Cezanne Crit #1
Flying_Naked_People
This painting lacks any indication of unity and every subject therein appears
to have been placed in the artwork "just for the hell of it." What relation do
these subjects have with each other? We’ll never know because they’re placed
so far away from each other and lack any interaction at all. Cezanne
apparently didn’t care enough to engage his characters into some type of
dialogue, so why should anyone care about this piece? The red table is skewed,
out of proportion, and just plain crooked. The yellow fruit on the table
(again, having no relevance to the subject matter) is placed in a position
where it’s about to fall off. Cezanne attempted to show color and value to
indicate shadow in the white female, but lacked to show shadow in the table.
Why? This is inconsistency. The overall texture appears to lean toward
"squiggly lines," however, this texture is not repeated throughout. This is
inconsistency. What is that white mass the two ladies are "on?" Cezanne
attempted to represent real objects in the other objects, but the white mass
leaves us hanging as to what the hell it is. This is inconsistency. What is
that "thing" between the red table and the man’s legs? A mouse? It serves no
purpose - as it interacts with nothing. What ever it is, it must not have any
mass because it lacks a shadow, which Cezanne gave (almost) everything. This
is inconsistency. Why do the man’s legs not match the man’s upper body’s
proportion? These legs are inconsistent with the proportion of the rest of the
man! The man’s coat lacks the color and value variation Cezanne lent to the
white female. Why do some portions of this painting get to have color and
value variation, while others do not? Because it is inconsistent.
Erik A. Mattila
"A Modern Olympia" versions - this one a take on his earlier verson,
which might be more cohesive to you. What's interesting about this one
is the apparent influence of Japanese woodblocks which were being
marketed in France at the time (which impressed the impressionists so
much). I mean, if you compare A Modern Olympia 1870 with this one
(1874), it is pretty obvious that Cezanne was using the old painting to
explore some new ideas. You can see the original here:
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/cezanne/cezanne6.html
You might also want to look at Cezanne's jumping-off place, which of
course is Manet's 1865 Olympia, which is full of references to classical
art, renaissance nudes (Titian and Giorgione) and even Ingres. But
probably what interested Cezanne the most was that Manet's painting set
off a huge storm of controversy at the Salon in 1865 - so the subject
had a certain art political value. We need to explain, for example,
Cezanne's inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude
female body with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of
Cezanne's paintings. Apparently you missed this, as you state there is
no "dialog" between the characters. Well, at least voyeuerism is an
"anti-dialog."
Erik
Flying_Naked_People
nothing. His work will *still* be utterly Inconsistent.
In article <3EF78E9F...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
Flying_Naked_People
> Omygosh, Nerdgurl, you've got a problem with this. Cezanne painted two
> "A Modern Olympia" versions - this one a take on his earlier verson,
> which might be more cohesive to you. What's interesting about this one
> is the apparent influence of Japanese woodblocks which were being
> marketed in France at the time (which impressed the impressionists so
> much). I mean, if you compare A Modern Olympia 1870 with this one
> (1874), it is pretty obvious that Cezanne was using the old painting to
> explore some new ideas. You can see the original here:
> http://www.abcgallery.com/C/cezanne/cezanne6.html
Ok, here I am looking at the url. And as predicted, my crits stand the same.
Inconsistent use of line, color, and value. It’s absolutely ludicrous that the
steps that that man is sitting on are lit, while the man gets virtually no
light at all. The woman is too far back on the white padding, making it appear
as though she will fall on her fat ass at any time. And that "thing" in the
background that is supposed to be a sculpture? What is it holding?
Inconsistent realism. And for a man who is supposed to be into voyeurism, the
male figure in this painting sure is looking at anything but the naked chick.
I believe he is more interested in those orange draperies - which happen to be
pulled back by magic, rather than that yellow rope.
> You might also want to look at Cezanne's jumping-off place, which of
> course is Manet's 1865 Olympia, which is full of references to classical
> art, renaissance nudes (Titian and Giorgione) and even Ingres. But
> probably what interested Cezanne the most was that Manet's painting set
> off a huge storm of controversy at the Salon in 1865 - so the subject
> had a certain art political value. We need to explain, for example,
> Cezanne's inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude
> female body with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of
> Cezanne's paintings. Apparently you missed this, as you state there is
> no "dialog" between the characters. Well, at least voyeuerism is an
> "anti-dialog."
Looking, is a form of dialog, silent as it may be. The line of sight in either
one of these paintings suggests anything but communication.
> Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Flying_Naked_People wrote:
> Ok. I'll take a look see... however I predict that what I observe will change
> nothing. His work will *still* be utterly Inconsistent.
Well, heck, looking at the 'roots' of the painting won't make the
painting look any different to you, I think. I just wanted to make some
comment about what art criticism is and is not, I suppose.
A few years back I saw the work of a Korean web designer that on first
impression seemed to rattle me - I mean it looked like "anti-design" and
a violation of every principle of good design I could think of. I hated
it, but it really burned on my mind, and forced me to revist the site
and re-evaluate it. I ended up really liking it, but not because I was
wrong in my first impression. It was just that it was good enough for
me to expand my expectations a bit and consider things that were new to me.
I wasn't familiar at all with Cezanne's painting - but I thought it
rocked. Almost piece by piece, in your very "formalist" criticism
below, I don't see it the way you do. I see a very strong consistency,
great colors, a well developed narrative element, and most of all really
compelling brushwork. It all ties together for me - but I know that's
no reason to expect it to do the same for others. Seeing the earlier
work just made me realize that Cezanne was "pushing the envelope" and I
really do suspect that Japanese prints had a role.
Erik
Flying_Naked_People
> I wasn't familiar at all with Cezanne's painting - but I thought it
> rocked. Almost piece by piece, in your very "formalist" criticism
> below, I don't see it the way you do.
This is a very important point! Now when you say you don't see it the way I
do, is it a "vision" thing, where you literally don't see the flaws I pointed
out, or is it an interpretation thing, where you believe the flaws are not
flaws at all?
I remember seeing French hotels being glorified in fashion design magazines as
"beautiful" "charming" and "home-y"... you know, with the cracked paint, the
gritty tile, foggy mirrors, and the stained window sills? I laughed my ass off
when I later found an article that criticized these ads for passing off filthy
lodging as "It's French, so it's ok!"
> I see a very strong consistency,
> great colors, a well developed narrative element, and most of all really
> compelling brushwork.
So what's that mouse for?
> It all ties together for me - but I know that's
> no reason to expect it to do the same for others. Seeing the earlier
> work just made me realize that Cezanne was "pushing the envelope" and I
> really do suspect that Japanese prints had a role.
Yes, I can see a similarity in theme and in some choice of elements. However
Cezanne's treatment is crude and insulting. Japanese art is rather delicate,
you agree?
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3EF7987C...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
>>I wasn't familiar at all with Cezanne's painting - but I thought it
>>rocked. Almost piece by piece, in your very "formalist" criticism
>>below, I don't see it the way you do.
>
>
> This is a very important point! Now when you say you don't see it the way I
> do, is it a "vision" thing, where you literally don't see the flaws I pointed
> out, or is it an interpretation thing, where you believe the flaws are not
> flaws at all?
Yes, that's important. If you analyze your own "criticism" you'll see
that it all hinges on some expectations that you bring to the viewing,
which is your idea of what a painting ought to be. Don't misunderstand,
I'm not dissing you for this...it's what most people do. I can do this
also, but I don't, and that's just because of have four years of
graduate study in the history of art under my belt. It is impossible to
be an historian if you approach your material with a set of expectations
of how the material should be. That's the job of a propagandist.
>
> I remember seeing French hotels being glorified in fashion design magazines as
> "beautiful" "charming" and "home-y"... you know, with the cracked paint, the
> gritty tile, foggy mirrors, and the stained window sills? I laughed my ass off
> when I later found an article that criticized these ads for passing off filthy
> lodging as "It's French, so it's ok!"
I do hope you managed to retrieve your ass after that.
>>I see a very strong consistency,
>>great colors, a well developed narrative element, and most of all really
>>compelling brushwork.
>
> So what's that mouse for?
I don't know, but it would be fun to try to find out.
>>It all ties together for me - but I know that's
>>no reason to expect it to do the same for others. Seeing the earlier
>>work just made me realize that Cezanne was "pushing the envelope" and I
>>really do suspect that Japanese prints had a role.
>
> Yes, I can see a similarity in theme and in some choice of elements. However
> Cezanne's treatment is crude and insulting. Japanese art is rather delicate,
> you agree?
Insulting? Come on - you're being melodramatic. Some Japanese art is
delicate, and some isn't. But again, you're projecting your
expectations. The Impressionists were under no compunction to play with
anything else beside the composition of the Asian prints they saw, which
was quite different than what they were used to seeing in European art.
BTW, Wayne Thibaud uses "Chinese Perspective" - especially in his San
Francisco paintings that give you that steep hill anxiety. It's very
subtle.
Erik
>
Flying_Naked_People
>
> Yes, that's important. If you analyze your own "criticism" you'll see
> that it all hinges on some expectations that you bring to the viewing,
> which is your idea of what a painting ought to be. Don't misunderstand,
> I'm not dissing you for this...it's what most people do. I can do this
> also, but I don't, and that's just because of have four years of
> graduate study in the history of art under my belt. It is impossible to
> be an historian if you approach your material with a set of expectations
> of how the material should be. That's the job of a propagandist.
Now you’re being melodramatic. I am in no position to be a propagandist. If
you’ll try to understand my crits, you’ll see that all I’m asking for is
evidence of intent. *I* (as a viewer) want to *know* that an artist meant to
do what s/he did. When contradictions of this intent exist (within a single
work of art) the work is a mistake.
> > I remember seeing French hotels being glorified in fashion design
magazines as
> > "beautiful" "charming" and "home-y"... you know, with the cracked paint,
the
> > gritty tile, foggy mirrors, and the stained window sills? I laughed my ass
off
> > when I later found an article that criticized these ads for passing off
filthy
> > lodging as "It's French, so it's ok!"
> I do hope you managed to retrieve your ass after that.
Why? It’s the truth. I didn't write the ads or the article.
> >
> > Yes, I can see a similarity in theme and in some choice of elements.
However
> > Cezanne's treatment is crude and insulting. Japanese art is rather
delicate,
> > you agree?
>
> Insulting? Come on - you're being melodramatic. Some Japanese art is
> delicate, and some isn't. But again, you're projecting your
> expectations. The Impressionists were under no compunction to play with
> anything else beside the composition of the Asian prints they saw, which
Ø was quite different than what they were used to seeing in European art.
I think that if you’re going to steal another’s style, you ought to have the
decency, the honor, and the respect to emulate the style as best you can. And
give due credit!
> BTW, Wayne Thibaud uses "Chinese Perspective" - especially in his San
> Francisco paintings that give you that steep hill anxiety. It's very
Ø subtle.
Chinese perspective is interesting…
>
> Erik
>
> >
>
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3EF7A179...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
>>Yes, that's important. If you analyze your own "criticism" you'll see
>>that it all hinges on some expectations that you bring to the viewing,
>>which is your idea of what a painting ought to be. Don't misunderstand,
>>I'm not dissing you for this...it's what most people do. I can do this
>>also, but I don't, and that's just because of have four years of
>>graduate study in the history of art under my belt. It is impossible to
>>be an historian if you approach your material with a set of expectations
>>of how the material should be. That's the job of a propagandist.
>
>
> Now you’re being melodramatic. I am in no position to be a propagandist.
Yes, as I said, if a historian brought a package of his/her expectations
to the table and intrepreted evidence on that basis, it would be
propaganda. I am not accusing you of being a historian. (But I don't
see how you would see such a statement as "melodramatic.")
>If
> you’ll try to understand my crits, you’ll see that all I’m asking for is
> evidence of intent. *I* (as a viewer) want to *know* that an artist meant to
> do what s/he did. When contradictions of this intent exist (within a single
> work of art) the work is a mistake.
Which was why I referred you to the previous "Olympias." This is the
only way you're going to find any evidence of intent. The problem with
trying to find this evidence within the formal aspects of a painting
is that you cannot determine if the artist actually intended to do the
things you are dissing, or if the artist just was a fuck-up. You
haven't addressed this at all, and when you compare Olympia #2 with #1
it becomes pretty obvious that he did intend to do what you are
evaluating as a "mistake." That is generally known as an "invalid
criticism." You know, like criticizing Matel for manufacturing Barbie
Dolls instead of dog food.
Flying_Naked_People
> >If
> > you’ll try to understand my crits, you’ll see that all I’m asking for is
> > evidence of intent. *I* (as a viewer) want to *know* that an artist meant
to
> > do what s/he did. When contradictions of this intent exist (within a
single
> > work of art) the work is a mistake.
>
> Which was why I referred you to the previous "Olympias." This is the
> only way you're going to find any evidence of intent.
No it isn't. Consistency belongs in a single painting, drawing,.. whatever.
This is a basic principle of art - it brings unity to a (1) piece. There is no
need to look at two different artworks to determine this.
> The problem with
> trying to find this evidence within the formal aspects of a painting
> is that you cannot determine if the artist actually intended to do the
> things you are dissing, or if the artist just was a fuck-up. You
> haven't addressed this at all,
I *have* pointed out the lack of intention in Cezanne's work (repeatedly) via
his inconsistency. If the Cezanne intended for these mistakes to exist, they
would have been emphasized through repetition. As it stands, each mistake of
his is singing solo.
> and when you compare Olympia #2 with #1
> it becomes pretty obvious that he did intend to do what you are
> evaluating as a "mistake."
Actually, he made a new set of mistakes in Olympia #2. Lonely ones.
Andrew D
[snip]
>Yes, that's important. If you analyze your own "criticism" you'll see
>that it all hinges on some expectations that you bring to the viewing,
>which is your idea of what a painting ought to be. Don't misunderstand,
>I'm not dissing you for this...it's what most people do. I can do this
>also, but I don't, and that's just because of have four years of
>graduate study in the history of art under my belt. It is impossible to
>be an historian if you approach your material with a set of expectations
>of how the material should be. That's the job of a propagandist.
Without belief, expectation, understanding and standards there is no basis
for criticism or appreciation since there can be no guiding principles on
which to base either.
As always, this discussion hinges on the founding principles by which any
art can be assessed. Some believe them to revolve around solid
craftsmanship and sound drawing while others look only for that which
"breaks new ground" - and this usually means the abandonment of
craftsmanship and drawing.
Since the pair of you clearly come from different starting points and are
obviously walking in different directions, it's unlikely you'll ever meet.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3EF7C4FC...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>> >If
>>
>>>you’ll try to understand my crits, you’ll see that all I’m asking for is
>>>evidence of intent. *I* (as a viewer) want to *know* that an artist meant
>>
> to
>
>>>do what s/he did. When contradictions of this intent exist (within a
>>
> single
>
>>>work of art) the work is a mistake.
>>
>>Which was why I referred you to the previous "Olympias." This is the
>>only way you're going to find any evidence of intent.
>
>
> No it isn't. Consistency belongs in a single painting, drawing,.. whatever.
> This is a basic principle of art - it brings unity to a (1) piece. There is no
> need to look at two different artworks to determine this.
Actually, Voltaire wrote "Consistency is found in realms above" while
Lao Tsu wrote "The only constant is change."
>
>
>>The problem with
>> trying to find this evidence within the formal aspects of a painting
>>is that you cannot determine if the artist actually intended to do the
>>things you are dissing, or if the artist just was a fuck-up. You
>>haven't addressed this at all,
>
>
> I *have* pointed out the lack of intention in Cezanne's work (repeatedly) via
> his inconsistency. If the Cezanne intended for these mistakes to exist, they
> would have been emphasized through repetition. As it stands, each mistake of
> his is singing solo.
You've done no more than make a claim, (insert your name here). It
doesn't convince me. I think both works are neatly consistent in and of
themselves, and other issue like skewed coffee tables that you have
raised strike me as superficial. Of course, if you worry about those
sort of things, more power to you.
>>and when you compare Olympia #2 with #1
>>it becomes pretty obvious that he did intend to do what you are
>>evaluating as a "mistake."
> Actually, he made a new set of mistakes in Olympia #2. Lonely ones.
So you would dis Matel for failing to manufacturer dog food.
Hmmmm...strange.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EF7F51B...@oco.net...
>
>
> So you would dis Matel for failing to manufacturer dog food.
