art appreciaton
dx522
ways, run entirely contrary. I was amazed in medical school how
detatched I felt for many experiences that were very dramatic and
profound for my colleagues. This was particularly striking in
comparison with the feelings evoked in me by magnificent art works. The
first cadaver I dissected (beginning of first year) gave me no more
sense of mortality than a lump of wood or clay. I contrast this to the
awe and desolation I feel when viewing Gericault's Raft of the Medusa.
In my years as a surgical resident, I was witness to, and engaged in,
all matters of intensely emotional and graphic human experiences. Not
once did I feel my knees as weak as when I first saw Vermeer's Woman
with a Red Hat- Walking through the Met often made me nearly manic.
Obviously, most work I see on the web does not affect me that way, or
does so to a lesser degree. I don't always understand why a piece will
resonate so strongly with me; it's certainly not merely well-known
works [indeed, there are more than a few 'famous' artists that I
despise, such as Renoir]. I've seen work in Sotheby's catalogues, from
artists I'd never heard of, that are equally compelling.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
dx522 <dx...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:040620012343143025%dx...@hotmail.com...
> I find Peter Brooks' posting rather curious. My tendencies, in many
> ways, run entirely contrary. I was amazed in medical school how
> detatched I felt for many experiences that were very dramatic and
> profound for my colleagues. This was particularly striking in
> comparison with the feelings evoked in me by magnificent art works.
The
> first cadaver I dissected (beginning of first year) gave me no more
> sense of mortality than a lump of wood or clay. I contrast this to the
> awe and desolation I feel when viewing Gericault's Raft of the Medusa.
> In my years as a surgical resident, I was witness to, and engaged in,
> all matters of intensely emotional and graphic human experiences. Not
> once did I feel my knees as weak as when I first saw Vermeer's Woman
> with a Red Hat- Walking through the Met often made me nearly manic.
>
give you a powerful mix of feelings.
>
> Obviously, most work I see on the web does not affect me that way, or
> does so to a lesser degree. I don't always understand why a piece will
> resonate so strongly with me; it's certainly not merely well-known
> works [indeed, there are more than a few 'famous' artists that I
> despise, such as Renoir]. I've seen work in Sotheby's catalogues, from
> artists I'd never heard of, that are equally compelling.
>
time, it will resonate strongly (resonance is an excellent metaphor in
this case, almost exactly right).
In the case, for example in literature, of Ecclesiastes, a magnificent
piece of art if ever there was one, it is highly unlikely that anybody
under the age of thirty, at least, will find it makes much sense at all
(it will seem trite, even), whilst, to somebody, who has lived life to
the full, in their sixties it resonates with wisdom.
--
"Reflect with a clear mind, man by man for
himself," Zoroaster
Junie Buhg
>In the case, for example in literature, of Ecclesiastes, a magnificent
>piece of art if ever there was one
Ooooh my...now I'll have to dust off my
King James version and see what this is
all about. Actually, I feel more affinity for
the book of Job at my age. I'm still holding
out hope for my own Job-ian ending...
Peter H.M. Brooks
Junie Buhg <ju...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3b1ce...@oracle.zianet.com...
Marilyn Welch
Yes, I liked Ecclesiates in my twenties as I was learning that life is
not fair, it just IS ("the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the
strong etc.") I also agreed with the scholar Northrope Frye that the Bible
is literature. But now, I consider Ecclesiasties pessimistic in content,
the form has good cadence though.
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010605082344.19171A-100000@vtn1...
You might be confusing it with Job.
RolandKoch
abstract power of the written word too.
'Ey, Peter, Eccles can resowhatsitsname with 46-year olds too!
:)
Roland Koch
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9fhnc2$k1t$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
Peter H.M. Brooks
RolandKoch <rol...@xlab.co.za> wrote in message
news:9fk426$15tp$1...@nnrp01.ops.uunet.co.za...
> Amazing to find so many visual artists in this NG who appreciate the
> abstract power of the written word too.
> 'Ey, Peter, Eccles can resowhatsitsname with 46-year olds too!
>
was getting at.
mdeli
>Obviously, most work I see on the web does not affect me that way, or
>does so to a lesser degree. I don't always understand why a piece will
>resonate so strongly with me; it's certainly not merely well-known
>works [indeed, there are more than a few 'famous' artists that I
>despise, such as Renoir]. I've seen work in Sotheby's catalogues, from
>artists I'd never heard of, that are equally compelling.
