The Sacred in Art.
Iian Neill
>Iian: I said somewhat carelessly that your thoughtful article was
typical of the "fascist reading" of Nietzsche. I didn't mean that the
>reading was fascist in itself, but that it was somewhat typical of
those usually considered "fascist thinkers" (well mainly Evola), and
that
>connections should be explored further. I put forth the *question*:
can this stuff be taken in a different direction? I don't think this is
>an illegitimate question.
My original letter proposed that Modernism was the apogee in a
psycho-philosophical orbit that began with Judaism and Christianity. In
other words, the belief in duality conditioned Western civilization to
accept only two, "mutually exclusive", realities: that of the flesh, and
the of the spirit. These in turn spawned the two modes of philosophy
most familiar to us: the belief that reality is only found in physical
facts, and the belief that the only reality is in the spirit. In the
past these two modes have regrettably been at each other's throats;
Nietzsche recognized the flaws in both of them. As far as I can
understand, Nietzsche considered that following either fanatically gives
birth to the industrialist Philistine or to the world-despising mystic.
He stood for another path, one which negated the previous value system
in favour of a re-invented one; one which could look into the Abyss of
the Death of God and still say "Yes!" to this life. In this sense I
consider Modernism to be the product of a faith-torn Christianity, and
the art of Modernism to be reflective of this crisis of faith. The
characteristic Modernists, therefore, looked into the Abyss, but were
unable to say "Yes!" and so, like Medieval Christianity, reverted to the
villification of the body in favour of the mystical. Modernism becomes
the Gothic period reborn, but one without religious dogma and rituals to
sustain the coherency of form characteristic of that former period.
>This is even more difficult to explain. So let me state some basic
assumptions: I believe that there is something unequivocally worth
seeking
>in the human condition. We have given it various names: "God",
"Absolute" "Sublime" etc. I believe our hope resides in our ability to
find
>this *in the present conditions*, however absurdly it may arise.
Perhaps the present gives the appearance of filth. This is all the more
>reason to accept the challenge with the same vigilance as when
civilization presented us with organized structures.
Would you mind going into this a little more? Whereabouts in the present
do you think our hope resides? I understand that you are skeptical of
finding its precise location, but knowing its general area would be
instructive. Is it to be found - among other things - in contemporary
politics, aesthetics, science, religion, psychology or philosophy?
>If we say, the location of the sublime is in the past, with those
structures, or in the future, with the recurrence of those structures,
we
>implicitly deny all hope for the present.
I agree. To be true to itself each generation must overthrow the idols
of its parents and re-invent their own values. The past has been guilty
of making an authority out of the Greeks - they have therefore become
for some of us a hateful burden and yoke around our necks. But Hellenic
thought and art is not hateful in itself; it only became intolerable
when man was told not to question it, when he was chained by convention.
The Modernist rebellion failed because it went no further than mere
rejection - it looked into the Abyss and cried "No!". This "No!" echoes
through all of the ugly, distorted, and crippled art still worshipped by
some critics today.
>This is ultimately why people like Rothko, and others you (Iian) don't
care for, are so important, quite simply because they strive to locate
>the sublime in the present. Whether they succeed, nobody can say for
sure... this is why a certain faith is so important for the art of the
>present. I think at least rothko works for me :)
Rothko and his ilk are, to me, important in the historical and
psychological sense. They chart for us the crisis of faith and the
rebellion against the old system - they are not in themselves, however,
pioneers out of the Abyss. They were unable to overcome their horror and
so revelled in it - they are as far from being the Nietzschean over-men
as were the Gothic artists. The art of Modernism does not locate the
sublime in the present in quite the way that you imagine - it is true
that it has demolished heaven, sacked Athens, and discredited Utopia -
but it failed to establish its own kingdom. It left a wasteland of
rubble in which not even a hyacinth could grow. Modernism did not renew
the joy in living - instead, it villified that joy by slaughtering
beauty. One can always sense the "Nay-sayer" by his hatred of beauty -
here he betrays his despair and hopelessness, and his resentment of the
"Yea-sayer". The Modernist and the Christian martyr are identical in
their hatred of beauty, which is the hatred of the earthly life. The
difference is that while the Christian saints founded a kingdom of the
dead (in heaven), Modernism abolished all kingdoms in its atomic
wasteland.
I hope that I've made it clearer why I do not admire the works of
Picasso, Pollock, or Rothko.
With respect and regards,
Iian Neill
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Iian Neill
mark webber
Hello mate!
I'm still waiting to hear about what estheticians you are reading, and how
your appreciation for form is coming along. Remember?
But in the meantime, since you are picking up a thread that I thought
burned out months ago, I'd like to offer this:
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Iian Neill wrote:
> My original letter proposed that Modernism was the apogee in a
> psycho-philosophical orbit that began with Judaism and Christianity.
You are aware, Iian, I hope, that Judaism and Christianity are religions,
where as Modernism is a term that applies to something much less
collectively cohesive and is not a religion at all. Modernism refers not
to one idea, or one school of thought - it is completely assinine to take
the individual efforts of a huge number of people, many of whom did not
find themselves in agreement or enjoy each others contributions, and try
to represent it as some monolithic concept.
The only monolithic presence here is your ignorance of 20th century art.
A Psycho-philosophical orbit? Can we be a little more vague, artzy-fartzy
than that? You know, if you generalize enough you can include everything
in Modernism. It will however, be meaningless to everyone but yourself.
As opposed to much work of the 20th century which has a great deal of
meaning for a great many people who are not threatened by it.
> In
> other words, the belief in duality conditioned Western civilization to
> accept only two, "mutually exclusive", realities: that of the flesh, and
> the of the spirit.
This may be exactly what is going on in your little southern hemisphere
of a world view. "There are only two kinds of art - art that is good = art
that is highly rendered = art that is moral, and, art that is bad = art
that isn't about rendering the subject = art that makes me nervous and is
therefore immoral!"
> These in turn spawned the two modes of philosophy
> most familiar to us: the belief that reality is only found in physical
> facts, and the belief that the only reality is in the spirit.
Sources please? Where do you come up with this stuff?
> In the
> past these two modes have regrettably been at each other's throats;
> Nietzsche recognized the flaws in both of them. As far as I can
> understand, Nietzsche considered that following either fanatically gives
> birth to the industrialist Philistine or to the world-despising mystic.