> Hmmmm...strange.
>
In English, 'dis' is short for distribute as printer's slang, or is short
for disconnect.
There is also the US ghetto slang abbreviation for 'disrespect' (apparently
connected with the theory that high levels of murder in the US, and the
Southern States in particular, are connected with an overly easily punctured
feeling of esteem).
To criticise somebody is to respect them, at least enough to consider that
they have sufficient merit to warrant the attention, to interest the
audience, and, maybe, even the wit to improve as a result of the criticism.
Not even to bother to criticise something is to show it no respect.
I know that this is not directly related to Cezanne, but I do find it a
curious usage.
Flying_Naked_People
> Actually, Voltaire wrote "Consistency is found in realms above" while
> Lao Tsu wrote "The only constant is change."
Voltaire is correct. :-P
> You've done no more than make a claim, (insert your name here). It
> doesn't convince me. I think both works are neatly consistent in and of
> themselves,
What does that mean, exactly? "In and of themselves" I've outlined what I call
inconsistent, can you outline what you call consistent? (In a Cezanne please).
> and other issue like skewed coffee tables that you have
> raised strike me as superficial. Of course, if you worry about those
> sort of things, more power to you.
So it doesn't matter then, to you, that things are out of proportion??? Are
you saying that the principles of art are superficial???
> So you would dis Matel for failing to manufacturer dog food.
> Hmmmm...strange.
Don't do that.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3EF7A179...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Yes, that's important. If you analyze your own "criticism" you'll see
>>that it all hinges on some expectations that you bring to the viewing,
>>which is your idea of what a painting ought to be. Don't misunderstand,
>>I'm not dissing you for this...it's what most people do. I can do this
>>also, but I don't, and that's just because of have four years of
>>graduate study in the history of art under my belt. It is impossible to
>>be an historian if you approach your material with a set of expectations
>>of how the material should be. That's the job of a propagandist.
>
>
> Without belief, expectation, understanding and standards there is no basis
> for criticism or appreciation since there can be no guiding principles on
> which to base either.
Well, I'm talking about expectations - and you're reciting some sort of
litany of things you think are necessary for criticism. I don't quite
know how to respond, and I'm not sure it's even responsive to what I
wrote.
Regardless, if you "criticize" a painting because it doesn't do
something some other painting did, you are merely saying x is not y, no
matter how much hyperbole you append to your argument. However, if you
argue that there is a compelling reason that the painting +should+ do
something another painting does, and fails to do it, then that's another
matter. But somewhere in the process you need to producing something
that is aguable. If I write "I do not like this painting" or "I prefer
painting x to painting y"...well, that's not really arguable, is it?
> As always, this discussion hinges on the founding principles by which any
> art can be assessed. Some believe them to revolve around solid
> craftsmanship and sound drawing while others look only for that which
> "breaks new ground" - and this usually means the abandonment of
> craftsmanship and drawing.
This discussion actually hinges on what a "criticism" is, in my opinion.
there's no real mystery about how art can be assessed. We like
paintings, and we dislike paintings. Some are meaningful to us, and
some are not.
> Since the pair of you clearly come from different starting points and are
> obviously walking in different directions, it's unlikely you'll ever meet.
That's what sharing ideas is all about. I certainly don't expect
opponents in an interesting debate to throw in the towel. The value of
it is that we each get to test our ideas in a public forum. Just
organizing your thoughts about a particular subject can be trememdously
valuable - you know, clarifying fuzzy ideas you may hold for the sake of
argument - where you otherwise might have never clarified them at all.
hehehehe...I remember a heated debate on this ng several years ago,
where I was arguing with the belief that Pierre Menard really did
re-invent Don Quixote - as Borges wrote about. It was an innocent error
- I had read his essay out of context - in some anthology rather than
Borges' "Labyrinth" - plus, I am gullible by nature. It was first
embarassing, then hilarious. But I'm glad to know that the work was
fiction.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EF7F51B...@oco.net...
>
>>
>>So you would dis Matel for failing to manufacturer dog food.
>>Hmmmm...strange.
>>
>
> Interesting etymology, you appear to use the word 'dis' to mean criticise.
>
> In English, 'dis' is short for distribute as printer's slang, or is short
> for disconnect.
>
> There is also the US ghetto slang abbreviation for 'disrespect' (apparently
> connected with the theory that high levels of murder in the US, and the
> Southern States in particular, are connected with an overly easily punctured
> feeling of esteem).
Yes, that's it...but I think you're defining it too narrowly (it's a
hard point to argue...I mean your OED may possibly be unhelpful.) At
any rate, I think "dis" broadly means "put down" "discredit" etc. as
well as "disrespeck."
> To criticise somebody is to respect them, at least enough to consider that
> they have sufficient merit to warrant the attention, to interest the
> audience, and, maybe, even the wit to improve as a result of the criticism.
> Not even to bother to criticise something is to show it no respect.
Of course, but there's a bone of contention about the word itself - and
I think "criticism" in "Art Criticism" or "Theory and Criticism" has a
special nuance that doesn't apply to everyday street language. "I'm
sick and tired of you criticising me all the time!" I think it leans
more to the "Critique" of philosophy. A "critique" was never intended
to be an account of the author's likes and dislikes.
> I know that this is not directly related to Cezanne, but I do find it a
> curious usage.
I actually like the term - even if I misuse it. If it means what I
think it means, then it's good. (what a powerful argument, eh?) As an
aside, the "history of science" author Hilary Putnam wrote some stuff on
the "stereotype" that I found fascinating. Rather than discrediting
stereotyping as Walter Lipman did, calling it a "dumming down" language
corruption, Putnam argued that it was an example of language efficiency
- packing a lot of information into the shortest utterance possible.
Maybe that's why Dante chose Mantuan vernaclar...he knew he had a lot to
say and wanted a more efficient way of saying it.
Erik
>
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3EF7F51B...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
>>Actually, Voltaire wrote "Consistency is found in realms above" while
>>Lao Tsu wrote "The only constant is change."
>
>
> Voltaire is correct. :-P
>
>
>>You've done no more than make a claim, (insert your name here). It
>>doesn't convince me. I think both works are neatly consistent in and of
>>themselves,
>
>
> What does that mean, exactly? "In and of themselves"
"In and of themselves" is just another way of saying "inconsistent in
theirselves" or whatever exactly your wrote.
I've outlined what I call
> inconsistent, can you outline what you call consistent? (In a Cezanne please).
I already have - or at least to the degree that I care to - you
remember, brush work, contrapuntalism, and so on. Remember, I don't
value "consistency" the way you do. It's sort of a non-issue with me.
Except I think it's fun to identify inconsistencies in movies, like on
one cut the guy has a red tie, and on another its blue. But then Peter
Greenaway comes along and has peoples clothing change colors as they
walk from room to room.
"Man, that Greenaway FAILED as a filmmaker because he was internally
inconsistent - while Walt Disney triumphed because he was!"
>>and other issue like skewed coffee tables that you have
>>raised strike me as superficial. Of course, if you worry about those
>>sort of things, more power to you.
>
>
> So it doesn't matter then, to you, that things are out of proportion??? Are
> you saying that the principles of art are superficial???
Principles of art???? You're joking. In case you're not joking, however,
my answer is "absolutely not" - it does not matter to me one bit. If it
did, I couldn't like: (fill in a list of 10,000 artists here, begining
with the sculptor of the Venus of Walendorf and ending with Oingo
Boingo.) But you know that already...anyone who appreciated Cezanne's
paintings couldn't be so anal retentive as to worry about the sacred
principles of art.
>>So you would dis Matel for failing to manufacturer dog food.
>>Hmmmm...strange.
>
>
> Don't do that.
Don't do what?
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EF7F51B...@oco.net...
> >
> >>
> >>So you would dis Matel for failing to manufacturer dog food.
> >>Hmmmm...strange.
> >>
> >
> > Interesting etymology, you appear to use the word 'dis' to mean
criticise.
> >
> > In English, 'dis' is short for distribute as printer's slang, or is
short
> > for disconnect.
> >
> > There is also the US ghetto slang abbreviation for 'disrespect'
(apparently
> > connected with the theory that high levels of murder in the US, and the
> > Southern States in particular, are connected with an overly easily
punctured
> > feeling of esteem).
>
> Yes, that's it...but I think you're defining it too narrowly (it's a
> hard point to argue...I mean your OED may possibly be unhelpful.) At
> any rate, I think "dis" broadly means "put down" "discredit" etc. as
> well as "disrespeck."
>
>
> > To criticise somebody is to respect them, at least enough to consider
that
> > they have sufficient merit to warrant the attention, to interest the
> > audience, and, maybe, even the wit to improve as a result of the
criticism.
> > Not even to bother to criticise something is to show it no respect.
>
> Of course, but there's a bone of contention about the word itself - and
> I think "criticism" in "Art Criticism" or "Theory and Criticism" has a
> special nuance that doesn't apply to everyday street language. "I'm
> sick and tired of you criticising me all the time!" I think it leans
> more to the "Critique" of philosophy. A "critique" was never intended
> to be an account of the author's likes and dislikes.
>
person, it is true, but criticism none the less. An art critique, or
criticism, also ought to be directed at the work, not the person.
Of course, if you hold the theory dear then a critique might also be
upsetting.
>
> > I know that this is not directly related to Cezanne, but I do find it a
> > curious usage.
>
> I actually like the term - even if I misuse it. If it means what I
> think it means, then it's good. (what a powerful argument, eh?) As an
> aside, the "history of science" author Hilary Putnam wrote some stuff on
> the "stereotype" that I found fascinating. Rather than discrediting
> stereotyping as Walter Lipman did, calling it a "dumming down" language
> corruption, Putnam argued that it was an example of language efficiency
> - packing a lot of information into the shortest utterance possible.
>
Absolutely! We use stereotypes all the time, they are essential to normal
thinking. The idea that there is anything wrong with them is a peculiar
piece of PC double-think. Some stereotypes, as the generalisations that they
are, will be out of date (daft hey-wow types mainly don't say 'groovy' these
days) and need revision, but this does not mean that all stereotypes are
bad.
As usual, since PC speak is a form of Orwellian Newspeak, the attempt to
control people is what matters to them - if they can stereotype the users of
stereotypes as evil and it suits their purposes then they will stereotype
with the best of them.
>
> Maybe that's why Dante chose Mantuan vernaclar...he knew he had a lot to
> say and wanted a more efficient way of saying it.
>
Stereotypes naturally occur in all language, not just the venacular, so I
doubt it would help with that - though it would have more immediate appeal
and impact.
--
Only very sophisticated organisms like philosophers fail to be naive
realists! - David H.M. Brooks How to Solve the Hard Problem: A Predictable
Inexplicability 1999
Flying_Naked_People
> Principles of art???? You're joking. In case you're not joking, however,
> my answer is "absolutely not" - it does not matter to me one bit. If it
> did, I couldn't like: (fill in a list of 10,000 artists here, begining
> with the sculptor of the Venus of Walendorf and ending with Oingo
> Boingo.) But you know that already...anyone who appreciated Cezanne's
> paintings couldn't be so anal retentive as to worry about the sacred
> principles of art.
I'm speechless. Just speechless!
Well, at least you called them (principles) sacred.
> >>So you would dis Matel for failing to manufacturer dog food.
> >>Hmmmm...strange.
> >
> >
> > Don't do that.
>
> Don't do what?
Put words in my mouth. I don't care about Mattel at the moment. I have a
headache and my eye hurts.
Andrew D
>Andrew D wrote:
[snip]
>> Since the pair of you clearly come from different starting points and are
>> obviously walking in different directions, it's unlikely you'll ever meet.
>That's what sharing ideas is all about. I certainly don't expect
>opponents in an interesting debate to throw in the towel. The value of
>it is that we each get to test our ideas in a public forum. Just
>organizing your thoughts about a particular subject can be trememdously
>valuable - you know, clarifying fuzzy ideas you may hold for the sake of
>argument - where you otherwise might have never clarified them at all.
It would be more interesting if if your counter-arguments contained
something more substantial than "I beg to differ".
Erik A. Mattila
I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean?
Erik
Seagull Manager
some new ideas.
Yes, he's trying his hand at Impressionism.
> You might also want to look at Cezanne's jumping-off place, which of
> course is Manet's 1865 Olympia, which is full of references to classical
> art, renaissance nudes (Titian and Giorgione) and even Ingres.
Also? Instead!
Cezanne found an interesting jumping-off place, and jumped off into an ugly
morass.
Referring to good paintings does not by itself make your work good.
> But probably what interested Cezanne the most was that Manet's painting
set
> off a huge storm of controversy at the Salon in 1865 - so the subject
> had a certain art political value.
Taking a painting that caused scandal, and doing, in effect, a painting of
that painting, does not automatically buy your own work the same
newsworthiness.
> We need to explain, for example,
> Cezanne's inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude
> female body with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of
> Cezanne's paintings.
How do you know the guy looking at the painting is "middle class", and not
rich, or a bohemian brushed up for the occasion of a visit to the Salon? The
man, with his dark, wavy hair, somewhat resembles Cezanne himself; have you
considered that the picture could be a self-portrait? Why do you
characterize the viewer as a "voyeur", knowing the negative affect of that
word, when he might instead be an "appreciator" of the painting? In what
sense do you suppose he is "colonizing" the nude, and how does Cezanne
portray that fact, if he does?
> Apparently you missed this, as you state there is
> no "dialog" between the characters. Well, at least voyeuerism is an
> "anti-dialog."
Nothing has been carelessly missed. Unlike your pseudo-criticism above, FNP
concentrates on what is present in the painting, and shows up its formal
aesthetic failures.
Seagull Manager
>
> If you analyze your own "criticism" you'll see
> that it all hinges on some expectations that you bring to the viewing,
> which is your idea of what a painting ought to be.
Whereas your criticism, Erik, is absurdly generous wrt formal and depictive
values (it will tolerate simply *anything*, and regard all as essentially
equal) just so long as the work under consideration places itself in history
near the front of the stream of the "modern", and is, or appears to be, or
can be read as being, politically "correct".
> Don't misunderstand,
> I'm not dissing you for this...it's what most people do.
You may choose not to diss FNP, but I consider your approach to criticism
highly deserving of a good dissing, because I think it is aesthetically
worse than useless - it is damaging to art practice. The extreme
overemphasis of history over all other values in art means that all other
values fall by the wayside (ambitious artists find the effort of sustaining
those values not worthwhile, because it buys nothing with critics of your
type, and critics of your type are predominant right now).
> I can do this
> also, but I don't, and that's just because of have four years of
> graduate study in the history of art under my belt.
That's your problem, right there.
> It is impossible to
> be an historian if you approach your material with a set of expectations
> of how the material should be.
Which is why art historians should be strongly discouraged from practising
art criticism, or at least impressed with the need to set aside their
historicist bias in such criticism.
> That's the job of a propagandist.
No, formal values and effectiveness of depiction are core to the value of
all art that is of any aesthetic worth. Stylistic innovation, by contrast,
is of trivial worth. It is propagandists who have set aside the core values
in favour of novelty. It is propagandist to insist on ignoring those values.
Sure, those values are socially embedded, and to some degree subject to
change. This does not mean they count for nothing. Far from it. Criticism
without taste is no criticism at all, just a mockery of the process.
Seagull Manager
> >
> > Without belief, expectation, understanding and standards there is no
basis
> > for criticism or appreciation since there can be no guiding principles
on
> > which to base either.
>
> Well, I'm talking about expectations - and you're reciting some sort of
> litany of things you think are necessary for criticism. I don't quite
> know how to respond, and I'm not sure it's even responsive to what I
> wrote.
You can respond by acknowledging that the word "criticism" carries the
meaning "evaluation", which entails *values*. You can go on to admit that
criticism without values is a contradiction in terms. When you have done
that, you will arrive at the realization that to say someone is criticizing
from a given set of "expectations" is vacuous (all genuine criticism
involves "expectations"). You can also wake up to the fact that to attempt
to criticize without applying one's values would be an act of profound,
blind stupidity.
> Regardless, if you "criticize" a painting because it doesn't do
> something some other painting did, you are merely saying x is not y, no
> matter how much hyperbole you append to your argument.
Irrelevant. That's not what the criticism you're criticising does.
> However, if you
> argue that there is a compelling reason that the painting +should+ do
> something another painting does, and fails to do it, then that's another
> matter.
