, of how to debate
> properly. Rather, you goodart people use the scheer weight of
> numbers to stomp out anyone with a dissenting thought.....until they
> leave your little toad pond. You are not in your toad pond here.
>
conformity - only the true British Artists (TM) are producing Art (TM) -
a form of strong arm marketing.
>
> The rest of what you have to say about art education is all very
> valid....and yes, I think the French Academicians were fit for
> nothing more than the chocolate box. The reason I say so is that
> I believe that both the Academicians and their blathering zealot
> followers, AND the "modern"Abstract types missed something
> vital, and that vital thing each side missed was not some
> complimentary quality supplied by the other side.
>
sides - where the artist has been less affected by the prevailing fog.
>
> The amount of black and white thinking amazes me.
>
sort - the less practice people have had with thinking, the more
monochrome their ideas will be. Having said that, there is no point
trying to invest simple ideas with multiple shades that they don't have
- a fault of continental philosophy.
Or to put it simply, to object to b&w thinking in itself can be as much
to throw out the baby with the bathwater as to object to the conformity
of the academy or the conformity of the 'modern' only.
iian_...@my-deja.com
> >> > Why waste time in school if you have to teach yourself?
> >
> >Because you get to hang out with the arty sect and call yourself an
> >intellectual. Because you have a piece of paper on the wall that
> >justifies your failure to succeed in worldly matters. Or maybe you're
> >one of those pseudo-intellectuals that gets a turn on from
postmodernist
> >dialectic and likes to introduce quotes from Sartre or Husserl at
dinner
> >parties. Perhaps all of the above.
>
> You Goodart Listers hardly behave like real intellectuals... if you
> were you would have enough knowledge of the humanities to have
> educated yourselves in the art of conversation, of how to debate
> properly. Rather, you goodart people use the scheer weight of
> numbers to stomp out anyone with a dissenting thought.....until they
> leave your little toad pond. You are not in your toad pond here.
Well, well ... seems I must have struck something of a nerve. If you
had remained longer on that mailing list you might have discovered that
it is host to many fine minds who know a lot more about the humanities
than either you or me. My conversations with members of that mailing
list - as with members on this newsgroup - has only served to increase
my feeling of respect for those who are truly steeped in art,
literature and music, and has whetted my thirst to learn more. It is a
pity that you left in such a hurry and - if you will excuse me for
saying so - with such bad grace, for being a member of that mailing
list has been an undoubtedly enriching experience for myself
personally, and for many others who have dropped by.
> The rest of what you have to say about art education is all very
> valid....and yes, I think the French Academicians were fit for
> nothing more than the chocolate box. The reason I say so is that
> I believe that both the Academicians and their blathering zealot
> followers, AND the "modern"Abstract types missed something
> vital, and that vital thing each side missed was not some
> complimentary quality supplied by the other side.
Now you have managed to surprise me. For this you have my sincerest
thanks. Surprise is one of the rarest forms of pleasure.
> The amount of black and white thinking amazes me.
You're not the only one who is amazed.
Best regards
-- Iian
iian_...@my-deja.com
> > If this is truly the case, then all institutionalised art education
> > should have been replaced by a textbook - a hypothetical Art
Students
> > Bible - fifty or sixty years ago. There would be no need to go to
> > classes, no need to cram for assignments, no need to shell out
> thousands
> > of dollars to be taught that you can't be taught.
> >
> Well, no. A textbook doesn't give you practice and, if you have seen
> many textbooks, they don't give you a very broad view. However, access
> to a good library is certainly a substitute for a good many
theoretical
> lectures - an improvement on them, in fact.
Granted that a textbook can't do your practise for you ... the question
still remains what role does the teacher play when his teaching can be
codified into a textbook and studied from home? Surely there is no
point in an artist having a teacher if there isn't something he can
learn from this teacher that a book cannot yet convey. Such as how to
seek out the form, how to give drawing a sculptural quality, how and
where to correct all of those little errors of judgement that creep
into a sketch, and to set the student on the right track.
It looks like my mistake was in assuming you said more than you really
did. Apologies if I read into it, but to me there was ambiguity in your
original post that left room for misjudgement.
> > That kind of message is as about as profound as the concept that a
> > canvas is flat. It doesn't take a genius to convey it.
> >
> It certainly doesn't. You confirm this, by pointing out that being an
> apprentice is a good method - a well known truism for many crafts.