Can you speak more about Philistines? I think citizens should be entitled
to describe national traits.
> He stood for another path, one which negated the previous value system
> in favour of a re-invented one; one which could look into the Abyss of
> the Death of God and still say "Yes!" to this life. In this sense I
> consider Modernism to be the product of a faith-torn Christianity, and
> the art of Modernism to be reflective of this crisis of faith.
Where do you get this notion that all these different, individual creative
directions have anything to do with faith in a diety?
> The
> characteristic Modernists, therefore, looked into the Abyss, but were
> unable to say "Yes!"
I imagine this crowd of people - Matisse, Picasso, Braque, Kandinski,
Klee, Miro, Matta, Gorky, Kline and many more, standing at the edge of a
deep hole, shouting "No!"
Did this happen in Europe or the U.S.? In the early part of the century?
or In the middle, when more of them were alive?
Did they meet one day in a cafeteria, and over coffee, say, "Ok, tomorrow
we all go down to the abyss and shout NO! Anybody need a ride?
> and so, like Medieval Christianity, reverted to the
> villification of the body in favour of the mystical. Modernism becomes
> the Gothic period reborn, but one without religious dogma and rituals to
> sustain the coherency of form characteristic of that former period.
For someone so resistant to abstract art, you certainly reside happily in
an abstract world.
Are you going to be ok? Maybe you should switch your major to theology.
Just a thought.
Webber
John Haber
THIS-worldliness from a mysticism and utopianism that finds in it all
a happy fulfillment. The humanist readers, like Walter Kaufmann, and
the Pomo readers may disagree on a lot about Nietzsche, but not that!
Sounds more like Ayn Rand's tawdry self-help books.
tugi
>My original letter proposed that Modernism was the apogee in a
>psycho-philosophical orbit that began with Judaism and Christianity. In
>other words, the belief in duality conditioned Western civilization to
>accept only two, "mutually exclusive", realities: that of the flesh, and
>the of the spirit.
We are constantly applying binary oppositions in logical discursive
reasoning and I doubt that there can be logically valid arguments
holding that dichotomy is the invention of Descartes. In this sense
I also believe that there is no ground for assuming that the
"psycho-philosophical orbit" of Judaism and Christianity is a culprit
for the western metaphysics.
Trying to fix the point in time to mark the beginning is the
characteristics of the same metaphysics and, as we can witness,
your arguments can not escape it.
>These in turn spawned the two modes of philosophy
>most familiar to us: the belief that reality is only found in physical
>facts, and the belief that the only reality is in the spirit. In the
>past these two modes have regrettably been at each other's throats;
>Nietzsche recognized the flaws in both of them.
Recognising the "flaws" is what all philosophers do in searching for
"philosopher's stone", "the truth" or the "system". Searching the
middle is the methodology of theorists. This is why for them
things are never that simple...
In their search they can not escape the existing oppositions and
social relations. So even some Uber-leute can not escape from
the language - their ideological cage. And they are always again
and again stacked in social pigeonholes.Just as you did it with
Nietzsche.
The bear existence of textuality rests on the
assumption of oppositions and the subsequent persistence of
"metanaratives" -- agreeable and competing social and cultural
frames-realities. The implied opposition between liberal and
post-liberal readings of Nietzsche is just another example.
>As far as I can
>understand, Nietzsche considered that following either fanatically gives
>birth to the industrialist Philistine or to the world-despising mystic.
>He stood for another path, one which negated the previous value system
>in favour of a re-invented one; one which could look into the Abyss of
>the Death of God and still say "Yes!" to this life.
This is a kind'a popular reading of Nietzsche. On the other hand
a number of theorists are keen to emphasize Nietzsche's skepticism
regarding *all* values and moreover some would take him, in the old
good metaphysical manner, for a historical demarcation point
between Modernism and Postmodernism.
>In this sense I
>consider Modernism to be the product of a faith-torn Christianity, and
>the art of Modernism to be reflective of this crisis of faith. The
>characteristic Modernists, therefore, looked into the Abyss, but were
>unable to say "Yes!" and so, like Medieval Christianity, reverted to the
>vilification of the body in favour of the mystical. Modernism becomes
>the Gothic period reborn, but one without religious dogma and rituals to
>sustain the coherency of form characteristic of that former period.
I am sure that I missed some of your private definitions of
Modernism here.
I can not cope neither with assumptions that Modernists are necessarily
mystical, nor with implied suggestion that the crisis of faith and
Nietzsche are a kind of conceptual background for Modernism or
some NeoHellenism. Moreover I find the suggestion that
Modernism is "vilification of the body" absurd (Note, the paradigm
of modernist textuality is not Plato's "The Form" but quite opposite
- the physical form of the artwork opposed to the hypothetical content
as it is exemplified by structuralists and formalists ).
Furthermore Modernists can be traced from Kant and Fiedler and I
still do not see them as extinct. They are ubiquituous, sometimes
even disguised as Postmodernists and I doubt whether we can
distinguish them so clearly from the background at all. Hence, even
if we understand Modernism from some hasty historic perspective
I am not convinced that we can distance ourselves enough to think
Modernism in past tense.
(.)
>each generation must overthrow the idols
>of its parents and re-invent their own values. The past has been guilty
>of making an authority out of the Greeks - they have therefore become
>for some of us a hateful burden and yoke around our necks. But Hellenic
>thought and art is not hateful in itself;
>it only became intolerable
>when man was told not to question it, when he was chained by convention.
>The Modernist rebellion failed because it went no further than mere
>rejection - it looked into the Abyss and cried "No!". This "No!" echoes
>through all of the ugly, distorted, and crippled art still worshipped by
>some critics today.
Some strange assumptions:
"Modernists are opposed to Hellenic tradition"(!)
I think that assembling such an argument deserves a bit more thinking.
I suppose that you had on mind the Realist tradition of verisimilitude
(which is in both aesthetic and conceptual sense as far from Hellenism as
Cyberpunk is from Cave paintings).
"Modernist art is ugly"(!)
Strange and too brave generalisation from someone who lives in our
century.
I used to believe that education is not the necessary
condition to enjoy artworks. I am not sure any more. Sadly,
I find a lot of people here in Australia who quite seriously believe
that the word "aesthetic" is but a synonym for "taste". Number
of educated people maintain that "we are not supposed to discuss
about the taste;" even today while you are reading this, numerous
children are soberly "informed" that it is not polite to express the
opinion about their taste. Some people, paradoxically, still believe
that they have had aesthetic education in their schools. They are
not undereducated, but are certainly wrongly educated about art.