In criticism, there's generally no need to argue that there is a "compelling
reason" that a painting should do something in particular. It can usually be
taken as a tacit assumption, since to even *begin* criticizing a painting,
one needs an idea of what distinguishes good painting from bad, and the
basics of this idea need to be shared between critic and audience.
> But somewhere in the process you need to producing something
> that is aguable. If I write "I do not like this painting" or "I prefer
> painting x to painting y"...well, that's not really arguable, is it?
Yes, these things are arguable, and some arguments count for more than
others. For instance, if I argue that I don't like a particular Rembrandt
because it is "too brown", and I prefer blue, or I don't like a Bierstadt
because I like pictures of people, I am offering arguments of small weight,
because the Rembrandt and the Bierstadt have many other merits that can
compensate for lack of blueness or people, and good criticism takes a wide
range of possible sources of aesthetic value into account, rather than just
blueness or population count.
> This discussion actually hinges on what a "criticism" is, in my opinion.
> there's no real mystery about how art can be assessed. We like
> paintings, and we dislike paintings. Some are meaningful to us, and
> some are not.
Some paintings are meaningful to no-one. Some paintings are liked by no-one.
Some paintings are liked, often intensely, by nearly everyone who enjoys
looking at paintings. And some paintings speak volumes. Criticism is about
discovering what factors intrinsic to the works themselves distinguish the
liked from the unliked, and appraising individual works in light of those
factors. (It may also bring other values, such as moral ones, into
consideration.)
Seagull Manager
> when you compare Olympia #2 with #1
> it becomes pretty obvious that he did intend to do what you are
> evaluating as a "mistake."
He intended the overall composition. That's plain. He lacked the visual
intelligence to make it cohere, though. And that is plain in both his Modern
Olympias, and in ALL his painting.
Seagull Manager
>
> and other issue like skewed coffee tables that you have
> raised strike me as superficial.
They are as superficial as painting is superficial. If you depict a coffee
table, and you draw it askew, that MATTERS. Just as good essayist and
novelist try not to misuse words without a clear, discernable reason, so
good painters don't deviate from straightforward depiction without a
recognizable purpose.
Seagull Manager
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:bd970m$drc$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> Absolutely! We use stereotypes all the time, they are essential to normal
> thinking. The idea that there is anything wrong with them is a peculiar
> piece of PC double-think.
If a person sticks rigidly to them in the face of contrary evidence, then
they become wrong, for that person (and perhaps those around him/her).
That's not a problem with stereotypes, as such, however, but with excessive
rigidity of thought.
Seagull Manager
> > What does that mean, exactly? "In and of themselves"
>
> "In and of themselves" is just another way of saying "inconsistent in
> theirselves" or whatever exactly your wrote.
In other words, another way of stating your position without defending it.
> Remember, I don't
> value "consistency" the way you do. It's sort of a non-issue with me.
> Except I think it's fun to identify inconsistencies in movies, like on
> one cut the guy has a red tie, and on another its blue. But then Peter
> Greenaway comes along and has peoples clothing change colors as they
> walk from room to room.
>
> "Man, that Greenaway FAILED as a filmmaker because he was internally
> inconsistent - while Walt Disney triumphed because he was!"
So, in the cinema you can tell a continuity error from a deliberate,
aesthetically motivated, deviation from convention that is aimed to both
surprise and please.
Meanwhile, when you look at a painting, you refuse even to acknowledge that
a distinction between error and effect exist, and you refuse to SEE the
glaring errors in Cezanne's paintings!
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bdcapv$ig2$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Also, though stereotypes are hugely valuable in giving some handle on what
to expect they are only that - once an individual instantiation of a
stereotype is encountered it has to be tackled as an individual
instantiation and so understood. After that the initial stereotype may be
refined.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Erik A. Mattila
>>it is pretty obvious that Cezanne was using the old painting to explore
>
> some new ideas.
>
> Yes, he's trying his hand at Impressionism.
Looks to me it was Japanese prints that had his attention. It's just a
speculation based on appearance. But also based on appearance, it
doesn't really look like Impressionism. Are you just using the term as
a handy perjorative?
>>You might also want to look at Cezanne's jumping-off place, which of
>>course is Manet's 1865 Olympia, which is full of references to classical
>>art, renaissance nudes (Titian and Giorgione) and even Ingres.
>
>
> Also? Instead!
non-responsive.
>
> Cezanne found an interesting jumping-off place, and jumped off into an ugly
> morass.
>
> Referring to good paintings does not by itself make your work good.
Please consider that you are the one that is hung-up on the good/bad
syndrome. It's doesn't mean much to me, especially in this context.
"Olympia" is just a theme that's been around for a long time. It's sort
of a "test pattern" of Western Painting.
>>But probably what interested Cezanne the most was that Manet's painting
>
> set
>
>>off a huge storm of controversy at the Salon in 1865 - so the subject
>>had a certain art political value.
>
>
> Taking a painting that caused scandal, and doing, in effect, a painting of
> that painting, does not automatically buy your own work the same
> newsworthiness.
So? What's that got to do with anything?
>>We need to explain, for example,
>>Cezanne's inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude
>>female body with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of
>>Cezanne's paintings.
>
>
> How do you know the guy looking at the painting is "middle class", and not
> rich, or a bohemian brushed up for the occasion of a visit to the Salon? The
> man, with his dark, wavy hair, somewhat resembles Cezanne himself; have you
> considered that the picture could be a self-portrait? Why do you
> characterize the viewer as a "voyeur", knowing the negative affect of that
> word, when he might instead be an "appreciator" of the painting? In what
> sense do you suppose he is "colonizing" the nude, and how does Cezanne
> portray that fact, if he does?
Are you saying Cezanne wasn't middle class? But actually, I like your
self-portrait idea. As for the rest, the female nude in Western art has
always been an expression of sexual politics.
>>Apparently you missed this, as you state there is
>>no "dialog" between the characters. Well, at least voyeuerism is an
>>"anti-dialog."
>
> Nothing has been carelessly missed. Unlike your pseudo-criticism above, FNP
> concentrates on what is present in the painting, and shows up its formal
> aesthetic failures.
Not to me, she don't. But I'll concede this much, the painting looks
like an experiment to me - it's rather unique in Cezanne's works.
Aesthetically, however, I rather like the painting.
Erik
>
>
Flying_Naked_People
> As for the rest, the female nude in Western art has
> always been an expression of sexual politics.
>
Can you explain that, in relation to the nude female expressed in ancient art?
Or, what prompted the association with politics regarding the nude female in
Western art, when the nude female was always a spiritual representation in
ancient times?
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EF7A179...@oco.net...
>
>> If you analyze your own "criticism" you'll see
>>that it all hinges on some expectations that you bring to the viewing,
>>which is your idea of what a painting ought to be.
>
>
> Whereas your criticism, Erik, is absurdly generous wrt formal and depictive
> values (it will tolerate simply *anything*, and regard all as essentially
> equal) just so long as the work under consideration places itself in history
> near the front of the stream of the "modern", and is, or appears to be, or
> can be read as being, politically "correct".
You're jumping to conclusions. I would take the same stance with regard
to Piero's or Alley Oop's art. I happen to believe that an individual's
taste and preference are wonderful, and that each of us should follow
our lucky stars.
But I'm willing to challenge autocratic declarations about good and bad,
success and failure and so on. There are some works of art that I
really do dislike. I just don't think that's a legitimate basis for
developing a uniform field theory of art evaluation.
>>Don't misunderstand,
>>I'm not dissing you for this...it's what most people do.
>
> You may choose not to diss FNP, but I consider your approach to criticism
> highly deserving of a good dissing, because I think it is aesthetically
> worse than useless - it is damaging to art practice. The extreme
> overemphasis of history over all other values in art means that all other
> values fall by the wayside (ambitious artists find the effort of sustaining
> those values not worthwhile, because it buys nothing with critics of your
> type, and critics of your type are predominant right now).
Fantastic. I'm glad I'm finally among your conspirator's list, working
my evil to dupe humanity into forfeiting their right to art. I have
arrived.
But you need to address one flaw in your thinking: these "all other
values" you are citing are not about art, they are about politics. The
distinguish mark that makes me say this is that you frame your whole
argument in hegemonic terms - or in terms of "power" to determine what
is good and what is bad, as opposed to just kicking back and let
individuals decide for themselves, on whatever basis, what they like or
dislike. Your statement that I am somehow damaging the art practice by
championing the right of each individual to decide what they like or
dislike is a perfect example of your politics. It stinks, in my opinion.
>>I can do this
>>also, but I don't, and that's just because of have four years of
>>graduate study in the history of art under my belt.
>
>
> That's your problem, right there.
Of course, a "problem." But it's an easy burden - I mean I can stand
before a painting that catched my attention and imagination and "like
it" even though it may not belong to some sort of "approved" shopping
list, or violates a set of rules that someone has jammed-up my ass. It's
an easy "problem" to live with.
>>It is impossible to
>>be an historian if you approach your material with a set of expectations
>>of how the material should be.
>
> Which is why art historians should be strongly discouraged from practising
> art criticism, or at least impressed with the need to set aside their
> historicist bias in such criticism.
I'm sure your view of art criticism is as narrow minded as your view of
art.
>>That's the job of a propagandist.
>
>
> No, formal values and effectiveness of depiction are core to the value of
> all art that is of any aesthetic worth.
So let me see if I get it: you're saying that the "core value" of art is
descriptive drawing and rendering? I would have to disagree simply on
the basis of a crude measure: take all art that has ever been produced
and determing what percentage has been focused on descriptive drawing
and rendering. What do you get? 10%? Maybe 20% if you fudge a bit.
That's a strange "core value", wouldn't you say? But if you want to
argue that the other 80% somehow failed to achieve the core value,
please knock yourself out.
>Stylistic innovation, by contrast,
> is of trivial worth. It is propagandists who have set aside the core values
> in favour of novelty. It is propagandist to insist on ignoring those values.
> Sure, those values are socially embedded, and to some degree subject to
> change. This does not mean they count for nothing. Far from it. Criticism
> without taste is no criticism at all, just a mockery of the process.
Well, you might want to at least consider that these "core values" is a
fig newton of your imagination, before you go further into this. You
might also want to consider that your idea of what "criticism" is is
somewhat repressed.
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EF7FC4D...@oco.net...
>
>>>Without belief, expectation, understanding and standards there is no
>>
> basis
>
>>>for criticism or appreciation since there can be no guiding principles
>>
> on
>
>>>which to base either.
>>
>>Well, I'm talking about expectations - and you're reciting some sort of
>>litany of things you think are necessary for criticism. I don't quite
>>know how to respond, and I'm not sure it's even responsive to what I
>>wrote.
>
>
> You can respond by acknowledging that the word "criticism" carries the
> meaning "evaluation", which entails *values*. You can go on to admit that
> criticism without values is a contradiction in terms. When you have done
> that, you will arrive at the realization that to say someone is criticizing
> from a given set of "expectations" is vacuous (all genuine criticism
> involves "expectations"). You can also wake up to the fact that to attempt
> to criticize without applying one's values would be an act of profound,
> blind stupidity.
Jeeze, S&M, don't get your bowels in an uproar. I wouldn't acknowledge
that "criticism" must contain evaluation unless I was using the term in
the street sense (and I'm not knocking street language, mind you.) But
"criticism" in the sense of Art Criticism and Philosophy has a different
meaning, and evaluation isn't really appropriate - except in a very
abstract sense. When Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" was he
writing about liking or disliking reason, or that "reason" was good or
bad? No, criticism in this sense is about how something came to be and
what is its significance and so on.
>>Regardless, if you "criticize" a painting because it doesn't do
>>something some other painting did, you are merely saying x is not y, no
>>matter how much hyperbole you append to your argument.
>
> Irrelevant. That's not what the criticism you're criticising does.
Then what does it do, Karnak.
>> However, if you
>>argue that there is a compelling reason that the painting +should+ do
>>something another painting does, and fails to do it, then that's another
>>matter.
>
> In criticism, there's generally no need to argue that there is a "compelling
> reason" that a painting should do something in particular. It can usually be
> taken as a tacit assumption, since to even *begin* criticizing a painting,
> one needs an idea of what distinguishes good painting from bad, and the
> basics of this idea need to be shared between critic and audience.
Well, at least you should call it "one dimensional criticism." I would
be less apt to challenge your ignorance if you did.
>>But somewhere in the process you need to producing something
>>that is aguable. If I write "I do not like this painting" or "I prefer
>>painting x to painting y"...well, that's not really arguable, is it?
>
> Yes, these things are arguable, and some arguments count for more than
> others. For instance, if I argue that I don't like a particular Rembrandt
> because it is "too brown", and I prefer blue, or I don't like a Bierstadt
> because I like pictures of people, I am offering arguments of small weight,
> because the Rembrandt and the Bierstadt have many other merits that can
> compensate for lack of blueness or people, and good criticism takes a wide
> range of possible sources of aesthetic value into account, rather than just
> blueness or population count.
Where's the rest of the story, S&M? I agree with the part you've
written (which is what I am arguing, after all) but you didn't go on to
provide an example of subjective declarations that +are+ aguable.
>>This discussion actually hinges on what a "criticism" is, in my opinion.
>> there's no real mystery about how art can be assessed. We like
>>paintings, and we dislike paintings. Some are meaningful to us, and
>>some are not.
>
> Some paintings are meaningful to no-one. Some paintings are liked by no-one.
> Some paintings are liked, often intensely, by nearly everyone who enjoys
> looking at paintings. And some paintings speak volumes. Criticism is about
> discovering what factors intrinsic to the works themselves distinguish the
> liked from the unliked, and appraising individual works in light of those
> factors. (It may also bring other values, such as moral ones, into
> consideration.)
A "critique" considers objective factors.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
As I've said before, it "coheres" for me, and quite nicely, I might add.
Erik
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
So then the argument would be: Cezanne failed to skew his coffee table
properly? Compared to what?
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
How the fuck can a stereotype be "wrong"? They either is or is not, innit?
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EF8045B...@oco.net...
>
>
>>>What does that mean, exactly? "In and of themselves"
>>
>>"In and of themselves" is just another way of saying "inconsistent in
>>theirselves" or whatever exactly your wrote.
>
>
> In other words, another way of stating your position without defending it.
Wow, you are really grasping at straws. I was just answering NerdGurl's
question, agreeing with her version, not writing a thesis. The irony is
that you have more or less said the said the same thing with regard to
formal qualities but your head is too far up your ass to realize it.
>>Remember, I don't
>>value "consistency" the way you do. It's sort of a non-issue with me.
>>Except I think it's fun to identify inconsistencies in movies, like on
>>one cut the guy has a red tie, and on another its blue. But then Peter
>>Greenaway comes along and has peoples clothing change colors as they
>>walk from room to room.
>>
>>"Man, that Greenaway FAILED as a filmmaker because he was internally
>>inconsistent - while Walt Disney triumphed because he was!"
>
>
> So, in the cinema you can tell a continuity error from a deliberate,
> aesthetically motivated, deviation from convention that is aimed to both
> surprise and please.
>
> Meanwhile, when you look at a painting, you refuse even to acknowledge that
> a distinction between error and effect exist, and you refuse to SEE the
> glaring errors in Cezanne's paintings!
Not true. I said in another post that there were objective ways you can
assess an artist's failure to achieve what she/he set out to accomplish.
I just don't see such thing in Cezanne's painting.
Erik
>
>
>
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> >>it is pretty obvious that Cezanne was using the old painting to explore
> >
> > some new ideas.
> >
> > Yes, he's trying his hand at Impressionism.
>
> Looks to me it was Japanese prints that had his attention. It's just a
> speculation based on appearance. But also based on appearance, it
> doesn't really look like Impressionism. Are you just using the term as
> a handy perjorative?
All that's Japanese printish about it is the somewhat flat areas of colour,
which could be said to reflect the look of a woodcut. But he doesn't work
very hard at that effect (there's still variation and texture in the colour,
and nor is any attention paid to line, which is the essence of Japanese
graphic art); meanwhile, he avoids using black, even in the shadows (there's
a purple shadow behind the guy on the chair, and a blue shadow behind the
hat); he creates depth by showing the play of light on the carpet. The
painting was done around 1873, a year when his painting is beginning to look
convincingly Impressionistic. He may have had Japanese prints in mind, but
there's clear Impressionism in the style of the piece; only the fact that it
is a "subject" painting, rather than still-life or landscape makes it look
untypical of that school.