Touché, Peter, touché. You caught me nodding off.
> > history's finest painters. Ignore the rudiments of technique as
taught
> > by the studios of the masters, and everything that you have to teach
> can
> > be done on the blackboard - or in a textbook.
> >
> Indeed, my point, I think, rather. The problem these days is where you
> would find the studios of the masters. Do you think that somebody
would
> benefit from watching Damion Hurst splatter paint on a wheel?
Well, I can only go by reputation and by what works I have seen on the
internet, but I imagine that the American Society for Classical Realism
would be one place to begin. That or to approach a fine artist
personally and convince him or her to take you on. Speaking personally,
I should very much like to learn from John Angel, Virgil Elliott, Odd
Nerdrum, Nelson Shanks, and probably a dozen others I've never heard
of. Damien Hurst would not be on the top of my list.
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Granted that a textbook can't do your practise for you ... the
question
> still remains what role does the teacher play when his teaching can be
> codified into a textbook and studied from home? Surely there is no
> point in an artist having a teacher if there isn't something he can
> learn from this teacher that a book cannot yet convey. Such as how to
> seek out the form, how to give drawing a sculptural quality, how and
> where to correct all of those little errors of judgement that creep
> into a sketch, and to set the student on the right track.
>
value. It isn't the knowledge or the practice that the teacher helps
with, it is assisting where the student has difficulty with
understanding or learning.
>
> It looks like my mistake was in assuming you said more than you really
> did. Apologies if I read into it, but to me there was ambiguity in
your
> original post that left room for misjudgement.
>
disambiguate most things.
>
> > > That kind of message is as about as profound as the concept that a
> > > canvas is flat. It doesn't take a genius to convey it.
> > >
> > It certainly doesn't. You confirm this, by pointing out that being
an
> > apprentice is a good method - a well known truism for many crafts.
>
> Touché, Peter, touché. You caught me nodding off.
>
to cut them into chunks.
>
> > > history's finest painters. Ignore the rudiments of technique as
> taught
> > > by the studios of the masters, and everything that you have to
teach
> > can
> > > be done on the blackboard - or in a textbook.
> > >
> > Indeed, my point, I think, rather. The problem these days is where
you
> > would find the studios of the masters. Do you think that somebody
> would
> > benefit from watching Damion Hurst splatter paint on a wheel?
>
> Well, I can only go by reputation and by what works I have seen on the
> internet, but I imagine that the American Society for Classical
Realism
> would be one place to begin. That or to approach a fine artist
> personally and convince him or her to take you on. Speaking
personally,
> I should very much like to learn from John Angel, Virgil Elliott, Odd
> Nerdrum, Nelson Shanks, and probably a dozen others I've never heard
> of. Damien Hurst would not be on the top of my list.
>
understand you to be saying, that an individual, rather than an
institution is probably the important thing.
Of course, some people are excellent at what they do, but hopeless at
communicating, so they make really, really bad teachers.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Yes, the essence is that it is interactive. That is why a teacher is
of
> value. It isn't the knowledge or the practice that the teacher helps
> with, it is assisting where the student has difficulty with
> understanding or learning.
Yes, we are completely in accord here. And this is precisely the kind
of teaching that is not only lacking in many art schools, but in
educational institutions generally. We could say that the problem stems
from an outmoded attitude to learning - "I teach, you sit there and
learn" - but I am more tempted to attribute it to the inadequacy of the
educational institutions to teach each and every individual. For a
student to get individual instruction these days he either has to be
especially smart or especially stupid. Either way he will be shunted
into a special class, whether imaginary or practical. Even factoring in
the sheer weight of the student population, though, it says something
about the Australian culture that teachers are not considered of vital
importance. I do not consider one teacher for every twenty or thirty
students a very adequate forum for learning. The only area I know of
where an almost ideal forum is established is with the private music
teacher; yet we all know that even here perfection is scarcely common.
The contemporary profession of private music teaching is probably the
closest thing today to the atmosphere of the old master studios.
> Of course, some people are excellent at what they do, but hopeless at
> communicating, so they make really, really bad teachers.