Most art students never even heard of a Sotheby's catalog. They never
compared anything to Modern Academic Art; which is all they have ever
ever taken a serious look at.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Philip Ayers
on 6/6/01 4:06 AM:
> Most art students never even heard of a Sotheby's catalog. They never
> compared anything to Modern Academic Art; which is all they have ever
> ever taken a serious look at.
Ah.#1-
Did you do a study of art students to come up with this or is this just
another lame assumption you make. You assume that just because you utter the
phrase it's truth!...(at least you come off like this verbally, but maybe
it's just blowing air..no thinking going on as usual).
..really.
Ricardo Pontes
It has been my experience that most art students don't know allot things.
After all they are in art school to learn about a craft and usually they
know less then the teacher. Most students that I went to school with did not
know who Bouguereau, Menzel etc. were. I didn't take a poll, but from all of
the students I talked to it was new to them.
Whenever great exhibits were on display at the National Gallery like the
Victorians, students were not told anything about this. But whenever there
were 3rd rate charlatans like Pollock on display, they suddenly made it a
big part of their teaching to tell the students to view the works. One
particular crap exhibit at the Hirshorn gallery in d.c. called Sensations
filled with garbage from head to toe, gained the attention of the teachers,
and in turned they told the students about it. But whenever a great show
such as John Singer Sergeant came to the National Gallery, it was hardly
worth a mention. I'm just telling you this because many students are left in
the dark, not by their own but by the teachers who picked and choosed what
was important.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010607221155.134$Q...@newsreader.com...
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
> How many art students have you polled? How long ago? Bet you don't answer.
> >
> > Most art students never even heard of a Sotheby's catalog. They never
> > compared anything to Modern Academic Art; which is all they have ever
> > ever taken a serious look at.
> > ...no skill no art
> >
> > Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> >
> > Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> >
> > http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
Ricardo Pontes
spent most of my youth in pursuit of the arts. When I entered an art school
I though teachers knew what they were doing. I blindly followed them and saw
the works that were being produced, after a while I asked myself if this was
art. And I came to the conclusion it was not. As I looked around I just saw
young naive students wanting to be accepted and wanting to be needed that
they blindly took everything art teachers told them as holy nuggets.
Whenever I saw works by teachers, they were pretty much pathetic, even the
students who made conceptual art were surprised at the sheer absence of
talent. As far if I am in art school. I don't think I ever stopped learning,
I travel from here to there looking for artists that can teach me anything,
I don't consider my studies complete and don't ever think ill stop learning
the basics of drawing. In my first art school, they had one teacher that was
considered a "classical artist", she made basically the average garbage, at
first I thought she was kind of good, not great. But after a while, when I
became a better artist I looked again at the works, and now I consider them
pathetic.
And every art school has a few of these failed wannabes that couldn't draw
worth their life. If you would to compare her art to some of the teachers of
the same school you would think she was a genius, she was not good. She was
just around such garbage that it made her work seem decent. I see the same
thing happening with picassos student work. He was a horrible artist, his
academic works are pathetic in relation to any other academian at that time.
But of course when comparing his art works to the students of today, he can
be seen as a great artist. But when you compare trash to pure trash you just
get more garbage.
Ricardo Pontes
>
> When you were in school (or you still are in school?), did it ever
> occur to you that your teachers might know something about art that
> you did not, and that the 'crap' painters like Pollock had something
> to offer that you could not yet see?
>
Pollock's art is the absense of art . His garbage lacks everything needed to
be called art.
> This is a serious question and not a retort.
silverpoint
years just for starters. As a grown, mature artist, Picasso's drawings were
somewhere between those of da Vinci and Greek vase painting done in
Antiquity. You see, Picasso's juvenile work is just that, and no big
deal...
As any draftsman knows, this sort of line drawing is the hardest thing to
do, period. Oh, and study ancient Greek vase painting, which Ingres himself
credited much for his own understanding of great draftsmanship, ancient art,
and much else, while you're at it.
Because Picasso's earliest biographers made a big deal out of the fact that
his own father, a professor of art, taught his son a lot and enrolled him in
academic drawing classes, the full truth of how, as an adult, an awful lot
of talent, hard work, and willingness to go the extra mile made him one of
the greatest draftsmen who ever lived gets overlooked. Look up a book on
the "Vollard suite" on amazon.com or somewhere, if you don't believe me.