>
> >>You might also want to look at Cezanne's jumping-off place, which of
> >>course is Manet's 1865 Olympia, which is full of references to classical
> >>art, renaissance nudes (Titian and Giorgione) and even Ingres.
> >
> >
> > Also? Instead!
>
> non-responsive.
What do you mean "non-responsive"? I would rather look at the other
paintings you mention than either of those by Cezanne, because the others
have merit, while Cezanne's are disgusting shitty daubs.
> > Cezanne found an interesting jumping-off place, and jumped off into an
ugly
> > morass.
> >
> > Referring to good paintings does not by itself make your work good.
>
> Please consider that you are the one that is hung-up on the good/bad
> syndrome.
I'm not hung up on it. Art is inherently good or bad. Without value, there
is no art. If you're not interested in knowing good art from bad, then
you're arguably not interested in art. Sure, look at it from the outside
like a historian or a sociologist if you will, but if you want to muck in
and get involved in the game that is art, you must appreciate the centrality
of value to art.
> It's doesn't mean much to me, especially in this context.
In the context of a discussion of whether or not Cezanne is an incompetent
painter? Excuse me? What drugs are you taking?
> "Olympia" is just a theme that's been around for a long time. It's sort
> of a "test pattern" of Western Painting.
So, what? Doesn't matter how long the theme's been around. If you do it, you
need to do it well. Otherwise, wash out your brushes in turps, hang up your
smock and go work in a bank.
>
> >>But probably what interested Cezanne the most was that Manet's painting
> >
> > set
> >
> >>off a huge storm of controversy at the Salon in 1865 - so the subject
> >>had a certain art political value.
> >
> >
> > Taking a painting that caused scandal, and doing, in effect, a painting
of
> > that painting, does not automatically buy your own work the same
> > newsworthiness.
>
> So? What's that got to do with anything?
The painting has no merit, regardless of how much context you are able to
assign it, and the fact that Cezanne has connected it to current art has no
bearing on its quality as a painting. Obviously, you don't give a damn about
such stuff, since you are supremely neutral about quality in art - but even
if you are happy with your sublimely philistine state, as a historian you
should realize that you could understand art's history a little better (at
least that part of it that occurred before the historians took over - i.e.,
before modernism) if you understood the distinction between good and bad in
pictorial art.
> >>We need to explain, for example,
> >>Cezanne's inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude
> >>female body with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of
> >>Cezanne's paintings.
> >
> >
> > How do you know the guy looking at the painting is "middle class", and
not
> > rich, or a bohemian brushed up for the occasion of a visit to the Salon?
The
> > man, with his dark, wavy hair, somewhat resembles Cezanne himself; have
you
> > considered that the picture could be a self-portrait? Why do you
> > characterize the viewer as a "voyeur", knowing the negative affect of
that
> > word, when he might instead be an "appreciator" of the painting? In
what
> > sense do you suppose he is "colonizing" the nude, and how does Cezanne
> > portray that fact, if he does?
>
> Are you saying Cezanne wasn't middle class?
No. I'm saying you assigned middle-class status to the guy without adequate
evidence (barring his resemblance to Cezanne himself, which you hadn't
noticed). He's carrying an apparently smart walking stick in the second
picture, though, so perhaps he's above middle class. You want him to be
middle class so you can look at the picture through the lens of a standard,
cliche'd political "analysis".
> But actually, I like your
> self-portrait idea.
Do you? You should have noticed it when you first clapped eyes on the
picture. You look at pictures, but do you see them?
> As for the rest, the female nude in Western art has
> always been an expression of sexual politics.
In the eyes of feminists, sure, any depiction of the female nude is
ineluctably political. But the truth of the matter is that those creating
the depictions may have no political intention. As for Cezanne, he's not
telling you anything about how he feels about women in that painting, to any
great extent.
> FNP
> > concentrates on what is present in the painting, and shows up its formal
> > aesthetic failures.
>
> Not to me, she don't.
You may like the painting despite the flaws that were pointed out to you,
but to deny the existence of these flaws, or that they are flaws amounts to
willful blindness.
> But I'll concede this much, the painting looks
> like an experiment to me - it's rather unique in Cezanne's works.
> Aesthetically, however, I rather like the painting.
Aesthetically, you are perverse.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> They are as superficial as painting is superficial. If you depict a
coffee
> table, and you draw it askew, that MATTERS.
To you. Not to everyone. And even to some of those to whom it matters,
the askew-ness is a *thing*.
Here's a simple question: you speak of the need to have a reason to draw
unrealistically. I ask, what reason is there for drawing realistically?
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EF7A179...@oco.net...
>
> taste and preference are wonderful, and that each of us should follow
> our lucky stars.
I happen to believe that taste is negotiable, and constantly negotiated. It
has a basis in human nature, but can be shaped to some degree by society.
Society can't control all taste all the time, however, so natural
expressions of "bad" taste pop up and subvert any attempt to enforce
hegemony.
> But I'm willing to challenge autocratic declarations about good and bad,
> success and failure and so on.
The insistence on relativism is as autocratic as any declaration about good
and bad.
> There are some works of art that I
> really do dislike. I just don't think that's a legitimate basis for
> developing a uniform field theory of art evaluation.
On the other hand, it is a basis for participation in the negotiation of
taste. If you want to opt out of that, fine, but please stay away from any
pretense at art criticism.
> Fantastic. I'm glad I'm finally among your conspirator's list, working
> my evil to dupe humanity into forfeiting their right to art. I have
> arrived.
I said nothing about a conspiracy, and I wouldn't dignify what's going on
with such a label. It is nowhere near that intelligent. One cannot take part
unwittingly in a conspiracy, but the people whose stupid ideas are harming
art are barely aware of what they're doing. What's actually going on is that
a bunch of people have succeeded in tying themselves in logical knots so
that their aesthetic heads have disappeared up their fundaments. It is
called intellectual *fashion*, and fashion is a matter for sociologists and
anthropologists, not political scientists.
>
> But you need to address one flaw in your thinking: these "all other
> values" you are citing are not about art, they are about politics.
No, they aren't. They're about the exchange of aesthetic delight for social
reward. It's a sex thing. Darwin would understand.
> The
> distinguish mark that makes me say this is that you frame your whole
> argument in hegemonic terms - or in terms of "power" to determine what
> is good and what is bad, as opposed to just kicking back and let
> individuals decide for themselves, on whatever basis, what they like or
> dislike.
People don't simply sit back, form private tastes and keep them to
themselves. They never have, and they never will (not while we're still
human, and we still have society). People *negotiate* taste. Constantly.
Take part, or stay away. Don't try to anull the process, because you might
as well try to stop the Earth from turning.
> Your statement that I am somehow damaging the art practice by
> championing the right of each individual to decide what they like or
> dislike is a perfect example of your politics. It stinks, in my opinion.
No, you're damaging art by trying to shut down discussion on matters of
taste and value in art.
> I can stand
> before a painting that catched my attention and imagination and "like
> it", even though it may not belong to some sort of "approved" shopping
> list
Anyone can do that, except the terminally fashion-obsessed.
> or violates a set of rules that someone has jammed-up my ass.
No-one has jammed anythig up your arse. That's only happening in your
fantasies.
> I'm sure your view of art criticism is as narrow minded as your view of
> art.
Yup.
> So let me see if I get it: you're saying that the "core value" of art is
> descriptive drawing and rendering?
No.
> I would have to disagree simply on
> the basis of a crude measure: take all art that has ever been produced
> and determing what percentage has been focused on descriptive drawing
> and rendering. What do you get? 10%? Maybe 20% if you fudge a bit.
> That's a strange "core value", wouldn't you say?
I'm impressed by your calculations, but they are irrelevant, since they do
not pertain to the core values of art.
> But if you want to
> argue that the other 80% somehow failed to achieve the core value,
> please knock yourself out.
Hahaha. The words "up", "wrong", "barking" and "tree" come to mind. Look!
It's not even a tree, it's a scarecrow made of straw!
> Well, you might want to at least consider that these "core values" is a
> fig newton of your imagination, before you go further into this.
They are not.
You don't know the first thing about art, or if you did, you wouldn't say
that.
What IS the first thing about art, I hear you ask?
It is this: art, at bottom, is a form of showing off - like sport, only you
make things, instead of leaping about.
When you've understood that first thing, and ruminated upon it for a little
while, the scales of bullshit relativism (as well as expressionism, the
institutional theory, and a whole bunch of other stupid ideas) will fall
away, and you'll begin to understand the point of criticism.
> You
> might also want to consider that your idea of what "criticism" is is
> somewhat repressed.
Ooh, we have a Freudian in the house! You might want to consider that my
idea of what criticism is is more considered than you have assumed.
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EFA0680...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>>it is pretty obvious that Cezanne was using the old painting to explore
>>>
>>>some new ideas.
>>>
>>>Yes, he's trying his hand at Impressionism.
>>
>>Looks to me it was Japanese prints that had his attention. It's just a
>>speculation based on appearance. But also based on appearance, it
>>doesn't really look like Impressionism. Are you just using the term as
>>a handy perjorative?
>
>
> All that's Japanese printish about it is the somewhat flat areas of colour,
> which could be said to reflect the look of a woodcut. But he doesn't work
> very hard at that effect (there's still variation and texture in the colour,
> and nor is any attention paid to line, which is the essence of Japanese
> graphic art); meanwhile, he avoids using black, even in the shadows (there's
> a purple shadow behind the guy on the chair, and a blue shadow behind the
> hat); he creates depth by showing the play of light on the carpet. The
> painting was done around 1873, a year when his painting is beginning to look
> convincingly Impressionistic. He may have had Japanese prints in mind, but
> there's clear Impressionism in the style of the piece; only the fact that it
> is a "subject" painting, rather than still-life or landscape makes it look
> untypical of that school.
It is just a hunch on my part - I guarded my comment by stating it was
speculation. The only way to state the same with any authority is to
document the idea, which I've never done and may be impossible to do.
>>>>You might also want to look at Cezanne's jumping-off place, which of
>>>>course is Manet's 1865 Olympia, which is full of references to classical
>>>>art, renaissance nudes (Titian and Giorgione) and even Ingres.
>>>
>>>
>>>Also? Instead!
>>
>>non-responsive.
> What do you mean "non-responsive"? I would rather look at the other
> paintings you mention than either of those by Cezanne, because the others
> have merit, while Cezanne's are disgusting shitty daubs.
So what? What does your desire have to do with the discussion?
>
>
>>>Cezanne found an interesting jumping-off place, and jumped off into an
>>
> ugly
>
>>>morass.
>>>
>>>Referring to good paintings does not by itself make your work good.
>>
>>Please consider that you are the one that is hung-up on the good/bad
>>syndrome.
>
>
> I'm not hung up on it. Art is inherently good or bad.
See? Well, to be fair, one man's hang-up is another man's doctrine.
> Without value, there
> is no art. If you're not interested in knowing good art from bad, then
> you're arguably not interested in art. Sure, look at it from the outside
> like a historian or a sociologist if you will, but if you want to muck in
> and get involved in the game that is art, you must appreciate the centrality
> of value to art.
But you are only claiming to possess this cryptic knowledge. You
haven't convinced me. But that's what I meant by using material that is
"arguable" in an "argument." That's why we have "disciplines" like Art
History and Art Theory & Criticism.
>>It's doesn't mean much to me, especially in this context.
>
> In the context of a discussion of whether or not Cezanne is an incompetent
> painter? Excuse me? What drugs are you taking?
But your argument as such fails to establish this claim - and how could
it since you insist on using criteria that is neither verifyable or
substantial? Your argument is what we call "a fool's errand." And it
wouldn't be, if you would just settle for expressing your tastes and
aesthetic disposition instead of presenting such as some sort of cozmic
truff.
>>"Olympia" is just a theme that's been around for a long time. It's sort
>>of a "test pattern" of Western Painting.
>
>
> So, what? Doesn't matter how long the theme's been around. If you do it, you
> need to do it well. Otherwise, wash out your brushes in turps, hang up your
> smock and go work in a bank.
"You need to do it" by virtue of "doing it"? Hmmmm. You're bowels are
in an uproar :-) How would you account for simple "plastic curiosity" then?
>>>>But probably what interested Cezanne the most was that Manet's painting
>>>
>>>set
>>>
>>>
>>>>off a huge storm of controversy at the Salon in 1865 - so the subject
>>>>had a certain art political value.
>>>
>>>
>>>Taking a painting that caused scandal, and doing, in effect, a painting
>>
> of
>
>>>that painting, does not automatically buy your own work the same
>>>newsworthiness.
>>
>>So? What's that got to do with anything?
>
>
> The painting has no merit, regardless of how much context you are able to
> assign it, and the fact that Cezanne has connected it to current art has no
> bearing on its quality as a painting. Obviously, you don't give a damn about
> such stuff, since you are supremely neutral about quality in art - but even
> if you are happy with your sublimely philistine state, as a historian you
> should realize that you could understand art's history a little better (at
> least that part of it that occurred before the historians took over - i.e.,
> before modernism) if you understood the distinction between good and bad in
> pictorial art.
Classic straw man - I notice you do that when backed into a corner.
>>>>We need to explain, for example,
>>>>Cezanne's inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude
>>>>female body with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of
>>>>Cezanne's paintings.
>>>
>>>
>>>How do you know the guy looking at the painting is "middle class", and
>>
> not
>
>>>rich, or a bohemian brushed up for the occasion of a visit to the Salon?
>>
> The
>
>>>man, with his dark, wavy hair, somewhat resembles Cezanne himself; have
>>
> you
>
>>>considered that the picture could be a self-portrait? Why do you
>>>characterize the viewer as a "voyeur", knowing the negative affect of
>>
> that
>
>>>word, when he might instead be an "appreciator" of the painting? In
>>
> what
>
>>>sense do you suppose he is "colonizing" the nude, and how does Cezanne
>>>portray that fact, if he does?
>>
>>Are you saying Cezanne wasn't middle class?
>
>
> No. I'm saying you assigned middle-class status to the guy without adequate
> evidence (barring his resemblance to Cezanne himself, which you hadn't
> noticed). He's carrying an apparently smart walking stick in the second
> picture, though, so perhaps he's above middle class. You want him to be
> middle class so you can look at the picture through the lens of a standard,
> cliche'd political "analysis".
No, the rich can be assholes too. But yes, I enjoy the political
connotations.
>>But actually, I like your
>>self-portrait idea.
>
>
> Do you? You should have noticed it when you first clapped eyes on the
> picture. You look at pictures, but do you see them?
I often miss things in pictures. I think I looked at "Netherlandish
Proverbs" twenty times before I noticed a man hitting his head against a
stone wall. You should take a look yourself.
Actually, that's one of the things I like in a work of art, the slow
revelation of meaning over time, instead of instant gratifications. But
that's just my quirk, but I suspect that some other people like it too.
>> As for the rest, the female nude in Western art has
>>always been an expression of sexual politics.
>
>
> In the eyes of feminists, sure, any depiction of the female nude is
> ineluctably political. But the truth of the matter is that those creating
> the depictions may have no political intention. As for Cezanne, he's not
> telling you anything about how he feels about women in that painting, to any
> great extent.
The idea is that painting the nude female is a politic act in and of
itself, not a matter of intention. On the individual level, the artist
can be perfectly innocent, actually believing that the act has no
political consquence. It's a cultural thing - not different than, say,
Islamic prohibition against any rendition of the human.
>>FNP
>>
>>>concentrates on what is present in the painting, and shows up its formal
>>>aesthetic failures.
>>
>>Not to me, she don't.
>
>
> You may like the painting despite the flaws that were pointed out to you,
> but to deny the existence of these flaws, or that they are flaws amounts to
> willful blindness.
Flaws, shmaws. That's just an evaluation. You haven't established a
credible basis for that yet. You know, I can't imagine why this is even
being argued. I can sit down right now and draw a picture of a frog
that looks like a teacup, and even distort the ovals in the perspective
scheme. So I do that - how could anyone credibly argue that I did not
succeed at doing what I set out to do simply because my product does not
resemble a frog that looks like a telephone pole, or that the ovals are
required to be "correct". It's totally silly.
>>But I'll concede this much, the painting looks
>>like an experiment to me - it's rather unique in Cezanne's works.