We could argue that this is where the strength of French Academics like
Bouguereau, Gleyre - as well as composers of the same period, like
Joachim Raff and Taneyev - lies. They were able to doctrinate their
students with an immensely complex body of knowledge, which served as
the cornerstone for such artists as Renoir, Manet and Degas. It has
been argued by Ives Gammell - the twentieth century equivalent of the
atelier professor - that the Impressionists were much less able to pass
on their techniques and insight; rather, their credos became slogans in
the hands of the next generation, who did not receive (or perhaps want)
the benefit of their Academy education.
But then, without researching the matter more thoroughly, how do we
know whether or not the system which produced Degas and Manet wasn't
actually superseded by individual instruction and encouragement by open-
minded professors. Professors like Gerome (in his later career) and
Gleyre were renowned for their tolerance of stylistic experiment in
their own pupils. Gerome's studio produced Odilon Redon after all.
-- Iian
Peter H.M. Brooks
active workforce to do a three or six month stint every ten years or so
- if they have the skills to teach, that is.
>
> > Of course, some people are excellent at what they do, but hopeless
at
> > communicating, so they make really, really bad teachers.
>
> We could argue that this is where the strength of French Academics
like
> Bouguereau, Gleyre - as well as composers of the same period, like
> Joachim Raff and Taneyev - lies. They were able to doctrinate their
> students with an immensely complex body of knowledge, which served as
> the cornerstone for such artists as Renoir, Manet and Degas. It has
> been argued by Ives Gammell - the twentieth century equivalent of the
> atelier professor - that the Impressionists were much less able to
pass
> on their techniques and insight; rather, their credos became slogans
in
> the hands of the next generation, who did not receive (or perhaps
want)
> the benefit of their Academy education.
>
is currently taught is exactly the same control of the message - only
now it is the message of mediocrity when before it was the message of
excellence.
>
> But then, without researching the matter more thoroughly, how do we
> know whether or not the system which produced Degas and Manet wasn't
> actually superseded by individual instruction and encouragement by
open-
> minded professors. Professors like Gerome (in his later career) and
> Gleyre were renowned for their tolerance of stylistic experiment in
> their own pupils. Gerome's studio produced Odilon Redon after all.
>
much more individual instruction. I agree that this is just my gut feel,
however.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
mdeli
Definitely Art!
Their work was absolutely on today's artzy fartzy professional level.
Perhaps someone here will find them on the net and compare their
output to Fox's work, which he churned out before firing his
chimpanzee assistant.
Of course they didn't show any drawings by the elephants but judging
from the paintings I suspect that they would be close to Alison's
*teach yourself experience" level.
I definitely believe that there should be a monkey room (their work is
superior) in the MOMA and all art students should be required to study
elephant art in order to get grades as good as Alison's.
I also suggest that Fox give a course in how to get the best artwork
out of a chimpanzee. This should certainly give any serious student
the avant garde post modern experience necessary to reach Fox's level
of achievement.
Mani DeLi
lake
in proximity to the master, surrounded by the master's ideas, and
working hard. Then a process of osmosis will occur.
Often the "master" will be simply a key symbol of a larger
spiritual/intellectual whirlpool of which the student partakes.
There is no way to dictate how art should be taught, there is no good
system for teaching art. Art, by its very nature lies at the edges of
all known systems. The minute you try to pin it down, it begins to die.
Good art is wild.
Peter H.M. Brooks
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> There is no way to dictate how art should be taught, there is no good
> system for teaching art. Art, by its very nature lies at the edges of
> all known systems. The minute you try to pin it down, it begins to
die.
> Good art is wild.
>
people make here, though not the majority. The current straitjacket of
conformity to the establishment view of art inhibits people who might
otherwise be good artists. If Tracy Ermin were able to exploit her real
talent and be rewarded for it, then she wouldn't have to do silly things
with tents and beds, to mention just one example.
tra...@pipeline.com
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 04:14:23 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> "Scarlett" wrote:
>> There is so much knowledge out there (about art) to be attained that
>>the most important think you may learn in college is how to go about
>>learning.
>
>Check out Scarlet"s miserable artwork and see how much her college has
>taught her.
>
>>But, I see on another thread that your favorite art magazines are
>>"American Artist" and "The Artist's Magazine" - both nice duck & fowl,
>>barnyard scenes and plenty of nature scene genre mags. You aren't even aware
>>of the enormity of information available.
>
>I presume you read Art Forum for the latest schmierer talk and
>inflated Artspeak gas. Little wonder Scarlet hates anything that
>contains skill and craft. She can't even draw a rock.