An artwork and an art-hater are similar to an apple and a spoiled
toddler. You sometimes need to tell a toddler to bite the apple
to know about its taste. No one with clear mind will chastise
the toddler if he/she does not like eating apples. But the
problem is when someone does not want to bite but still has the
opinion about its taste.Maybe simply because it is relaxing or
easier and less risky to express the opinion about the taste of an
apple than about living people. What to think about such a neurotic
toddler? I feel the urge to kick him in the ash...
Can you say that you are certain that a bit of such
toddler's spirit is not hidden somewhere in your attitude?
>Rothko and his ilk are, to me, important in the historical and
>psychological sense. They chart for us the crisis of faith and the
>rebellion against the old system - they are not in themselves,
>however, pioneers out of the Abyss. They were unable to
>overcome their horror and so revelled in it - they are as far
>from being the Nietzschean over-men
>as were the Gothic artists.
It sounds like messianic interpretation of Ubermench applied
for some obscure ideological aims. It is wise to allow the
suspicion that this might not be the right interpretation.
>The art of Modernism does not locate the
>sublime in the present in quite the way that you imagine - it is true
>that it has demolished heaven, sacked Athens, and discredited Utopia -
>but it failed to establish its own kingdom. It left a wasteland of
>rubble in which not even a hyacinth could grow. Modernism did not renew
>the joy in living - instead, it villified that joy by slaughtering
>beauty. One can always sense the "Nay-sayer" by his hatred of beauty -
>here he betrays his despair and hopelessness, and his resentment of the
>"Yea-sayer". The Modernist and the Christian martyr are identical in
>their hatred of beauty, which is the hatred of the earthly life. The
>difference is that while the Christian saints founded a kingdom of the
>dead (in heaven), Modernism abolished all kingdoms in its atomic
>wasteland.
Let's leave such overemotional expressions and the
notion of the sublime to priests and keep it simple:
For your information the conceptual foundation of Modernism is
associated with philosophical discipline - Aesthetics. And Aesthetics
defined art as the separate realm of experience and textuality.
The subject of the discipline is "aesthetic beauty". Without
Modernist Aesthetics and the "aesthetic beauty" we would not have
the notion of art; the discussions about paintings, for example,
would be about represented Saints instead of paintings and this
group would probably be called "rec.religion.captured" or something
similar. Modernist aesthetics associated art with beauty by
recognising its *relative* independence and "developing".
It inaugurated the principles of diversity and change in art-thinking
(which are currently appropriated by Postmodernists).
Hey, there would be no "artworks" to talk about - no artists but
some other uber-characters - Jesus and other Saints. You would
not be able to speculate about beauty of artworks but eventually
about beauty of depicted things and persons.
Is this what you are striving for?
--
Tugi tu...@centris.ains.net.au
TheOko Art Studio
http://members.rotfl.com/TheOko/
Iian Neill
> I'm still waiting to hear about what estheticians you are reading, and
> how your appreciation for form is coming along. Remember?
Well, I don't know whether you'd believe any assertions I could make
concerning my own appreciation for form. As for artists I am at this
moment "re-researching", these would be Leonardo da Vinci and Auguste
Cot. The former is like Bach to me, the latter like Saint-Saens.
As for what I am reading - a fair amount of Oscar Wilde. The essay on
Socialism, De Profundis, all of the plays, etc., as well as some poems
by twentieth century American writer Clark Ashton Smith.
> But in the meantime, since you are picking up a thread that I thought
> burned out months ago, I'd like to offer this:
I don't like to leave threads trailing. It really is messy.
> > My original letter proposed that Modernism was the apogee in a
> > psycho-philosophical orbit that began with Judaism and Christianity.
>
> You are aware, Iian, I hope, that Judaism and Christianity are
> religions, where as Modernism is a term that applies to something
> much less collectively cohesive and is not a religion at all.
Certainly. But do not both rest on metaphysics?
> Modernism refers not
> to one idea, or one school of thought - it is completely assinine to
> take
> the individual efforts of a huge number of people, many of whom did
> not
> find themselves in agreement or enjoy each others contributions, and
> try
> to represent it as some monolithic concept.
Perhaps the title "Modernism" should not be used to refer to such a
wildly disparate group, then? Each of them should have their own "ism",
perhaps? But - of course - many of them do.
> The only monolithic presence here is your ignorance of 20th century
> art.
And I'm proud to say it's willful ignorance.
> A Psycho-philosophical orbit? Can we be a little more vague,
> artzy-fartzy than that?
Touché!
> As opposed to much work of the 20th century which has a great deal of
> meaning for a great many people who are not threatened by it.
They have a right to find meaning in whatever they wish. I won't stop
them.
> > In
> > other words, the belief in duality conditioned Western civilization
to
> > accept only two, "mutually exclusive", realities: that of the flesh,
and
> > the of the spirit.
>
> This may be exactly what is going on in your little southern
> hemisphere of a world view.
Really, you don't want to aliennate members on this group based merely
on geography, do you?
> "There are only two kinds of art - art that is good =
> art that is highly rendered = art that is moral, and, art that is bad
> = art
> that isn't about rendering the subject = art that makes me nervous and
> is therefore immoral!"
A misrepresentation of my previous arguments.
> > These in turn spawned the two modes of philosophy
> > most familiar to us: the belief that reality is only found in
physical
> > facts, and the belief that the only reality is in the spirit.
>
> Sources please? Where do you come up with this stuff?
I presume you've heard of materialism and spiritualism?
> > In the
> > past these two modes have regrettably been at each other's throats;
> > Nietzsche recognized the flaws in both of them. As far as I can
> > understand, Nietzsche considered that following either fanatically
gives
> > birth to the industrialist Philistine or to the world-despising
mystic.
>
> Can you speak more about Philistines? I think citizens should be
> entitled to describe national traits.
Ad hominem attacks? How tiring.
> > He stood for another path, one which negated the previous value
system
> > in favour of a re-invented one; one which could look into the Abyss
of
> > the Death of God and still say "Yes!" to this life. In this sense I
> > consider Modernism to be the product of a faith-torn Christianity,
and
> > the art of Modernism to be reflective of this crisis of faith.
>
> Where do you get this notion that all these different, individual
> creative directions have anything to do with faith in a diety?