>>Aesthetically, however, I rather like the painting.
>
>
> Aesthetically, you are perverse.
And proud of it, my friend.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EFA0E5...@oco.net...
>
>>Seagull Manager wrote:
>>
>>>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3EF7A179...@oco.net...
>>
>>I happen to believe that an individual's
>>taste and preference are wonderful, and that each of us should follow
>>our lucky stars.
>
>
> I happen to believe that taste is negotiable, and constantly negotiated. It
> has a basis in human nature, but can be shaped to some degree by society.
> Society can't control all taste all the time, however, so natural
> expressions of "bad" taste pop up and subvert any attempt to enforce
> hegemony.
>
>
>>But I'm willing to challenge autocratic declarations about good and bad,
>>success and failure and so on.
>
>
> The insistence on relativism is as autocratic as any declaration about good
> and bad.
Oh, of course. That's a currently popular right-wing word game. Tell
me how it works. How is saying "to each his own" autocratic?
>>There are some works of art that I
>>really do dislike. I just don't think that's a legitimate basis for
>>developing a uniform field theory of art evaluation.
> On the other hand, it is a basis for participation in the negotiation of
> taste. If you want to opt out of that, fine, but please stay away from any
> pretense at art criticism.
If "art criticism" is a matter of telling the world what I like and
dislike, I wouldn't think it was a worthwhile thing to begin with.
>>Fantastic. I'm glad I'm finally among your conspirator's list, working
>>my evil to dupe humanity into forfeiting their right to art. I have
>>arrived.
>
> I said nothing about a conspiracy, and I wouldn't dignify what's going on
> with such a label. It is nowhere near that intelligent. One cannot take part
> unwittingly in a conspiracy, but the people whose stupid ideas are harming
> art are barely aware of what they're doing. What's actually going on is that
> a bunch of people have succeeded in tying themselves in logical knots so
> that their aesthetic heads have disappeared up their fundaments. It is
> called intellectual *fashion*, and fashion is a matter for sociologists and
> anthropologists, not political scientists.
Well, that's a relief. I thought you thought I had joined the
entrenched modern art crowd in their efforts to enforce bad art on everyone.
>>But you need to address one flaw in your thinking: these "all other
>>values" you are citing are not about art, they are about politics.
>
> No, they aren't. They're about the exchange of aesthetic delight for social
> reward. It's a sex thing. Darwin would understand.
You mean "selling art?" And that's "sex?" And Darwin is privy to this?
>> The
>>distinguish mark that makes me say this is that you frame your whole
>>argument in hegemonic terms - or in terms of "power" to determine what
>>is good and what is bad, as opposed to just kicking back and let
>>individuals decide for themselves, on whatever basis, what they like or
>>dislike.
>
>
> People don't simply sit back, form private tastes and keep them to
> themselves. They never have, and they never will (not while we're still
> human, and we still have society). People *negotiate* taste. Constantly.
> Take part, or stay away. Don't try to anull the process, because you might
> as well try to stop the Earth from turning.
Sorry, this is all Chinese Arithmatic to me. But I'll listen to your
explanation, if you are so inclined.
>
>
>>Your statement that I am somehow damaging the art practice by
>>championing the right of each individual to decide what they like or
>>dislike is a perfect example of your politics. It stinks, in my opinion.
>
>
> No, you're damaging art by trying to shut down discussion on matters of
> taste and value in art.
But I'm not doing that. I'm just questioning if like/dislike and
good/bad are meaningful ways to talk about art. But even if I was doing
what you say, how would that "damage art." Do you think you're reifying
a bit here?
>
>
>>I can stand
>>before a painting that catched my attention and imagination and "like
>>it", even though it may not belong to some sort of "approved" shopping
>>list
>
>
> Anyone can do that, except the terminally fashion-obsessed.
Well, I can see by your comments below that you are as bored with this
argument as I am. Let's give it a big "ho-hum" and move on.
Erik
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>The idea is that painting the nude female is a politic act in and of
>itself, not a matter of intention. On the individual level, the artist
>can be perfectly innocent, actually believing that the act has no
>political consquence. It's a cultural thing - not different than, say,
>Islamic prohibition against any rendition of the human.
Name a Cezanne nude and tell us about the Political consequences. Bet
he can't!
>> You may like the painting despite the flaws that were pointed out to you,
>> but to deny the existence of these flaws, or that they are flaws amounts to
>> willful blindness.
>
>Flaws, shmaws. That's just an evaluation.
Flaws, shmaws. I guess that's why Mattila who has been here as long as
I have never shows his work.
>You haven't established a
>credible basis for that yet. You know, I can't imagine why this is even
>being argued.
Little wonder!
>I can sit down right now and draw a picture of a frog
>that looks like a teacup, and even distort the ovals in the perspective
>scheme.
I doubt it.
> So I do that - how could anyone credibly argue that I did not
>succeed at doing what I set out to do simply because my product does not
>resemble a frog that looks like a telephone pole, or that the ovals are
>required to be "correct". It's totally silly.
Lets see the work.
>>>But I'll concede this much, the painting looks
>>>like an experiment to me - it's rather unique in Cezanne's works.
>>>Aesthetically, however, I rather like the painting.
>>
>>
>> Aesthetically, you are perverse.
>
>And proud of it, my friend.
>
I find you unaesthetic and a blowhard and to dense to realize it.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>Here's a simple question: you speak of the need to have a reason to draw
>unrealistically.
No! Realism is a matter of degree. Most artwork isn't realistic.
> I ask, what reason is there for drawing realistically?
A look at the miserable quality of your work is a good reason for
starters.
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> > I ask, what reason is there for drawing realistically?
>
> A look at the miserable quality of your work is a good reason for
> starters.
And can you provide an objective answer in an effort to help, Mani? This is
why people quickly dismiss anything qualitative you might have to say.
The simple reason to draw realistically is to ensure the viewer sees what the
artist sees. Other reasons might be to eliminate any chance of irrelevant
interpretation some viewers obviously put into their line of vision. Another
reason might be personal challenge, or, a patron wanted a realistic image. I
can't think of any more right now.
Seagull Manager
> Seagull Manager wrote:
>
> It is just a hunch on my part - I guarded my comment by stating it was
> speculation. The only way to state the same with any authority is to
> document the idea, which I've never done and may be impossible to do.
The nost reliable evidence for what a painter is trying to make a painting
look like is always the work itself, never any statement about it, except in
the case where the painter is *utterly* inept.
> > Without value, there is no art.
> But you are only claiming to possess this cryptic knowledge. You
> haven't convinced me.
Paintings are never made by accident, nor is what they depict and how
defined by function. Yet they are made, and the only thing left that can
explain their existence is choice. Paintings are created according to
someone's (or some group's) free choices. Such choices cannot be made
without a heirarchy of values.
> >>It's doesn't mean much to me, especially in this context.
> >
> > In the context of a discussion of whether or not Cezanne is an
incompetent
> > painter? Excuse me? What drugs are you taking?
>
> But your argument as such fails to establish this claim
Regardless of whether my argument succeeds or fails, questions of quality
are inevitably central to a discussion of whether or not Cezanne was a lousy
painter.
> > So, what? Doesn't matter how long the theme's been around. If you do it,
you
> > need to do it well. Otherwise, wash out your brushes in turps, hang up
your
> > smock and go work in a bank.
>
> "You need to do it" by virtue of "doing it"? Hmmmm.
You need to do it *well*. You need to do it WELL. Emphasis on "well". (If
you're aiming to show the piece, and perhaps sell it - which, if Cezanne's
letters and actions are anything to go by, is an ambition he had for most or
all of his paintings).
> No, the rich can be assholes too. But yes, I enjoy the political
> connotations.
You never said the "middle-class man" was an arsehole. You just took it for
granted that that went without saying - a fact that shows up the shallowness
of your political analysis.
> >>But actually, I like your
> >>self-portrait idea.
> >
> > Do you? You should have noticed it when you first clapped eyes on the
> > picture. You look at pictures, but do you see them?
>
> I often miss things in pictures. I think I looked at "Netherlandish
> Proverbs" twenty times before I noticed a man hitting his head against a
> stone wall. You should take a look yourself.
The Cezanne painting is very simple, unlike the Brueghel you've just brought
in, apropos of nothing. If you miss something in the latter, that's not so
bad (though the guy banging his head on the wall is pretty obvious).
> Actually, that's one of the things I like in a work of art, the slow
> revelation of meaning over time, instead of instant gratifications. But
> that's just my quirk, but I suspect that some other people like it too.
It is a good thing, a positive source of value in art. There are others.
> The idea is that painting the nude female is a politic act in and of
> itself, not a matter of intention.
The notion of a political act without political intention is just stupid.
But it's great for the kind of theorist who wants to talk nonsense at length
about such alleged acts, since their actuality neither verifiable nor
refutable empirically, and can be found everywhere by the moderately
inventive.
> Flaws, shmaws. That's just an evaluation. You haven't established a
> credible basis for that yet.
Just as a painting's value can be enhanced by its having the kind of
richness that means successive lookings bring new pleasures, so it can be
enhanced by formal coherence (or internal consistency), which you
arbitrarily deny, despite that the art of all cultures exhibits a respect
for formal coherence. FNP (nerdgirl) showed quite clearly that several of
Cezanne's paintings (at least) lack this trait, including the Modern Olympia
under discussion. I don't need to establish a basis for this, really. It is
you who are at odds with the world's aesthetic values, and are flying in the
face of most critical opinion since the beginning of written criticism.
You're the one who needs to explain why internal consistency is of no
consequence to the value of a work of art.
> I can sit down right now and draw a picture of a frog
> that looks like a teacup, and even distort the ovals in the perspective
> scheme. So I do that - how could anyone credibly argue that I did not
> succeed at doing what I set out to do simply because my product does not
> resemble a frog that looks like a telephone pole, or that the ovals are
> required to be "correct".
The following...
> It's totally silly.
...applies to the sentences you wrote immediately before.
Seagull Manager
>
> I wouldn't acknowledge
> that "criticism" must contain evaluation unless I was using the term in
> the street sense (and I'm not knocking street language, mind you.) But
> "criticism" in the sense of Art Criticism and Philosophy has a different
> meaning, and evaluation isn't really appropriate - except in a very
> abstract sense.
Yeah, sure. On Planet Mattila. On planet Earth, "art criticism" includes the
evaluation of individual works. A while ago, you quoted ArtLex at me; well,
a fortiori, now's my turn to quote ArtLex at you:
"art criticism - The description, analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and
judgment of works of art. It is a common assumption that criticism is
necessarily negative, when actually it can vary in degrees of positive as
well as negative remarks. Critical methods vary considerably in their
approaches to considering the forms, contents, and contexts of works of
art."
Please not the words "evaluation" and "judgement", right there in the first
line of the definition.
> When Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" was he
> writing about liking or disliking reason, or that "reason" was good or
> bad? No, criticism in this sense is about how something came to be and
> what is its significance and so on.
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is, quite centrally, evaluative, since it is
a discussion of the *limitiations* of human reasoning. It tries to reach
conclusions about the usefulness of reasoning, and the quality and
reliability of the knowledge gained thereby.
>
> >>Regardless, if you "criticize" a painting because it doesn't do
> >>something some other painting did, you are merely saying x is not y, no
> >>matter how much hyperbole you append to your argument.
> >
> > Irrelevant. That's not what the criticism you're criticising does.
>
> Then what does it do, Karnak.
It tries to fairly weigh up the merits and demerits of a work of art in
order to arrive at an overall estimate of the work's relative aesthetic
worth. If a painting happens to do something that no painting the critic has
previously seen does, that may be a good thing or a bad thing, or it may be
of no aesthetic consequence, depending on various factors (e.g., "The artist
has stuck apples all around the edge of the painting; this strikes me as a
silly gimmick", "The artist has obscured most of each face with thick, black
lacquer, which adds poignancy to the piece", etc.).
> Well, at least you should call it "one dimensional criticism." I would
> be less apt to challenge your ignorance if you did.
I'm strongly inclined to challenge your ignorance of the philosophy of art.
What you call "one dimensional" criticism is criticism. What you want
criticism to do (namely discuss the foundations of criticism) is the job of
the philosophy of art.
> >>But somewhere in the process you need to producing something
> >>that is aguable. If I write "I do not like this painting" or "I prefer
> >>painting x to painting y"...well, that's not really arguable, is it?
> >
> > Yes, these things are arguable, and some arguments count for more than
> > others. For instance, if I argue that I don't like a particular
Rembrandt
> > because it is "too brown", and I prefer blue, or I don't like a
Bierstadt
> > because I like pictures of people, I am offering arguments of small
weight,
> > because the Rembrandt and the Bierstadt have many other merits that can
> > compensate for lack of blueness or people, and good criticism takes a
wide
> > range of possible sources of aesthetic value into account, rather than
just
> > blueness or population count.
>
> Where's the rest of the story, S&M? I agree with the part you've
> written (which is what I am arguing, after all) but you didn't go on to
> provide an example of subjective declarations that +are+ aguable.
If I like Rembrandt because he uses paint to create all sorts of interesting
textures, because he makes dramatic and exciting use of light and shadow,
because the people he portrays look engagingly human, because he paints
certain details with striking and vivid realism, because his work seems
humane, then I have a long list of positive attributes on which I base my
liking for Rembrandt, and most people would agree with most of my reasons
for liking Rembrandt. Against an opinion that Rembrandt is "too brown", my
argument (set of reasons for liking) has greater weight, on the basis of
intersubjectivity.
>
> > Criticism is about
> > discovering what factors intrinsic to the works themselves distinguish
the
> > liked from the unliked, and appraising individual works in light of
those
> > factors. (It may also bring other values, such as moral ones, into
> > consideration.)
>
> A "critique" considers objective factors.
A critique evaluates, by definition. It strives to evaluate as fairly as
possible. In the criticism of art, this means weighing up multiple
subjective factors, taking into account the importance (also subjective) of
each. This is possible and reasonable to do because most people share most
aesthetic values.
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:4SpKa.849$EW2.1...@news.uswest.net...
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > They are as superficial as painting is superficial. If you depict a
> coffee
> > table, and you draw it askew, that MATTERS.
>
> To you. Not to everyone. And even to some of those to whom it matters,
> the askew-ness is a *thing*.
I don't mean, "If you draw a coffee table askew, it automatically makes the
drawing bad." I mean, "If you draw a coffee table askew, that invites a
question as to why it is drawn askew." In other words, "askewness" or
"wrongness" draws attention to itself, and is automatically significant.
> Here's a simple question: you speak of the need to have a reason to draw
> unrealistically. I ask, what reason is there for drawing realistically?
Realism is valuable as a sign of the artist's observational powers, as a
display of virtuosity, and as a way of making an image more vivid; also,
sometimes, it is a symbol of honesty. It is not an absolute value (there
really are none in art), and artists are not obliged to draw accurately. It
is just the default. Good reasons for deviating from accuracy include the
desire to create a dramatic effect, to idealize, to beautify, to caricature,
to conform to some constraint or other... and doubtless others can be
thought up. Deviation from accuracy that has *no apparent reason*, however,
is likely to be regarded by viewers as an error, and is likely also to make
the work look ugly. Since art is a form of showing off, artists naturally
don't want to produce things that look like errors (so seeming errors almost
always ARE errors).
Seagull Manager
>
> So then the argument would be: Cezanne failed to skew his coffee table
> properly? Compared to what?
Compared to most artists who draw coffee tables, except the untutored and
modernists.
Seagull Manager
>
> I said in another post that there were objective ways you can
> assess an artist's failure to achieve what she/he set out to accomplish.
> I just don't see such thing in Cezanne's painting.
That an artist achieved what they set out to accomplish does not necessarily
make their work any good. They may have set their sights low, or aimed to do
a stupid or unadmirable thing.
Andrew D
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Someone else (snipped) wrote:
[snip]
>> We need to explain, for example,
>> Cezanne's inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude
>> female body with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of
>> Cezanne's paintings.
>How do you know the guy looking at the painting is "middle class", and not
>rich, or a bohemian brushed up for the occasion of a visit to the Salon? The
>man, with his dark, wavy hair, somewhat resembles Cezanne himself; have you
>considered that the picture could be a self-portrait?
Given that all of Cezanne's "people" look like they were poorly made from
old , dirty plasticene, I can't see how anyone can attribute any social
class or other attributes to them unless they merely speculate based on
what they personally believe to be the case.