>
lake
been around for at least several centuries. It exists for reasons
independent of whatever style or philosophy it happens to be espousing
at the moment.
One theory is that it exists for biological, genetically-programmed
reasons. A sort of group-think-neccessity perhaps. A society where
everyone thought for themselves without regard for a common center of
gravity, would not be much of a society. It all has to do with borders
- the explanation and definition of.
Peter H.M. Brooks
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> The "straightjacket of conformity" isn't particularly current, it's
> been around for at least several centuries. It exists for reasons
> independent of whatever style or philosophy it happens to be espousing
> at the moment.
>
can't see through it.
>
> One theory is that it exists for biological, genetically-programmed
> reasons. A sort of group-think-neccessity perhaps. A society where
> everyone thought for themselves without regard for a common center of
> gravity, would not be much of a society. It all has to do with borders
> - the explanation and definition of.
>
vitality of a society depends on their being an elite that transcends
the standard conformity. Adolescents and students naturally conceive of
themselves as non-conformist, and they conform strongly to this
stereotype. Adults who can think outside the limits that appear to be
imposed by 'society' are highly valued and are generally absorbed into
one or other elite. Those who can't achieve this, but think that being
non-conformist involves adolescent protest against the establishment are
simply marginalised, if not at first, then eventually.
Lauri Levanto
...
> Perfectly true. As far as the majority is concerned, anyway. The
> vitality of a society depends on their being an elite that transcends
> the standard conformity.
You mean Übermenschen, the members of The Only Correct Party.
> Adolescents and students naturally conceive of
> themselves as non-conformist, and they conform strongly to this
> stereotype.
> Adults who can think outside the limits that appear to be
> imposed by 'society' are highly valued and are generally absorbed into
> one or other elite.
Only as far as the society can use them. Dissinents are never tolerated
by the elite.
> Those who can't achieve this, but think that being
> non-conformist involves adolescent protest against the establishment are
> simply marginalised, if not at first, then eventually.
True dissidents are feared, not marginalized, as they open alternatives.
Sometimes feared to the extentt that they become untouchable.
Vaclav Havels "brewery" illustrates that beautufully.
Non-coformists are marginalized as they are destructive,
only *against* establishment, not *for* something else.
-lauri
--
Seek the truth and avoid those who have found it
Peter H.M. Brooks
Lauri Levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> ...
> > Perfectly true. As far as the majority is concerned, anyway. The
> > vitality of a society depends on their being an elite that
transcends
> > the standard conformity.
>
> You mean Übermenschen, the members of The Only Correct Party.
>
wouldn't be members of the party you mention! In fact, the Only Correct
Party is generally wrong and not an elite at all.
>
> > Adolescents and students naturally conceive of
> > themselves as non-conformist, and they conform strongly to this
> > stereotype.
>
> > Adults who can think outside the limits that appear to be
> > imposed by 'society' are highly valued and are generally absorbed
into
> > one or other elite.
>
> Only as far as the society can use them. Dissinents are never
tolerated
> by the elite.
>
Some non-conformists are able to completely subvert the establishement
without ever offering direct dissent to the elite - it is often the best
way.
Anyway, toleration by the elite is not the object of the exercise,
support and encouragement by the elite is.
I fear that you are probably confusing the elite with 'those currently
in charge' - that is a profound confusion that pinkos often suffer.
Certainly in the current art world, those currently in charge are an
anti-elite, not by their own choice, though some of them would like to
pretend that.
>
> > Those who can't achieve this, but think that being
> > non-conformist involves adolescent protest against the establishment
are
> > simply marginalised, if not at first, then eventually.
>
> True dissidents are feared, not marginalized, as they open
alternatives.
> Sometimes feared to the extentt that they become untouchable.
> Vaclav Havels "brewery" illustrates that beautufully.
> Non-coformists are marginalized as they are destructive,
> only *against* establishment, not *for* something else.
>
Yes, I thought so! You are confusing the elite with the establishment.
It is nice that some people have such a touching faith and love of the
establishment that they should believe that it is truly an elite, but it
is an illusion.
Again, I can't account for 'non-coformists', but, as I have said,
non-conformists are not necessarily dissidents, nor are they necessarily
nihilists as you suggest. Actually nihilists are not really
non-conformists at all - certainly not given the current zeitgeist.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Beethoven was an innovator of form, Mozart an innovator of substance.
Lauri Levanto
- lauri