Religions have their own metaphysics - you can discuss one aspect of
them without referring to all of them. We can talk about dualism in
Christianity without necessarily referring to its deity, as dualism is a
concept broader than Christianity. I grant that "faith" was a misleading
term to use in this context.
Regards,
Iian Neill
> I'm still waiting to hear about what estheticians you are reading, and
> how your appreciation for form is coming along. Remember?
Well, I don't know whether you'd believe any assertions I could make
concerning my own appreciation for form. As for artists I am at this
moment "re-researching", these would be Leonardo da Vinci and Auguste
Cot. The former is like Bach to me, the latter like Saint-Saens.
As for what I am reading - a fair amount of Oscar Wilde. The essay on
Socialism, De Profundis, all of the plays, etc., as well as some poems
by twentieth century American writer Clark Ashton Smith.
> But in the meantime, since you are picking up a thread that I thought
> burned out months ago, I'd like to offer this:
I don't like to leave threads trailing. It really is messy.
> > My original letter proposed that Modernism was the apogee in a
> > psycho-philosophical orbit that began with Judaism and Christianity.
>
Touché!
> > In
> > other words, the belief in duality conditioned Western civilization
to
> > accept only two, "mutually exclusive", realities: that of the flesh,
and
> > the of the spirit.
>
> This may be exactly what is going on in your little southern
> hemisphere of a world view.
Really, you don't want to aliennate members on this group based merely
on geography, do you?
> "There are only two kinds of art - art that is good =
> art that is highly rendered = art that is moral, and, art that is bad
> = art
> that isn't about rendering the subject = art that makes me nervous and
> is therefore immoral!"
A misrepresentation of my previous arguments.
> > These in turn spawned the two modes of philosophy
> > most familiar to us: the belief that reality is only found in
physical
> > facts, and the belief that the only reality is in the spirit.
>
> Sources please? Where do you come up with this stuff?
I presume you've heard of materialism and spiritualism?
> > In the
> > past these two modes have regrettably been at each other's throats;
> > Nietzsche recognized the flaws in both of them. As far as I can
> > understand, Nietzsche considered that following either fanatically
gives
> > birth to the industrialist Philistine or to the world-despising
mystic.
>
> Can you speak more about Philistines? I think citizens should be
> entitled to describe national traits.
Ad hominem attacks? How tiring.
> > He stood for another path, one which negated the previous value
system
> > in favour of a re-invented one; one which could look into the Abyss
of
> > the Death of God and still say "Yes!" to this life. In this sense I
> > consider Modernism to be the product of a faith-torn Christianity,
and
> > the art of Modernism to be reflective of this crisis of faith.
>
> Where do you get this notion that all these different, individual
> creative directions have anything to do with faith in a diety?
Religions have their own metaphysics - you can discuss one aspect of
them without referring to all of them. We can talk about dualism in
Christianity without necessarily referring to its deity, as dualism is a
concept broader than Christianity. I grant that "faith" was a misleading
term to use in this context.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Lauri.L.
> > The only monolithic presence here is your ignorance of 20th century
> > art.
> And I'm proud to say it's willful ignorance.
lauri:
I have with pleasure followed your slow progress,
both in art and in writing.
You have already found Mucha, and he is not the easiest one.
The quote above was alarming, however.
Willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of
it is synonym to narrowmindness.
I understand if you deter most of 20th century art,
I do as well. At the same time I am actively
searching in it.
I hope it was only rhetoric to Mark's provocation.
The problem is that same people keep repeating same arguments
here ad nauseam. People react with flaming which makes
situation no better.
This ng. has grown so large that each member should be
very considerate about when and how tax the readers
time resources.
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
~Artist~
Magazine online. Article by Michael Learmonth.
mark webber
> > I'm still waiting to hear about what estheticians you are reading, and
> > how your appreciation for form is coming along. Remember?
>
> Well, I don't know whether you'd believe any assertions I could make
> concerning my own appreciation for form.
Anything you have to say is of interest, Iian.
> As for artists I am at this
> moment "re-researching", these would be Leonardo da Vinci and Auguste
> Cot. The former is like Bach to me, the latter like Saint-Saens.
> As for what I am reading - a fair amount of Oscar Wilde. The essay on
> Socialism, De Profundis, all of the plays, etc., as well as some poems
> by twentieth century American writer Clark Ashton Smith.
Yes, well, all wonderful - but in our last discussion you led me to
believe that you were reading some esthetics - which I found very
promising.
You know, many people have read writers like Berenson, Wolflin, Fry, Clive
Bell, Dewey, Barnes and other very "traditional" estheticians, and learned
quite a bit. Quite a bit about what makes a beautiful painting beautiful -
and quite a bit that they didn't already know.
Often one finds that this sort of education process leads to a better
understanding of art that has seemed alien before.
> > > My original letter proposed that Modernism was the apogee in a
> > > psycho-philosophical orbit that began with Judaism and Christianity.
> >
> > You are aware, Iian, I hope, that Judaism and Christianity are
> > religions, where as Modernism is a term that applies to something
> > much less collectively cohesive and is not a religion at all.
>
> Certainly. But do not both rest on metaphysics?
I think you like the idea of linking things that you feel rely on
metaphysics.
There is no Modernism in the sense that there is a Judaism or a
Christianity. There was no outline of procedures that any of the great
painters called moderns were in agreement on. Their work was very much
about following *individual* processes.
This notion that modernism is one "thing" is a bit of a problem - for you,
and for any painter or art critic that thinks of themself as post-modern.
For many people - including many great artists, including some you and I
both love - art has nothing to do with ethics, morality, or any of the
things you like to link with the metaphysical.
>
> Perhaps the title "Modernism" should not be used to refer to such a
> wildly disparate group, then? Each of them should have their own "ism",
> perhaps? But - of course - many of them do.
Absolutely right. When I think of how I hear the word Modernism used
today, it is done so only in very academic settings, contexts.
Bonnard, who was a very great painter, has almost nothing to do with Klee,
also very great, in terms of approach, concept, results - but both are
considered Modernists. People who have spent time with their work seldom
think of them as Moderns though. We think of them as painters of marvelous
sensibility, creativity.
>
> > The only monolithic presence here is your ignorance of 20th century
> > art.
>
> And I'm proud to say it's willful ignorance.