As for voyeurism, as FNP pointed out earlier, the man in the picture in
question appears more interested in the drapes. If he was meant to be
looking at the women then Cezanne failed miserably in delivering that
impression.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
>Andrew D wrote:
[snip]
>> It would be more interesting if if your counter-arguments contained
>> something more substantial than "I beg to differ".
>I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean?
Okay Eric, in reasonably plain English....
Do you believe there is such a thing as good art and/or bad art?
If so, do you think the Cezanne painting in question is good art?
If so, why is it good?
If you accept the concept of good/bad art, on what do you base your assessment?
If you don't accept the concept of good/bad art, why did you spend 4 years
studying something which, in effect, doesn't exist?
Andrew D
[snip]
> As for the rest, the female nude in Western art has
>always been an expression of sexual politics.
Interesting. When I did life drawing I always found the experience about
as sexual as drawing eggs in baskets. Sensual perhaps - but "always"
sexual? I don't think so. Sounds a bit like feminist dogma to me.
Marc Sabatella
> > I ask, what reason is there for drawing realistically?
>
> A look at the miserable quality of your work is a good reason for
> starters.
In other words, you have no real answer,so you resort to ad hominem
attacks.
I'm flattered, though, that someone with taste in art so diametrically
opposed to my own would find my work so unappealing. I must be doing
something right!
Marc Sabatella
> The simple reason to draw realistically is to ensure the viewer sees
what the
> artist sees.
Assuming you mean, what the artist sees in a very literal sense, I
agree - that is a good reason to draw accurately. But as soon as one
admits the possiblity that the artist wants the viewer to see not what
the artist himself actually sees, but the artist's creative vision
regarding what he sees and wishes to express, the need for accurate
drawing not only disappears, but becomes a hindrance - the more like the
actual subject you paint, the less your own creativity is a factor. It
is true that you can express your creativty in other respects as well -
color choice, composition, etc - but why rule out drawing as an element
to be played with?
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> I don't mean, "If you draw a coffee table askew, it automatically
makes the
> drawing bad." I mean, "If you draw a coffee table askew, that invites
a
> question as to why it is drawn askew." In other words, "askewness" or
> "wrongness" draws attention to itself, and is automatically
significant.
But again I ask, why should askewness be any more significant than the
lack of
it? You assume much here - see below.
> > Here's a simple question: you speak of the need to have a reason to
draw
> > unrealistically. I ask, what reason is there for drawing
realistically?
>
> Realism is valuable as a sign of the artist's observational powers, as
a
> display of virtuosity, and as a way of making an image more vivid;
also,
> sometimes, it is a symbol of honesty. It is not an absolute value
(there
> really are none in art), and artists are not obliged to draw
accurately. It
> is just the default.
Well, now we are getting somewhere. At least someone here admits there
are no absolute values in art. I just question why you consider
accurate drawing the default. What if an artist has no interest in
displaying observational powers or their own virtuosity? And what if an
artist disagrees with the claim that a realistic drawing is more vivid
or "honest"? What if the artists's only goal is to create an image with
aesthetic appeal, completely independent of realism. Why should such an
artist take accurate drawing as a default? It might make more sense for
such an artist to take *design* as a default, and make the shape one
that works for their aesthetic purposes, and if they wanted to include a
nod to realism for whatever reason, they would have to figure out how
much they could deviate from their idealized abstract shape in order.
> Deviation from accuracy that has *no apparent reason*, however,
> is likely to be regarded by viewers as an error, and is likely also to
make
> the work look ugly.
Whether or not a reason is "apparent" is, of cours, another subjective
quality.
Andrew D
[snip]
>But you need to address one flaw in your thinking: these "all other
>values" you are citing are not about art, they are about politics. The
>distinguish mark that makes me say this is that you frame your whole
>argument in hegemonic terms - or in terms of "power" to determine what
>is good and what is bad, as opposed to just kicking back and let
>individuals decide for themselves, on whatever basis, what they like or
>dislike. Your statement that I am somehow damaging the art practice by
>championing the right of each individual to decide what they like or
>dislike is a perfect example of your politics. It stinks, in my opinion.
Not to speak for others, but in general I believe those who choose to
publicly question the "art" of Cezanne, Picasso et al are actually having
a go at the establishments that promote these people as "masters" and who
pay millions to hang them on the walls of public galleries, often in an
apparent attempt to annoy the shit out of the public.
If "art" of the Cezanne type did not fill the walls of major public
galleries I suspect most people wouldn't give a toss about him. But the
fact is, regardless of your personal take on good versus bad, many/most
public galleries seem to have deemed that the crap, no rules art is "the
best" and that anything which shows a glimmer of talent is best left for
postcards.
If you don't give a damn about good versus bad then perhaps that's an
argument you need to take up with those who have views no less dogmatic
than contributors here hold, but who have far more influence in public
galleries and art politics in general.
>Of course, a "problem." But it's an easy burden - I mean I can stand
>before a painting that catched my attention and imagination and "like
>it" even though it may not belong to some sort of "approved" shopping
>list, or violates a set of rules that someone has jammed-up my ass. It's
>an easy "problem" to live with.
You can't stand before it if the galleries don't hang it... and if it aint
scratch and smear modern ugliness, then it's unlikely to get hung in many
public galleries that claim to collect the very best they can afford.
Andrew D
This is what I was referring to earlier when I wrote (apparently to your
confusion):
"It would be more interesting if if your counter-arguments contained
something more substantial than 'I beg to differ'. "
Andy D.
Andrew D
If it coheres so nicely, why are you left searching for an explanation of
the men in Cezanne's pictures ("We need to explain, for example, Cezanne's
inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude female body
with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of Cezanne's
paintings.)?
Apparently, from your earlier comments, it appears to only cohere to a
point where it leaves you lost as to the point of the painting or the
things within it. I guess, as with other words, you are operating with a
different definition of coherence?
Andrew D
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
[snip]
>> Please consider that you are the one that is hung-up on the good/bad
>> syndrome.
>I'm not hung up on it. Art is inherently good or bad. Without value, there
>is no art. If you're not interested in knowing good art from bad, then
>you're arguably not interested in art. Sure, look at it from the outside
>like a historian or a sociologist if you will, but if you want to muck in
>and get involved in the game that is art, you must appreciate the centrality
>of value to art.
If Eric was a political historian he'd have us all believing Hitler was
praiseworthy simply because he was a political leader and that we should
all just ignore his obvious leadership failings.
>> It's doesn't mean much to me, especially in this context.
>In the context of a discussion of whether or not Cezanne is an incompetent
>painter? Excuse me? What drugs are you taking?
Anyone who ever started a discussion about Hitlers wrongdoings would soon
find themselves in an argument with Eric who would of course refuse to
consider Hitler's bad antics and insist the only point worth making is
that Adolf led a nation and was therefore a leader.
[snip]
>In the eyes of feminists, sure, any depiction of the female nude is
>ineluctably political. But the truth of the matter is that those creating
>the depictions may have no political intention. As for Cezanne, he's not
>telling you anything about how he feels about women in that painting, to any
>great extent.
Except, perhaps, that he finds their form incredibly difficult to capture
in paint - in any consistent way at least.
Erik A. Mattila
Seagull Manager wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EFA1A51...@oco.net...
>
>>I wouldn't acknowledge
>>that "criticism" must contain evaluation unless I was using the term in
>>the street sense (and I'm not knocking street language, mind you.) But
>>"criticism" in the sense of Art Criticism and Philosophy has a different
>>meaning, and evaluation isn't really appropriate - except in a very
>>abstract sense.
>
>
> Yeah, sure. On Planet Mattila. On planet Earth, "art criticism" includes the
> evaluation of individual works. A while ago, you quoted ArtLex at me; well,
> a fortiori, now's my turn to quote ArtLex at you:
>
>
> "art criticism - The description, analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and
> judgment of works of art. It is a common assumption that criticism is
> necessarily negative, when actually it can vary in degrees of positive as
> well as negative remarks. Critical methods vary considerably in their
> approaches to considering the forms, contents, and contexts of works of
> art."
>
> Please not the words "evaluation" and "judgement", right there in the first
> line of the definition.
Duly noted. Then would you say that Kant thought that pure reasons was
good or bad when he wrote his critique?
>>When Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" was he
>>writing about liking or disliking reason, or that "reason" was good or
>>bad? No, criticism in this sense is about how something came to be and
>>what is its significance and so on.
> Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is, quite centrally, evaluative, since it is
> a discussion of the *limitiations* of human reasoning. It tries to reach
> conclusions about the usefulness of reasoning, and the quality and
> reliability of the knowledge gained thereby.
But did he think it was good or bad? Was it a success or a failure?
>>>>Regardless, if you "criticize" a painting because it doesn't do
>>>>something some other painting did, you are merely saying x is not y, no
>>>>matter how much hyperbole you append to your argument.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. That's not what the criticism you're criticising does.
>>
>>Then what does it do, Karnak.
>
> It tries to fairly weigh up the merits and demerits of a work of art in
> order to arrive at an overall estimate of the work's relative aesthetic
> worth. If a painting happens to do something that no painting the critic has
> previously seen does, that may be a good thing or a bad thing, or it may be
> of no aesthetic consequence, depending on various factors (e.g., "The artist
> has stuck apples all around the edge of the painting; this strikes me as a
> silly gimmick", "The artist has obscured most of each face with thick, black
> lacquer, which adds poignancy to the piece", etc.).
Relative to what? Whatever your favorite paintings might be? Isn't
this saying that painting x stinks because it doesn't look like painting Y?
>>Well, at least you should call it "one dimensional criticism." I would
>>be less apt to challenge your ignorance if you did.
>
> I'm strongly inclined to challenge your ignorance of the philosophy of art.
> What you call "one dimensional" criticism is criticism. What you want
> criticism to do (namely discuss the foundations of criticism) is the job of
> the philosophy of art.
That's fine with me. It's also the foundation of Critical Theory.
But you're just recapitulating the first part substituting positive for
negative - you've missed the point entirely. How can I, or anyone else,
argue against your taste? That's your property - it belongs to you. I'm
asking you to complete part 2 along the lines of providing objective,
verifyable criteria that can be extracted from the work of art itself on
which to base a critique, or at least to make declarations about it
succeeding or failing, being good or bad, art or anti-art.
You know, say you found some drawings by someone in Brunelleschi's
workshop who put a vanishing point below eye level. You would have a
good ground for calling the drawings a failure - a guilt by association,
if you will. I mean it would be a "reasonable" argument. I'm asking
what similar logic could be applied to Cezanne's painting, that it
somehow failed. In my hypothetical case, it's the context that gives us
a clue of failure. If we found the exact same drawing in Leger's
workshop, it would be a weak argument. It all boils down to something
outside the painting - in the hypothetical it is the context: the
invention of linear perspective, Brunelleschi's influence, the whole
early Renaissance project of perspective rendering.
Cezanne, on the other hand, is in a context of challenges, distortions,
experiments, novelty, "progress" and all the other things we associate
with Modernism. In that case the very context of the painting works
against the idea that it "failed" to achieve certain expectations or ends.
>>>Criticism is about
>>>discovering what factors intrinsic to the works themselves distinguish
>>
> the
>
>>>liked from the unliked, and appraising individual works in light of
>>
> those
>
>>>factors. (It may also bring other values, such as moral ones, into
>>>consideration.)
>>
>>A "critique" considers objective factors.
>
>
> A critique evaluates, by definition. It strives to evaluate as fairly as
> possible. In the criticism of art, this means weighing up multiple
> subjective factors, taking into account the importance (also subjective) of
> each. This is possible and reasonable to do because most people share most
> aesthetic values.
OK, I guess we could have a battle of definitions. But just consider
that a critique can evaluate and judge according to objective factors.
So there's no real contradiction with ArtLex.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Remember the "painting x fails because it doesn't look like painting y"
point?
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
But your shopping list of questions doesn't relate to what you wrote. I
wasn't sure what you were expressing - it looks like you have reduced
everything I have said on this to "I beg to differ" as if what I wrote
has zero value. But I'm not sure if this is what you intended to say.
In answer to your questions, the whole construction of good/bad is not
impressive to me as a way to approach a work of art. Given that, I can
say I like Cezanne's painting, and most of his works, but to put in
terms of good and bad is simply something that has no interest for me.
So of course I wouldn't answer your question "why is it good." Ditto
for the next question "base of assessment."
As for the last question, I have spent much more than four years
studying art. Actually, more than four in Art Studio, and about four in
Art History and Critical Theory. Plus I've been making art at various
capacities for 50 years or so. I can't imagine why you think art
wouldn't exist if I don't value the concept of good/bad art.
I'm reminded of something I read once...an interview with Margaret
Meade. She was asked whether a certain culture was more advanced than
another, and her response was "I find the concept of racial superiority
rather dull." That's more or less how I feel about good/bad art ideas.
They just can't go very far in understanding the hows and whys of art.
And that's just my opinion. But it works fine for me.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
If you boned up on some of that dogma you would understand that "sexual
politics" isn't the same as "sexual" or "sensual" in the way you are
using these terms. It's just a matter of asking yourself "what is the
significance of the nude female body in Western Art?" "What are the
social ramifications" and so on.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Andrew D wrote:
> In article <3EFA0E5...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>But you need to address one flaw in your thinking: these "all other
>>values" you are citing are not about art, they are about politics. The
>>distinguish mark that makes me say this is that you frame your whole
>>argument in hegemonic terms - or in terms of "power" to determine what
>>is good and what is bad, as opposed to just kicking back and let
>>individuals decide for themselves, on whatever basis, what they like or
>>dislike. Your statement that I am somehow damaging the art practice by
>>championing the right of each individual to decide what they like or
>>dislike is a perfect example of your politics. It stinks, in my opinion.
>
>
> Not to speak for others, but in general I believe those who choose to
> publicly question the "art" of Cezanne, Picasso et al are actually having
> a go at the establishments that promote these people as "masters" and who
> pay millions to hang them on the walls of public galleries, often in an
> apparent attempt to annoy the shit out of the public.
Yes, I think you're correct about the challenge - but the conspiracy
part goes over the edge for me. I think if one sees "Art" as an entire
cultural production, the sum of its parts including museums, critics,
collecting, public and private spheres and so on, it's harder to see it
as a conspiracy. One of the interesting phenomena of musiology, for
example, it the Blockbuster exhibit. I think Hitler's folks invented it
with the Degenerate Art shows - but the first one I remember was the Van
Gogh exhibit that traveled around the US in 1958. It was attended by
millions of the "public" who previously had no idea who he was. Now
he's a public icon. The "Mona Lisa" was virtually unknown until it was
stolen in 1911. It got a lot of press attention, but it was not the news
directly that made it the most famous painting in the world. It was
because the painting then was used for advertising - first in Europe and
then in the US, South America and perhaps elsewhere the print media was
full of advertisements for Mona Lisa Liver Pills and Mona Lisa
Underwear. Soon the painting was designated as the "greatest" of all
paintings.
That's how it works. The "Art World" is just to big and faceted to be
managed by a special interest group bent on duping the public.
> If "art" of the Cezanne type did not fill the walls of major public
> galleries I suspect most people wouldn't give a toss about him. But the
> fact is, regardless of your personal take on good versus bad, many/most
> public galleries seem to have deemed that the crap, no rules art is "the
> best" and that anything which shows a glimmer of talent is best left for
> postcards.
But that's nonsense, Andrew. Come on. While there may be art exhibited
and sold at auctions that doesn't please you, there is also art that
does, by any measure. I would say this about those of you who feel that
you are left out of the big art picture - get off your asses and build
your art world the way you want it. No one will stop you. I think the
art renewal project is great in this respect. I laud their efforts, and
I think it will pay off. But why complain about folks who have done
just this, and are in a position to foister their particular tastes
broadly througout society? You could have them all executed for their
crimes against humanity, and still be faced with building up your
particular taste to the level of cultural property.
>
> If you don't give a damn about good versus bad then perhaps that's an
> argument you need to take up with those who have views no less dogmatic
> than contributors here hold, but who have far more influence in public
> galleries and art politics in general.
Why? I have no complaints with curators, historians and gallery people.
What would I be fighting for? There's plenty of art exhibited and
promoted that I don't care for, but why should I struggle against it
being exhibited for people who do care for it.