Picasso "sucks" and "couldn't even draw." Problem here is that, as the
teacher Robert Beverly Hale admonished, you need to first grasp an
understanding of what a picture (drawn or painted) even IS.
Why point to Picasso's childhood work as evidence of the fact that, yes, he
could actually, when there are in fact thousands of drawings and paintings
done over a 70 year period that more fully evidence this to a rare and
remarkable degree?
People who say "Picasso couldn't draw" are kind of like the old Steve Martin
skit where he looks into the camera and endlessly repeats, "What, I say,
what the hell is THAT SHIT????" You know---- stupid. Also, in this way,
Picasso was the reverse and an odd underpinning to Cezanne, who couldn't do
nearly as much with a pencil. But that's another lesson for you. I should
start charging for what I say here. And teaching you to draw...
"Ricardo Pontes" <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OZzb6Ys8AHA.162@cpmsnbbsa07...
Marilyn
library, actually our own personal bookshelf has 20 books on Picasso. Just
because of a few vociferous jerks, don't underestimate the rest of your
audience. Lissa and Zena could give you a run for your money, for example.
Marilyn
Dan Fox wrote:
> Silverpoint -
>
> Jesus, you are so right. So should I.
>
> Yours is one of the most literate and accurate posts I've seen here.
>
> It's hard enough to effectively teach students who want to learn - but
> trying to enlighten boneheads who think they know it all, and know nothing,
> as you correctly point out, only yields frustration. I'll do my review of
> Mani's work, because I've promised a number of people I would, but that's
> it.
>
> Thanks for giving me an insight I should've had long ago. Best regards.
>
> "silverpoint" <etenth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip - but read the original>
>
> I should start charging for what I say here. And teaching you to
> > draw...
>
silverpoint
Why don't more people avail themselves of it? You got me.
20 books on Picasso? There's hundreds of them, at least, yet still people,
as did yahoos in 1912, still insist that Picasso "couldn't draw," much like
ancient vase painters and the like "couldn't draw." Picasso worked in a
mode that was primitive/archaic, and don't take my word for it, this is
widely known.
Give me a run for my money. Doubtful.
"Marilyn" <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3B27DC26...@islandnet.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
It's very interesting that you compare
(drawing a) by Mr.Ms. x to (drawing b)
by Mr. Ms. y.
I don't make use of that type of
analysis. All my information about real
human beings exists in my imagination
put there by my perceptual system.
I use that material to evaluate a
drawing.
It's interesting that you have no
internalized artistic sense. That would
imply that you are a critic and not an
artist. No matter how much art training
you have had it never became
internalized.
fascinating
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
mdeli
<etenth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Take a look at the engravings done for Picasso's "Vollard Suite" over some
>years just for starters. As a grown, mature artist, Picasso's drawings were
>somewhere between those of da Vinci and Greek vase painting done in
>Antiquity. You see, Picasso's juvenile work is just that, and no big
>deal...
Picasso did imitations of Greek bronze engraving styles, not vase
paintings. As for Leonardo this comparison is ludicrous.
>
>As any draftsman knows, this sort of line drawing is the hardest thing to
>do, period.
For most here, period.
> Look up a book on
>the "Vollard suite" on amazon.com or somewhere, if you don't believe me.
>Picasso "sucks" and "couldn't even draw."
Picasso drew as well as a third rate illustrator. This also happens to
be about five times better than almost any other acclaimed Modern
Academic artist.
> Problem here is that, as the
>teacher Robert Beverly Hale admonished, you need to first grasp an
>understanding of what a picture (drawn or painted) even IS.
I assume you grasped this by its illusive pubic hairs, so please
inform us as to what it is. Having once studied with Hale I can only
say he was a bit of a dunce.
>
>Why point to Picasso's childhood work as evidence of the fact that, yes, he
>could actually, when there are in fact thousands of drawings and paintings
>done over a 70 year period that more fully evidence this to a rare and
>remarkable degree?
Lots of artists produce thousands of mediocre works. What counts is
quality not number.
>
>People who say "Picasso couldn't draw" are kind of like the old Steve Martin
>skit where he looks into the camera and endlessly repeats, "What, I say,
>what the hell is THAT SHIT????" You know---- stupid. Also, in this way,
>Picasso was the reverse and an odd underpinning to Cezanne, who couldn't do
>nearly as much with a pencil. But that's another lesson for you. I should
>start charging for what I say here. And teaching you to draw...
Send me a bill.