>
I know I tease you pretty harshly at times - I haven't always kept my
promise to be polite. But this last line of yours is truly pathetic.
Really. I mean think about it. Proud? What the hell are you so afraid of?
There are some things we outgrow, if we are lucky.
> > A Psycho-philosophical orbit? Can we be a little more vague,
> > artzy-fartzy than that?
>
> Touché!
Now there's the sensible lad.
> > This may be exactly what is going on in your little southern
> > hemisphere of a world view.
>
> Really, you don't want to aliennate members on this group based merely
> on geography, do you?
Please note that all satiric references to your undeveloped continent are
merely teasing. But get the hell out of there as soon as you can, mate.
Get to Paris or Rome and see some of what you love in person. Enough of
the insipid web page.
>
> > "There are only two kinds of art - art that is good =
> > art that is highly rendered = art that is moral, and, art that is bad
> > = art
> > that isn't about rendering the subject = art that makes me nervous and
> > is therefore immoral!"
>
> A misrepresentation of my previous arguments.
My apologies. Could you show me where I am wrong?
> > > These in turn spawned the two modes of philosophy
> > > most familiar to us: the belief that reality is only found in
> physical
> > > facts, and the belief that the only reality is in the spirit.
> >
> > Sources please? Where do you come up with this stuff?
>
> I presume you've heard of materialism and spiritualism?
How on earth do they relate to what makes a painting look good?
Dewey's "Art in Painting". Read it.
> > Can you speak more about Philistines? I think citizens should be
> > entitled to describe national traits.
>
> Ad hominem attacks? How tiring.
Look, Iian, I'm all for polite discourse. But just who do you think the
Phillistines are? Those who are "proud of willful ignorance", that's who.
> > Where do you get this notion that all these different, individual
> > creative directions have anything to do with faith in a diety?
>
> Religions have their own metaphysics - you can discuss one aspect of
> them without referring to all of them. We can talk about dualism in
> Christianity without necessarily referring to its deity, as dualism is a
> concept broader than Christianity. I grant that "faith" was a misleading
> term to use in this context.
There is dualism in anything one wants to see. It is especially tempting
to see it in lieu of something relevent when the relevent thing is too
challenging.
Webber
mark webber
> Mark:
> > > The only monolithic presence here is your ignorance of 20th century
> > > art.
> Iian:
> > And I'm proud to say it's willful ignorance.
>
> lauri:
> I have with pleasure followed your slow progress,
> both in art and in writing.
Hi Lauri, good to hear from you again. I am sorry, however, that you find
my progress in art to be slow.
>
> You have already found Mucha, and he is not the easiest one.
To hard for me. You must mean Iian.
>
> The quote above was alarming, however.
> Willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of
> it is synonym to narrowmindness.
>
> I understand if you deter most of 20th century art,
> I do as well. At the same time I am actively
> searching in it.
I will add that there is more 20th century art that doesn't hold my
attention than that which does.
> The problem is that same people keep repeating same arguments
> here ad nauseam. People react with flaming which makes
> situation no better.
Lauri, I'm sorry if you are nauseated - but I disagree. The arguments can
be restated many ways and that is of interest to some of us.
As for the flaming, I agree for the most part. But no one can change the
nature of usenet. If you don't like a thread or the flaming it engenders,
then don't read it. I skip 90% of r.a.f.
>
> This ng. has grown so large that each member should be
> very considerate about when and how tax the readers
> time resources.
Has it really? I'll bet there are no more contributers now than two years
ago. Look how many serious writers have left!
best,
Mark
John Haber
probably figured out that I was setting up some straw men among
writers in an effort ultimately to differentiate, rather, goals for
criticism. But I'm curious now what you meant. How do you
differentiate criticism from other kinds of writing about art?
I did it in terms of audience. When Hibbard publishes in Burlington
Mag, it's for other scholars, as opposed to when he writes a paperback
on Michelangelo. Or Danto's books and Nation reviews. I could try
instead simply by defining criticism as something connected to an
exhibition, but that might not feel right. It would exclude some
well-known articles we accept as great criticism (most of the classic
essays on Abstract Expressionism, Leo Steinberg on flat-bed painting,
etc.). I could do it on philosophical concerns versus judgment, but I
just argued that the former belongs in criticism and the latter is
often what one least remembers. Meyer Schapiro suggests that he
didn't have a distinction, based on the papers he chose for those few
volumes of collected papers.
By the way, about the need to dismiss something. I think it depends
on how much you write. If you write for the Times, you have to cover
what people are going to be interested in, so you have sometimes to
say YUK. If you don't, you're choosing your targets. If you submit a
review to Art in America, you probably did it because you want to
further someone's career, not to mention that you think it'll further
your own career to latch onto a rising artist.
For me, I start on the assumption that something has to interest me
enough to have something I feel I can contribute -- that and the goal
of opening chinks in the wall around art I mentioned. That mostly
means a favorable review, but there are exceptions. I care enough
about some artists and the philosophical issue of the role of museum
institutions in late Modernism to give the Met a hard time about a lot
of shows. Or I might be touring Chelsea and have to decide what to
write about, so I decide that the shows I like best can be given a
narrative thread enough to hold them together if I decide the piece
will be about artists with hangovers. But that might allow me to
sneak in some digs at a drunk across the street. :)
Don't mind saying I feel great when I pick on the Met, because it's
part of the goal of supporting artists, but ashamed at getting my
jokes in at the expense of artists in the latter case. So dismissive?
For me, I'd say it's not good, but as I say, for others, like a daily
critic, great.
Lauri.L.
lauri:
> > This ng. has grown so large that each member should be
> > very considerate about when and how tax the readers
> > time resources.
Mark:
> Has it really? I'll bet there are no more contributers now than two
years
> ago. Look how many serious writers have left!
Right and wrong, Mark. The number of contributers is low,
Many of the serious writers have left, and replaced by
"see my web-page" or in best case by small talk.
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Iian Neill
> > > As for artists I am at this
> > moment "re-researching", these would be Leonardo da Vinci and
Auguste
> > Cot. The former is like Bach to me, the latter like Saint-Saens.
> > As for what I am reading - a fair amount of Oscar Wilde. The
essay on
> > Socialism, De Profundis, all of the plays, etc., as well as some
poems
> > by twentieth century American writer Clark Ashton Smith.
>
> Yes, well, all wonderful - but in our last discussion you led me to
> believe that you were reading some esthetics - which I found very
> promising.