>>Of course, a "problem." But it's an easy burden - I mean I can stand
>>before a painting that catched my attention and imagination and "like
>>it" even though it may not belong to some sort of "approved" shopping
>>list, or violates a set of rules that someone has jammed-up my ass. It's
>>an easy "problem" to live with.
>
> You can't stand before it if the galleries don't hang it... and if it aint
> scratch and smear modern ugliness, then it's unlikely to get hung in many
> public galleries that claim to collect the very best they can afford.
That's rediculous. The art market is incredibly diverse, with an
enormous amount of market niches for everything. Sure, some galleries
are going to turn you down for several possible reasons - maybe they
don't sell what you do, or are in no position to sponsor a newbie, or
whatever. If you don't like the art at MoMA, go to the Met. If God
swung his might sword and banished all Modern Art from the universe, an
artist would still have a tough go at it.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
But the claim was made that the painting doesn't "cohere" and I didn't
see that. So I don't think it's an objective statement. What else could
I have said to pass your test? But say I decided to do a step by step
analysis to show the coherence in the work. Would you agree then?
Would I convince you or any other Cezanne hater that it does "cohere."
Not very likely, don't you agree?
Erik A. Mattila
>>As I've said before, it "coheres" for me, and quite nicely, I might add.
>
>
> If it coheres so nicely, why are you left searching for an explanation of
> the men in Cezanne's pictures ("We need to explain, for example, Cezanne's
> inclusion of the middle-class voyeur's colonizing the nude female body
> with his gaze, which is in the foreground of each of Cezanne's
> paintings.)?
>
> Apparently, from your earlier comments, it appears to only cohere to a
> point where it leaves you lost as to the point of the painting or the
> things within it. I guess, as with other words, you are operating with a
> different definition of coherence?
Apparently. My sense is that "coherence" is a formal measure - a matter
of form - so the "content," such as identifying the figure as middle
class or lumpen prole, wouldn't be a part of that measure.
What interested me about the figure, coherence aside, was that Cezanne
added this to the older Olympias, which contained the reclining nude and
the black slave. This is where art history comes in handy. "Moderne
Olympia" is noted as a backhanded tribute to Monet, and Monet's Olympia
outraged the public because of it's explicit sexuality and the fact that
Manet used a known prostitute as a model.
Anyway, it's just interesting to me. The more this discussion goes on
the more I like the painting.
Erik
Andrew D
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>It is this: art, at bottom, is a form of showing off - like sport, only you
>make things, instead of leaping about.
I like that description. Says it all and without any pretence. I cannot
deny that I produce art because I'm better at it than most of the people I
know and I actually enjoy it when strangers say "I wish I could do that".
Yes, I am a showoff - and no, I couldn't kick a football straight or hit a
golf ball to save my life.
If I didn't think I was good at art, I'd probably feel somewhat depressed
about producing it. Perhaps this explains the manic mentality of so many
"modern" painters who almost seem to revel in their own dysfunction.
Erik A. Mattila
You've just constructed a moral equivalency between a critical
methodology and Adolph Hitler. That's pretty amazing. Don't you feel a
tiny bit embarrassed?
Erik
>
Andrew D
>Andrew D wrote:
[snip]
>> If "art" of the Cezanne type did not fill the walls of major public
>> galleries I suspect most people wouldn't give a toss about him. But the
>> fact is, regardless of your personal take on good versus bad, many/most
>> public galleries seem to have deemed that the crap, no rules art is "the
>> best" and that anything which shows a glimmer of talent is best left for
>> postcards.
>But that's nonsense, Andrew. Come on. While there may be art exhibited
>and sold at auctions that doesn't please you, there is also art that
>does, by any measure.
I'm not talking about auctions - I'm referring to the "gurus" who act as
curators for major public galleries and who turn their nose up at anything
that actually resembles that which it attempts to portray. I used to think
it was just our gallery here in Perth but it's become obvious from
comments in this and similar forums that it's a worldwide trend.
>I would say this about those of you who feel that
>you are left out of the big art picture - get off your asses and build
>your art world the way you want it. No one will stop you. I think the
>art renewal project is great in this respect. I laud their efforts, and
>I think it will pay off. But why complain about folks who have done
>just this, and are in a position to foister their particular tastes
>broadly througout society? You could have them all executed for their
>crimes against humanity, and still be faced with building up your
>particular taste to the level of cultural property.
A part of that "taking back the streets" campaign DOES involve exposing
the myths that support modern art and pointing out how and why many modern
art paintings fail - in the same way modern art gurus and lecturers openly
chastise those who set out to make representational art and who dismiss
the results as "mere illustration" or "chocolate box pictures" and who
condemn it to be sold only in "gift shops" as, according to them, it does
not belong in a "real art gallery". (Read some of Dan Fox's contributions
in this forum for more info)
>> If you don't give a damn about good versus bad then perhaps that's an
>> argument you need to take up with those who have views no less dogmatic
>> than contributors here hold, but who have far more influence in public
>> galleries and art politics in general.
>Why? I have no complaints with curators, historians and gallery people.
> What would I be fighting for? There's plenty of art exhibited and
>promoted that I don't care for, but why should I struggle against it
>being exhibited for people who do care for it.
Because all too often, it is not representative of the art world - and you
claim to support variety, in all its forms. Surely, if the majority of
people producing art are producing representational (or realist) art - and
accepting that there's no such thing as good or bad art - then the
majority of art in public galleries, if they are to be representative of
the art world, should be representational art, not modern/abstract/naive.
>>>Of course, a "problem." But it's an easy burden - I mean I can stand
>>>before a painting that catched my attention and imagination and "like
>>>it" even though it may not belong to some sort of "approved" shopping
>>>list, or violates a set of rules that someone has jammed-up my ass. It's
>>>an easy "problem" to live with.
>> You can't stand before it if the galleries don't hang it... and if it aint
>> scratch and smear modern ugliness, then it's unlikely to get hung in many
>> public galleries that claim to collect the very best they can afford.
>That's rediculous. The art market is incredibly diverse, with an
>enormous amount of market niches for everything. Sure, some galleries
>are going to turn you down for several possible reasons - maybe they
>don't sell what you do, or are in no position to sponsor a newbie, or
>whatever.
You seem to be confusing commercial galleries with public galleries. When
I refer to public galleries, I mean government-run, taxpayer-funded
establishments (museums if you prefer).
Andrew D
>Andrew D wrote:
>> In article <3EFA1AC2...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>>As I've said before, it "coheres" for me, and quite nicely, I might add.
>> This is what I was referring to earlier when I wrote (apparently to your
>> confusion):
>> "It would be more interesting if if your counter-arguments contained
>> something more substantial than 'I beg to differ'. "
>But the claim was made that the painting doesn't "cohere" and I didn't
>see that. So I don't think it's an objective statement. What else could
>I have said to pass your test? But say I decided to do a step by step
>analysis to show the coherence in the work. Would you agree then?
>Would I convince you or any other Cezanne hater that it does "cohere."
>Not very likely, don't you agree?
No one ever seems willing to try, so how will we know?
Erik A. Mattila
Thur wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> True.
> There are seemingly a vast horde of camp followers
> of anything that is designed to repel the 'older generation'
> Same as any youthful fad, from Punk to Hot Pants,
> to a switch to drinks that are colourless, to ridiculous
> flares, and frizzy hairdo's and generally making a noise
> and having fun, and joining in and belonging.
> Nothing wrong with it so long as we do not mistake it for
> something which it is not.
> There must be something to be said for 'Modern Art' or
> Abstract Art which is a better label, but in spite of post
> after post, all that has been said amounts to a criticism
> of the criticism. No effort has been made to explain,
> assuming Abstract Art has an explanation.
> Thur
True. I am talking about criticism. But effort to explain can be a
ruse - I mean I've learned a lot about Cezanne inadvertently. I didn't
see him as so nasty before this thread, for example. A charming quality...
Erik
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:3EFAA66B...@oco.net...
Erik A. Mattila
> You seem to be confusing commercial galleries with public galleries. When
> I refer to public galleries, I mean government-run, taxpayer-funded
> establishments (museums if you prefer).
I haven't learnt to speak Australian real good, but I think your "public
gallery" is the same as our "art museum." Correct? Here in California
art museums are full of every art imaginable. Of course, if it's "the
Museum of Modern Art you would expect modern art.
Erik A. Mattila
I hit the send button too quickly. I meant to add that for any
contemporary painter who simply wishes to recapitulate and old art style
or type, it's a hard row to hoe. You can't get it in the Museum of
Regular Art becasue it's modern, and you can't get it in the Museum of
Modern Art because it's vestigial. The only hope is to declare yourself
to be postmodern, which treasures appropriation from the past. The
irony is that most painters who want to recapitulate or appropriate deny
the existence of postmodernism.
So it may be just a category problem. Public institutions have trouble
with this sort of thing.
>
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
You can't get it in the Museum of
> Regular Art becasue it's modern, and you can't get it in the Museum of
> Modern Art because it's vestigial. The only hope is to declare yourself
> to be postmodern, which treasures appropriation from the past. The
> irony is that most painters who want to recapitulate or appropriate deny
> the existence of postmodernism.
>
question if it makes any sense at all.
Your suggestion that postmodernism treasures appropriation from the past is
new to me, I hadn't got the impression that it treasured anything bar
bullshit.
Have you any pointers to postmodernist writing or artists who demonstrate
this? I am always happy to hope that there is some meaning between the
waffle but have been unable to thus far.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> > I ask, what reason is there for drawing realistically?
>>
>> A look at the miserable quality of your work is a good reason for
>> starters.
>
>In other words, you have no real answer,so you resort to ad hominem
>attacks.
Am I supposed to say its great?
>I'm flattered, though, that someone with taste in art so diametrically
>opposed to my own would find my work so unappealing. I must be doing
>something right!
>
Thats what failure art teachers tell their failure students for their
failure artwork.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
>> The simple reason to draw realistically is to ensure the viewer sees
>what the
>> artist sees.
>
>Assuming you mean, what the artist sees in a very literal sense, I
>agree - that is a good reason to draw accurately. But as soon as one
>admits the possiblity that the artist wants the viewer to see not what
>the artist himself actually sees, but the artist's creative vision
>regarding what he sees and wishes to express, the need for accurate
>drawing not only disappears,but becomes a hindrance
Utter nonsense! Surreal artwork.
> - the more like the
>actual subject you paint, the less your own creativity is a factor.
and why would anyone come to this conclusion. Dutch Still Life, etc
etc.
> It
>is true that you can express your creativty in other respects as well -
>color choice, composition, etc - but why rule out drawing as an element
>to be played with?
>
You can't play with drawing because you can't draw.
Mani Deli
D) wrote:
>In article <3EF9246A...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net wrote:
>
>>Andrew D wrote:
>[snip]
>>> It would be more interesting if if your counter-arguments contained
>>> something more substantial than "I beg to differ".
>
>>I have no idea what you're talking about. What do you mean?
>
>Okay Eric, in reasonably plain English....
>
>Do you believe there is such a thing as good art and/or bad art?
Don't expect an answer.
>If so, do you think the Cezanne painting in question is good art?
>
>If so, why is it good?
>
>If you accept the concept of good/bad art, on what do you base your assessment?
>
>If you don't accept the concept of good/bad art, why did you spend 4 years
>studying something which, in effect, doesn't exist?
>
Don' expect an answer.
Andrew D
>Andrew D wrote:
>> In article <3EFA0680...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>As for the rest, the female nude in Western art has
>>>always been an expression of sexual politics.
>> Interesting. When I did life drawing I always found the experience about
>> as sexual as drawing eggs in baskets. Sensual perhaps - but "always"
>> sexual? I don't think so. Sounds a bit like feminist dogma to me.
>If you boned up on some of that dogma you would understand that "sexual
>politics" isn't the same as "sexual" or "sensual" in the way you are
>using these terms. It's just a matter of asking yourself "what is the
>significance of the nude female body in Western Art?" "What are the
>social ramifications" and so on.
Perhaps you should tell us because, as I said, I found life drawing no
different to drawing still lifes - except that the model rarely stayed
perfectly still (never, if fact). In my mind, a good nude is just an
exploitation of light, shadow, shape and form - and sometimes colour. Just
as some people see exquisite beauty in a well painted basket of eggs
sitting on a window sill lit by the morning sun filtering through a lace
curtain, so they and others see beauty in the play of light across the
human body. Amazingly, perhaps, many heterosexual women are as captivated
by paintings of nude women too. Only a rabid feminist would see such
paintings as some sort of patriarchal oppression or objectification of
women.
Though I will admit, when Cezanne paints them, it's difficult to see any
beauty and they do indeed look like objects - not like women mind you,
more like lumps of lard.
Erik A. Mattila
I accept your experience in life drawing situations, Andrew. I've
experience the same things myself. But I've also experienced extremely
erotic drawing sessions, and my male and female classmates have been
candid enough to say the same things themselves. The interesting about
it is in the life drawing studio, a particular ritual has been in effect
since the 19th century of seperating the "nude" from the "naked" in
order to construct a permissive social space for nude figure drawing. So
here is the nude model surrounded by clothed artists - of course if the
doors and windows are left open, and non-artists peer at the model, it
suddenly turns into some sort of sin, embarassment, or simply the model
complaining that "people are looking at me." Another thing that is
interesting, is that we are never asked to draw nude self-portraits in
art school. Why not. We would certainly learn as much about drawing
the human figure. But we don't do this, because of several reasons that
would all draw out into the political realms that I have mentioned and
that you challenge.
I would like to also say that feminism and women's studies, and the
discourse that that has engendered, it to our mutual benefit - I mean
the benefit of all of us - society in general. But such studies
inevitably raise unconfortable questions, and changing from the accepted
mores and practices of culture is not simple and easy. In that sense I
would say that the only "rabidity" of the term "rabid feminist" comes
from the speaker of such a term, since it so dismissive and incapable of
not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Feminism (and there are
several other schools of thought under the rubric of "women's studies")
would certainly produce things that are not true, or arguable, or even
wrong. But on the whole the transformatons in society that have
resulted are positive things and we benefit from it. You know, it's
easy to insist that Afghanistani women shouldn't be forced to wear
Burkkas, but harder for us to say that the role the nude female figure
has played in Western art is less than noble and pristine. On a
personal level, what's the difference. We can enjoy the Venus d' Urbino
as much as a nasty picture than as an antiseptic non-erotic lie.
Looking at the history of art school life drawing, in fact, the tight
discipline of erotic coolness rose right out of Victorian society - you
know, that society where women never farted and hid their bodies behind
enormous structures of wire, taffeta and silk, while their husbands
collected pictures of naked harem girls, prostitutes and farm hands.
> Though I will admit, when Cezanne paints them, it's difficult to see any
> beauty and they do indeed look like objects - not like women mind you,
> more like lumps of lard.
That's a good observation. Now just connect it to the art Cezanne was
challenging, where the naked women were lying there, all smoothed
skinned, rosy cheeked and available for sex. Look at Gauguin - he
always screwed his female models before he painted them - but they
actually look like real women instead of some Max Factored Salon courtesan.
Erik
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Andrew D wrote:
>> In article <3EFA9F98...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net wrote:
>>
>> Though I will admit, when Cezanne paints them, it's difficult to see any
>> beauty and they do indeed look like objects - not like women mind you,
>> more like lumps of lard.
The don't really look like lumps of anything because Cezanne couldn't
draw a lump in the round. They look like flat skin problems by an
illustrator who couldn't draw done in colored cement. However, many of
Picasso's nudes are lumps of lard covered with colored cement.
Picasso unlike Cezanne could draw the round, not well however.
>
>That's a good observation. Now just connect it to the art Cezanne was
>challenging, where the naked women were lying there, all smoothed
>skinned, rosy cheeked and available for sex.
Yes and we all know that you prefer flat colored cement thinking this
is a great advance.
> Look at Gauguin - he
>always screwed his female models before he painted them - but they
>actually look like real women instead of some Max Factored Salon courtesan.
See an eye doctor.
Flying_Naked_People
> Now just connect it to the art Cezanne was
> challenging, where the naked women were lying there, all smoothed
> actually look like real women instead of some Max Factored Salon courtesan.
>
>
A funny on what you said before I hit the next window - I promise you, that if
I ever see "real" people like Cezanne's, my artwork will undoubtedly become
influenced by "The Scream."
hee hee
Seagull Manager
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:KUvKa.889$EW2.1...@news.uswest.net...