I am reading "The Art of Enjoying Art" by A. Philip McMahon at the
moment. I must confess that it is very interesting reading and has
caused me already to question a number of my assumptions.
> You know, many people have read writers like Berenson, Wolflin, Fry,
> Clive Bell, Dewey, Barnes and other very "traditional" estheticians,
> and learned quite a bit.
I have read Kenneth Clarke in the past, but not enough yet. "The Nude",
"Leonardo da Vinci", etc.
> Quite a bit about what makes a beautiful
> painting beautiful - and quite a bit that they didn't already know.
I will admit something right here and now - use it as ammunition if you
wish to in the future, for it is the truth. Only a fool can be hurt by
the truth.
In any case, this thing I must admit is simply this: I have yet to
read a number of the authors on your list, at least in any detail. In
the past I have attempted to argue from (what seemed to me) to be
logic, but in this I also need schooling. In saying all of this I am
not being masochistic out of some perverse urge of public humiliation.
The fact is I do not feel at all humiliated - merely humbled, perhaps.
Leaving aside for present the object of my past attacks (Modernism),
it is my methods that have been suspect, as they still have not
survived astute criticism. One can only conclude that these methods are
lacking in some fundamental way - perhaps a more thorough training in
aesthetics and logic will supply this deficiency. A more intimate
knowledge of the historical development of Modernism in its aesthetic
and philosophical forms can not hurt either; even if such knowledge is
used to refute it, or other beliefs which share its tenets.
> Often one finds that this sort of education process leads to a better
> understanding of art that has seemed alien before.
I agree - it is something I am beginning to find out.
> > > > My original letter proposed that Modernism was the apogee in a
> > > > psycho-philosophical orbit that began with Judaism and
Christianity.
> > >
> > > You are aware, Iian, I hope, that Judaism and Christianity are
> > > religions, where as Modernism is a term that applies to something
> > > much less collectively cohesive and is not a religion at all.
> >=20
> > Certainly. But do not both rest on metaphysics?
>
> I think you like the idea of linking things that you feel rely on
> metaphysics.
>
> There is no Modernism in the sense that there is a Judaism or a
> Christianity. There was no outline of procedures that any of the great
> painters called moderns were in agreement on. Their work was very much
> about following *individual* processes.
I am unable to contradict this.
> This notion that modernism is one "thing" is a bit of a problem - for
> you, and for any painter or art critic that thinks of themself as
> post-modern.
It is clear that the issue is more complex than I had assumed.
> Bonnard, who was a very great painter, has almost nothing to do with
> Klee, also very great, in terms of approach, concept, results - but
> both are considered Modernists.
Do you hold, therefore, that labelling these two as "Modernists" is
incorrect? Except in the very basic historical sense that they are
"modern"?
> > > The only monolithic presence here is your ignorance of 20th
century
> > > art.
> >=20
> > And I'm proud to say it's willful ignorance.
>
> I know I tease you pretty harshly at times - I haven't always kept my
> promise to be polite. But this last line of yours is truly pathetic.
> Really. I mean think about it. Proud? What the hell are you so afraid
> of?
My above sentence was not meant literally. The fault was mine in not
communicating more expressively the humour intended in the comment.
> > > This may be exactly what is going on in your little southern
> > > hemisphere of a world view.
> >=20
> > Really, you don't want to aliennate members on this group based
merely
> > on geography, do you?
>
> Please note that all satiric references to your undeveloped continent
are
> merely teasing. But get the hell out of there as soon as you can,
mate.
> Get to Paris or Rome and see some of what you love in person. Enough
of
> the insipid web page.
I have my eyes set on the Continent even as I write this. My present
career path is geared to acquiring the funds I will need to travel
there.
> > > "There are only two kinds of art - art that is good =3D
> > > art that is highly rendered =3D art that is moral, and, art that
is ba=
> d
> > > =3D art
> > > that isn't about rendering the subject =3D art that makes me
nervous an=
> d
> > > is therefore immoral!"
> >=20
> > A misrepresentation of my previous arguments.
>
> My apologies. Could you show me where I am wrong?
Certainly. In the past I have qualified my statements by noting that
there are many great works of art that are not 'strictly
representational'. (I know this is all very basic, but bear with me.)
In these arguments I tried to show that representationalism does not
guarantee a masterpiece any more than abstract expressionism (or
decoration), but that it does offer more avenues for creative
expression. I noted how the realist's work is accessible in a number of
ways: (a) In the physical substance of the paint or bronze (the A.E.
shares this also); (b) In the distribution of tones and hues, lines and
masses in the work (as above); (c) In the illusionistic spaces created
(adding a hypothetical third dimension to the existing two - ie.,
expressing oneself architecturally through illusionistic space); (d)
The subject of the work itself offers another level of interpretation
and expression. Now, it can be seen that A.E. art shares (a) and (b) in
common with representational art (R.A.), and sometimes (c), depending
on the artist and his style. In the past, though, subject (d) was
denied by definition to the A.E. because of his aesthetic principles. I
challenged A.E. previously because I believed that by excluding (c) and
(d) that it was cutting itself of from the fountainhead of fine art -
and it was my conclusion that by ignoring (d) entirely that it placed
itself logically in the category of decoration, which some hold to be
craft (I understand this is still disputed in areas). I also argued
that by ignoring (c) that the A.E., far from freeing himself to ascend
to higher planes of expression, was instead clipping his own wings. The
observation of reality and its stylization in various forms has been
the life blood of art since man scrawled bison on cave walls. Not that
there is anything instrinsically "wrong" (in the moral sense) with
A.E., rather that it is intrinsically "weaker" as fine art.
I yield willing any arguments I made in the past connecting some kind
of ethics with aesthetics - these were unsubtle arguments that were
soon refuted. If such a connection can be made, it is not obvious to me
at this point in time, and I am willing to accept that no such
connection exists for the time being.
> Dewey's "Art in Painting". Read it.
It's now on my reading list.
> There is dualism in anything one wants to see. It is especially
> tempting to see it in lieu of something relevent when the relevent
> thing is too challenging.
Consider the challenge accepted.
Regards,
mark webber
> Mark, you chided me for lumping all writing together. Now, you
> probably figured out that I was setting up some straw men among
> writers in an effort ultimately to differentiate, rather, goals for
> criticism. But I'm curious now what you meant. How do you
> differentiate criticism from other kinds of writing about art?
I didn't mean to chide you, really. Sorry to have given that impression.
No, I was just trying to get you to be more specific about the
responsibilities you see a critic having.
I could be mistaken, but it doesn't seem that you are as interested in art
history - as a field of writing that is - as you are in reviewing, which
has to do with the impact that a show has on you personally.
It also doesn't seem that questions of esthetics are as important to you
as questions of meaning, content and contemporary issues. This is not
meant as a judgement - it is only an observation, and may be very off the
mark. That is why I was hoping you could be more specific.
A lot of your writing seems very personal, about your own readings of
content - I'm sure you are aware of this. Many of the writers I've read
speak more to how a work sits in regard to art history or what pictorial
issues are raised. Again, this is not meant as a superior approach in any
way. But I think the issues a writer raises about visual art very much
identify the writer as leaning more toward history, esthetics or social
questions.
(some snipping)
>
> For me, I start on the assumption that something has to interest me
> enough to have something I feel I can contribute -- that and the goal
> of opening chinks in the wall around art I mentioned. That mostly
> means a favorable review, but there are exceptions. I care enough
> about some artists and the philosophical issue of the role of museum
> institutions in late Modernism to give the Met a hard time about a lot
> of shows. Or I might be touring Chelsea and have to decide what to
> write about, so I decide that the shows I like best can be given a
> narrative thread enough to hold them together if I decide the piece
> will be about artists with hangovers. But that might allow me to
> sneak in some digs at a drunk across the street. :)
This sounds pretty genuine to me.
I haven't checked your site recently. I really have to take a look again.
thanks,
Mark
mark webber
>
>
> lauri:
> > > This ng. has grown so large that each member should be
> > > very considerate about when and how tax the readers
> > > time resources.
> Mark:
> > Has it really? I'll bet there are no more contributers now than two
> years
> > ago. Look how many serious writers have left!
>
> Right and wrong, Mark. The number of contributers is low,
> Many of the serious writers have left, and replaced by
> "see my web-page" or in best case by small talk.
Well, we all know how to deal with this. And we don't always have
worthwhile things to say. But I still think that my sparring with Iian -
who by the way, seems much more open-minded than not too long ago - my
sparring with him seems a bit more interesting than flame wars and
technical advice. My own opinion of course. I try to write in good faith,
and I only occasionally harrass a couple of blowhards who pass out
misinformation like blotter acid.
So come on, Lauri, throw something interesting on the table. You're good
at it.
Mark
mark webber
(snipping for brevity)
>
> > Quite a bit about what makes a beautiful
> > painting beautiful - and quite a bit that they didn't already know.
>
> I will admit something right here and now - use it as ammunition if you
> wish to in the future, for it is the truth. Only a fool can be hurt by
> the truth.
> In any case, this thing I must admit is simply this: I have yet to
> read a number of the authors on your list, at least in any detail. In
> the past I have attempted to argue from (what seemed to me) to be
> logic, but in this I also need schooling. In saying all of this I am
> not being masochistic out of some perverse urge of public humiliation.
> The fact is I do not feel at all humiliated - merely humbled, perhaps.
Well, I have no desire to use a statement like the above as ammunition. In
fact I have no desire to say anything unsupportive when you are this
candid.
> Leaving aside for present the object of my past attacks (Modernism),
> it is my methods that have been suspect, as they still have not
> survived astute criticism. One can only conclude that these methods are
> lacking in some fundamental way - perhaps a more thorough training in
> aesthetics and logic will supply this deficiency. A more intimate
> knowledge of the historical development of Modernism in its aesthetic
> and philosophical forms can not hurt either; even if such knowledge is
> used to refute it, or other beliefs which share its tenets.
Absolutely. I haven't been arguing your position as much as the weak
platform on which you base it. There is plenty of modern art that I find
irrelevent, inauthentic, unfelt, poorly made and/or just plain bad. Dumb.
I don't argue in favor of "modernism" - I argue in favor of some great
painters who are labled modernists.
> > Often one finds that this sort of education process leads to a better
> > understanding of art that has seemed alien before.
>
> I agree - it is something I am beginning to find out.
I am completely sincere when I say I am thrilled to read this.
> > There is no Modernism in the sense that there is a Judaism or a
> > Christianity. There was no outline of procedures that any of the great
> > painters called moderns were in agreement on. Their work was very much
> > about following *individual* processes.
>
> I am unable to contradict this.
There you go again - being a reasonable, likeable guy.
> > This notion that modernism is one "thing" is a bit of a problem - for
> > you, and for any painter or art critic that thinks of themself as
> > post-modern.
>
> It is clear that the issue is more complex than I had assumed.
You see? Now I feel like an absolute schmuck for ridiculing you before.
> > Bonnard, who was a very great painter, has almost nothing to do with
> > Klee, also very great, in terms of approach, concept, results - but
> > both are considered Modernists.
>
> Do you hold, therefore, that labelling these two as "Modernists" is
> incorrect? Except in the very basic historical sense that they are
> "modern"?
>
Yes, I really think that is the most accurate way to approach them. It is
not the prefered method of many historians. Actually, Klee is often paired
with Kandinski by art historians - but whne one really looks at their work
one realizes thay share little in process or effect. Their issues were
very different.
The same can be said for the pairing of Modigliani, a very formulaic
painter, and Soutine, a very inventive one. They are both called School of
Paris modernists, but they have little in common. Soutine has much more in
common with Rembrandt than Modigliani.
> > > And I'm proud to say it's willful ignorance.
> >
> > I know I tease you pretty harshly at times - I haven't always kept my
> > promise to be polite. But this last line of yours is truly pathetic.
> > Really. I mean think about it. Proud? What the hell are you so afraid
> > of?
>
> My above sentence was not meant literally. The fault was mine in not
> communicating more expressively the humour intended in the comment.
Well, that's really very different. I didn't realize you were kidding.
> I have my eyes set on the Continent even as I write this. My present
> career path is geared to acquiring the funds I will need to travel
> there.
That's really terrific news. You should really tell us when you are
planning to go and we can share some museum and hotel info with you. That
is really great. You'll love it. I'll tell you, my first trip really
turned me around.
> > My apologies. Could you show me where I am wrong?