> But again I ask, why should askewness be any more significant than the
> lack of
> it?
Because everything in a good work of art serves a purpose, and contributes
to the whole. If the work is primarily a depiction, then the reason for an
element's not being askew is obvious. It serves the depictive purpose to it
to be so. If it is askew, that seems contrary to the depictive aim of the
image, therefore it needs explanation in terms of an additional purpose of
the image.
> You assume much here - see below.
I assume little.
> Well, now we are getting somewhere. At least someone here admits there
> are no absolute values in art.
It is not a mere "admission". It is central to my theory of value in art.
> I just question why you consider
> accurate drawing the default. What if an artist has no interest in
> displaying observational powers or their own virtuosity?
When someone is not creating a display of some kind of virtuosity, whether
consciously to show off, or incidentally in the pursuit of another purpose,
they are not making art. It is a contradiction in terms to say that an
"artist" has no interest in displaying their own virtuosity.
> And what if an
> artist disagrees with the claim that a realistic drawing is more vivid
> or "honest"?
An artist who does not understand why and how depictions are made vivid is
incompetent.
> What if the artists's only goal is to create an image with
> aesthetic appeal, completely independent of realism.
There's no such thing as an *image* that is completely independent of
realism.
> Why should such an
> artist take accurate drawing as a default?
The default assumption is one made by the viewer, not the artist, in order
to understand and evaluate work.
> It might make more sense for
> such an artist to take *design* as a default, and make the shape one
> that works for their aesthetic purposes, and if they wanted to include a
> nod to realism for whatever reason, they would have to figure out how
> much they could deviate from their idealized abstract shape in order.
To the extent that the depiction deviates from the design scheme (or other
*discernable* purpose of the whole), it conforms to naturalism, or it looks
like (and is) a mistake.
Seagull Manager
No, it fails because it doesn't look like the thing depicted OR like part of
an abstract design OR a meaningful symbol of anything. Being apparently
purposeless, it can only be regarded as a mistake.
It is mainly modernist critics who fail works because they don't look like
other works (e.g., a critic will see something that looks flat, and proclaim
"henceforth all paintings will look flat", and dismiss all paintings that
don't look flat, regardless of their actual merits).
Seagull Manager
>
> Assuming you mean, what the artist sees in a very literal sense, I
> agree - that is a good reason to draw accurately. But as soon as one
> admits the possiblity that the artist wants the viewer to see not what
> the artist himself actually sees, but the artist's creative vision
> regarding what he sees and wishes to express, the need for accurate
> actual subject you paint, the less your own creativity is a factor.
That is the opposite of the truth.
If you make an imaginary subject vivid to the viewer, then the more
realistic you can make it look, the more successful you'll be. That's why
Hollywood spends huge sums on special effects. That's also why veristic
Surrealism (Magritte, Dali, etc.) is hugely and perennially popular, whereas
abstract Surrealism has never gained a wide following.
By contrast to products of the artist's imagination, some extremely familiar
objects can be very loosely sketched or highly stylized, and still have
their effect, because we are attuned by nature to respond to such things.
For instance, a face can be drawn with two dots, a line and a circle, and
still elicit a smile from a baby, but a similarly schematic image of a
velociraptor just ain't scary.
> It
> is true that you can express your creativty in other respects as well -
> color choice, composition, etc - but why rule out drawing as an element
> to be played with?
No-one is ruling that out.
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
>news:KUvKa.889$EW2.1...@news.uswest.net...
>> What if the artists's only goal is to create an image with
>> aesthetic appeal, completely independent of realism.
>
>There's no such thing as an *image* that is completely independent of
>realism.
If I understand what you mean by "image" & "realism", then I disagree.
Even restricting to "artistic" images, many people consider (e.g.)
depictions of fractals like the Mandelbrot set beautiful, though
they don't exist in the real world (being complex in every sense).
[Googling for: Mandelbrot beautiful image produced 3330 hits.]
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Marc Sabatella
> >> > I ask, what reason is there for drawing realistically?
> >>
> >> A look at the miserable quality of your work is a good reason for
> >> starters.
> >
> >In other words, you have no real answer,so you resort to ad hominem
> >attacks.
>
> Am I supposed to say its great?
You weren't supposed to comment on it at all. You were supposed to
answer the question I asked.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> >Assuming you mean, what the artist sees in a very literal sense, I
> >agree - that is a good reason to draw accurately. But as soon as one
> >admits the possiblity that the artist wants the viewer to see not
what
> >the artist himself actually sees, but the artist's creative vision
> >regarding what he sees and wishes to express, the need for accurate
> >drawing not only disappears,but becomes a hindrance
>
> Utter nonsense! Surreal artwork.
True. For some artists not interested in portraying reality, realistic
drawing is still important. Still, it need not be for all artists.
> > - the more like the
> >actual subject you paint, the less your own creativity is a factor.
>
> and why would anyone come to this conclusion. Dutch Still Life, etc
> etc.
This does not contradict my claim at all. Yes, they display creativity.
But they could have displayed more had they not painted so accurately.
Of course, not drawing accurately is not in itself creative. But it is
an *avenue* for expressing creativity.
> You can't play with drawing because you can't draw.
Again, I am flattered. Not only because someone whose taste I hold in
contempt does not like my art, but also because, as I now realize, you
have so realized you are wrong that you have no recoruse but to
criticize my art rathert than response to my points. I have won, and
there is no more need to respond to your posts.
Marc Sabatella
wrote:
> > Assuming you mean, what the artist sees in a very literal sense, I
> > agree - that is a good reason to draw accurately. But as soon as
one
> > admits the possiblity that the artist wants the viewer to see not
what
> > the artist himself actually sees, but the artist's creative vision
> > regarding what he sees and wishes to express, the need for accurate
> > drawing not only disappears, but becomes a hindrance - the more like
the
> > actual subject you paint, the less your own creativity is a factor.
>
> That is the opposite of the truth.
>
> If you make an imaginary subject vivid to the viewer, then the more
> realistic you can make it look, the more successful you'll be.
True, within this narrow genre of art. I was speaking more generally.
> > It
> > is true that you can express your creativty in other respects as
well -
> > color choice, composition, etc - but why rule out drawing as an
element
> > to be played with?
>
> No-one is ruling that out.
You might not have been, but others were.
Seagull Manager
>
> Then would you say that Kant thought that pure reasons was
> good or bad when he wrote his critique?
Goodish. Perhaps he would have liked it to be better.
> > It tries to fairly weigh up the merits and demerits of a work of art in
> > order to arrive at an overall estimate of the work's relative aesthetic
> > worth...
>
> Relative to what? Whatever your favorite paintings might be? Isn't
> this saying that painting x stinks because it doesn't look like painting
Y?
Relative to all the art one knows of, or can conceive - or, to put it
another way, relative to what the work could be. And no, it is not even
SLIGHTLY like saying "this painting x stinks because it doesn't look like
painting Y". It is like saying "Painting X stinks because the colour stinks,
the line stinks, the design stinks, the subject matter stinks, and the
drawing stinks, although the handling of paint is okay", or like saying
"Painting Y is fab, because the line is fab, the design is fab, the subject
matter is fab, and the drawing is fab, though the colour is a bit boring".
> How can I, or anyone else, argue against your taste?
You can argue that my preference for X has nothing to do with the aesthetic
qualities of X. For instance, if I liked Rembrandt because I like all things
Dutch, you could say that was not a valid reason in the context of a
critical appraisal of Rembrandt's work.
You could also argue that I've missed things that are pertinent to the
appraisal. For instance, I might be overrating Rembrandt because I haven't
noticed that he's not very good at depicting hands. Or I could be overrating
his originality, by failing to notice the influence of Caravaggio in his
work. Or underestimating his intelligence, by not noticing how cleverly he
composes a picture.
You could argue that I'm misreading the work, or reading things into it that
aren't there, and this is biasing my appraisal. You'd have an excuse to do
so if I claimed that Belshazzar's Feast was a republican tract.
If I brought moral consequentialist considerations into my appraisal, you
might argue that they were unsound. For instance, I might claim that the
Blinding of Samson was sure to encourage violence, and you might say that
was unlikely.
> That's your property - it belongs to you.
My personal taste, which may involve factors that have nothing to do with
strictly aesthetic appreciation of a work, is "mine", but a critical
appraisal of a work must be based on a thorough consideration of its
aesthetic qualities. If my appraisal concludes on the basis of that
consideration that a work is virtuosic, intelligent, profound, affecting,
witty, well-observed, elegantly constructed, coherent, rich in content,
humane, morally sound, and lacking in any clumsiness or discordant notes, I
need hardly add that it is good, and it would be very odd to say that it is
bad.
> You know, say you found some drawings by someone in Brunelleschi's
> workshop who put a vanishing point below eye level. You would have a
> good ground for calling the drawings a failure - a guilt by association,
> if you will... it's the context that gives us a clue of failure.
That's not how you judge success or failure in art. That would be a
completely unsound appraisal. Remember: the most important and reliable
source of evidence about a person's intentions is the behaviour that
expresses those intentions. This is true in courts of law, and it is true in
art criticism. In the case of a drawing or painting, it is the work itself
that gives the best clues as to what was intended, and whether it was
successful or not. Just as a reader can usually tell if a text is intended
to be polemical or narrative, realistic or fabulous, sketchy or precise,
humorous or sober, so too can a viewer tell analogous things about a drawing
or painting. These inferences will be the main basis for any sound critical
appraisal of that picture. So if a drawing looks as if it was attempting
without success at linear perspective, then that is almost certainly what
happened.
> Cezanne, on the other hand, is in a context of challenges, distortions,
> experiments, novelty, "progress" and all the other things we associate
> with Modernism.
Cezanne was not a particularly experimental painter, either in terms of
subject matter, or composition, or style. Nor do his reported utterances or
his writings contain anything to support claims that his bad drawing is
deliberate. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Seagull Manager
> Andrew D wrote:
> > In article <bdd7l5$lu1$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Seagull Manager"
> > <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > If Eric was a political historian he'd have us all believing Hitler was
> > praiseworthy simply because he was a political leader and that we should
> > all just ignore his obvious leadership failings.
LOL. But I guess Hitler *intended* to misrule his country, so he was a great
success!
> You've just constructed a moral equivalency between a critical
> methodology and Adolph Hitler. That's pretty amazing. Don't you feel a
> tiny bit embarrassed?
>
> Erik
Aren't you embarrassed to call your uncritical claptrap a "critical
methodology"?
Seagull Manager
> So
> here is the nude model surrounded by clothed artists - of course if the
> doors and windows are left open, and non-artists peer at the model, it
> suddenly turns into some sort of sin, embarassment, or simply the model
> complaining that "people are looking at me."
Same applies if the model is male (and if the artists are female, but that
latter is a modern phenomenon). In a clothed society, we all recognize and
respect each other's right to control who sees our nudity.
Funny that you can discuss the nude in art at such length without mentioning
the male nude, let alone noticing the decline in the frequency of its
appearance in art since the early 19th century (a phenomenon that probably
really DOES have something to do with sexual politics, unlike a lot of the
stuff you've mentioned so far).
> Another thing that is
> interesting, is that we are never asked to draw nude self-portraits in
> art school. Why not.
It is not equivalent. The model has made a free choice to be a model, the
art student has not.
> Now just connect it to the art Cezanne was
> challenging, where the naked women were lying there, all smoothed
> skinned, rosy cheeked and available for sex.
What is your basis for saying he was challenging that art?
Seagull Manager
>
> I'm reminded of something I read once...an interview with Margaret
> Meade. She was asked whether a certain culture was more advanced than
> another, and her response was "I find the concept of racial superiority
> rather dull."
So she failed to answer the question, since it was about cultures, not
races.
Seagull Manager
>
> example, it the Blockbuster exhibit. I think Hitler's folks invented it
> with the Degenerate Art shows - but the first one I remember was the Van
> Gogh exhibit that traveled around the US in 1958.
Big touring exhibitions (often of a single painting) happened in the 19th
century.
> It was attended by
> millions of the "public" who previously had no idea who he was.
What made Van Gogh famous was the hagiographic biopic "Lust for Life" (1956)
starring Kirk Douglas - and the biographical novel by Irving Stone on which
it was based. It played on the romantic notion of the tortured genius (as
most pictures and many novels about artists do).
> Now
> he's a public icon. The "Mona Lisa" was virtually unknown until it was
> stolen in 1911.
You seriously exaggerate. The Mona Lisa was well-known before it was stolen
(and it was very influential in its own time). The theft helped make it more
famous.
> But why complain about folks who have done
> just this, and are in a position to foister their particular tastes
> broadly througout society?
Publicity-seeking art dealers with lousy taste (did someone mention Charles
Saatchi?) are dislikable, but what the hell.
Civil servants who run institutions set up to foster public enjoyment of
art, are simply not doing their job if they insist on spending the public's
money on unpopular modernism instead of on a wide range of stuff that is in
accord with public taste. I have a real beef with those guys.
Seagull Manager
You expect RECENT art, because that's what "modern" means. You shouldn't
expect all the art in there to conform to a narrow ideology that is not
shared by the majority of art-makers or art-lovers in modern times.
In other words "modern" does not mean "modernist".
Seagull Manager
>
> I hit the send button too quickly. I meant to add that for any
> contemporary painter who simply wishes to recapitulate and old art style
> or type, it's a hard row to hoe.
It shouldn't be. Nor should people assume that realistic figurative
painting, for instance, is necessarily simply a recapitulation of past
styles. Representational art has many opportunities to be evidently
up-to-date and of its time that are not available abstractionism.
> You can't get it in the Museum of
> Regular Art becasue it's modern, and you can't get it in the Museum of
> Modern Art because it's vestigial.
But it isn't (or is no more than modernist stuff is, at any rate). Though
purblind modernists assume it is.
> So it may be just a category problem. Public institutions have trouble
> with this sort of thing.
The trouble is known as idiotic prejudice.
Seagull Manager
<st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bdhoto$3ji$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
> In article <bdhkjf$3me$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
> >news:KUvKa.889$EW2.1...@news.uswest.net...
> ...
> >> What if the artists's only goal is to create an image with
> >> aesthetic appeal, completely independent of realism.
> >
> >There's no such thing as an *image* that is completely independent of
> >realism.
>
> If I understand what you mean by "image" & "realism", then I disagree.
> Even restricting to "artistic" images, many people consider (e.g.)
> depictions of fractals like the Mandelbrot set beautiful, though
> they don't exist in the real world (being complex in every sense).
> [Googling for: Mandelbrot beautiful image produced 3330 hits.]
What I mean is, you can't depict something without creating a resemblance
between the depiction and the thing depicted. As I'm including depictions of
imaginary things, I don't mean realism a la Courbet, but a more general
sense of realism.
Seagull Manager
> "Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> This does not contradict my claim at all. Yes, they display creativity.
> But they could have displayed more had they not painted so accurately.
Naturalism does not prevent creativity. Indeed, the effort to achieve
convincing naturalistic effects can be a stimulus to creativity.
> Of course, not drawing accurately is not in itself creative. But it is
> an *avenue* for expressing creativity.
Drawing accurately is also an avenue to creativity.
>
> > You can't play with drawing because you can't draw.
>
> Again, I am flattered.
Sticking to general principles: people who cannot draw accurately are less
equipped to play with drawing than those who can.
Seagull Manager
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > If you make an imaginary subject vivid to the viewer, then the more
> > realistic you can make it look, the more successful you'll be.
>
> True, within this narrow genre of art. I was speaking more generally.
It is not a narrow genre of art. It is predominant. In Western art, it
includes everything from medieval religious art, to the invented rustic
landscapes that have a popular following today. Straightforward, unadorned
realism is relatively rare.
>
> > > why rule out drawing as an element to be played with?
> >
> > No-one is ruling that out.
>
> You might not have been, but others were.
Who?
Erik A. Mattila
Oops, you're deflecting again. What's a "modernist critic" anyway?
Here's the simplism, dumbed-down for your benefit. If you hold up a
standard for painting, say a 19th century French painter, or even a
school(i.e. The Academy), and measure all art against it, then the basis
of your criticism is "painting x doesn't look like painting y." Fess
up...and what's wrong with that, if that's the way you want to look at
things? I'm just saying that I think it's corney.
Erik
>
>