>
(snip portion)
> Now, it can be seen that A.E. art shares (a) and (b) in
> common with representational art (R.A.), and sometimes (c), depending
> on the artist and his style. In the past, though, subject (d) was
> denied by definition to the A.E. because of his aesthetic principles. I
> challenged A.E. previously because I believed that by excluding (c) and
> (d) that it was cutting itself of from the fountainhead of fine art -
> and it was my conclusion that by ignoring (d) entirely that it placed
> itself logically in the category of decoration, which some hold to be
> craft (I understand this is still disputed in areas).
By your own logic you would have to admit that the R.A. could be cutting
themselves of from formal issues. Ingres did not. Raphael and Michelangelo
did not. But by merely representing one doesn't achieve what they
achieved.
Really the core difficulty here is that your "fountainhead" could be
mislaid. You haven't really identified it beyond being related to subject
matter. But I can tell you that subject matter is irrelevent to quality in
art. We've discussed this before, but I'm not sure you've really
assimilated it.
The greatest aspect in Michelangelo is *not* in the fact that he renders -
Every painter in that day rendered. None was as poetic in form as he.
The "fountainhead" of what is great in art is not how well something is
rendered. Ingres is proof of this. He deliberately mis-rendered every
figure. He did so to the larger effect of unity in the work. It is that
unity, that formal whole, which makes a great picture.
This is how it was understood then as well as now. Frankly, everything
else is secondary, because without great form a work doesn't survive. We
don't continue to revere it. It slides off the wall.
That sense of unity is what is great about Raphael and Poussin and Corot
as well as Bonnard and Braque and Balthus. And DeKooning and Klee. It is
the one thing they all share. No one that I know saw this right off the
bat. It takes time to see, but if art is your field, it worth taking the
time to see it.
> I also argued
> that by ignoring (c) that the A.E., far from freeing himself to ascend
> to higher planes of expression, was instead clipping his own wings. The
> observation of reality and its stylization in various forms has been
> the life blood of art since man scrawled bison on cave walls. Not that
> there is anything instrinsically "wrong" (in the moral sense) with
> A.E., rather that it is intrinsically "weaker" as fine art.
Only if you are building your argument on the premise that what is great
in great art is the representation of *something* - a faulty premise.
You will at some point be forced to ask yourself why it appears everyone
prefers Michelangelo to his many contemporaries - many of whom could and
did render the female form much more accurately.
His design, his color combinations, the movement of shapes across the
space - these things are inventions that have nothing to do with what one
sees in nature. And they are riveting inventions.
Likewise, Dekooning, especially in the mid to late 1970s, had astonishing
color, design and drama of shape. I don't equate him with Michelangelo -
but there is no one closer in this half of this century - not to
Michelangelo's grandeur.
> I yield willing any arguments I made in the past connecting some kind
> of ethics with aesthetics - these were unsubtle arguments that were
> soon refuted. If such a connection can be made, it is not obvious to me
> at this point in time, and I am willing to accept that no such
> connection exists for the time being.
Cool. Now you are swingin'.
> > Dewey's "Art in Painting". Read it.
>
> It's now on my reading list.
Sorry, I had the title wrong - it is "Art as Experience".
Of greatest interest to me is his essay on the Living Creature. It refutes
much of the thinking in pomo circles that there can be no common ground in
esthetic experience. A beautiful, if wordy, essay.
"The Art in Painting" is by Albert Barnes, and is also very good. He calls
the formal unity deal "plastic form."
Well, I have to say, I didn't expect such openess. Your reply was a real
pleasure to read!
best wishes,
Mark
Iian Neill
> > > Bonnard, who was a very great painter, has almost nothing to do
with
> > > Klee, also very great, in terms of approach, concept, results -
but
> > > both are considered Modernists.
> >
> > Do you hold, therefore, that labelling these two as "Modernists" is
> > incorrect? Except in the very basic historical sense that they are
> > "modern"?
> >
>
> Yes, I really think that is the most accurate way to approach them.
It is
> not the prefered method of many historians. Actually, Klee is often
paired
> with Kandinski by art historians - but whne one really looks at their
work
> one realizes thay share little in process or effect. Their issues were
> very different.
I share your distaste for mis-labelling. In previous articles I brought
up my objection to the wholesale categorization of certain types of
music as "classical", or "romantic", and asked the question: "Where is
the music of Symbolism, or Pre-Raphaelitism?"
The advantages of categorization are obvious; chiefly being the
broader perspective it offers us. However, the system can be abused
when people apply these labels carelessly and insist on their literal
reality. Art and music historians have made this mistake in the past,
and I also in my other posts.
> > I have my eyes set on the Continent even as I write this. My present
> > career path is geared to acquiring the funds I will need to travel
> > there.
>
> That's really terrific news. You should really tell us when you are
> planning to go and we can share some museum and hotel info with you.
> That is really great. You'll love it. I'll tell you, my first trip
> really turned me around.
Thanks for your offer of informational assistance. When the time comes,
I will certainly take you up on that.
> > > My apologies. Could you show me where I am wrong?
> >
> (snip portion)
> > Now, it can be seen that A.E. art shares (a) and (b) in
> > common with representational art (R.A.), and sometimes (c),
depending
> > on the artist and his style. In the past, though, subject (d) was
> > denied by definition to the A.E. because of his aesthetic
principles. I
> > challenged A.E. previously because I believed that by excluding (c)
and
> > (d) that it was cutting itself of from the fountainhead of fine art
-
> > and it was my conclusion that by ignoring (d) entirely that it
placed
> > itself logically in the category of decoration, which some hold to
be
> > craft (I understand this is still disputed in areas).
>
> By your own logic you would have to admit that the R.A. could be
> cutting themselves of from formal issues.
Oh yes, absolutely. My argument can not be used as a wholesale
endorsement of the "superiority" of realism in its many forms - as I
noted in the beginning of it, realism is no guarantee of artistic
quality. I guess it all comes down to my belief that the real world is
the fountainhead of all genuinely creative art, and that all advances
in art have been made by returning to this source and re-interpreting
it in a sincere and unaffected manner. I do not mean by this that those
movements did not accrete mannerisms around them, but rather at the
start they ingested the real world through their personality and
aesthetic sensibilities (developed by their training and experiences)
and forged a new and unique style.
It seems to me that history is replete with examples of styles that
have died because they became stifled with mannerisms and conventions;
in short, the artists neglected the "fountainhead in favour of the
well" [1]. To answer the point you raised: No, it is true that my
argument does not ultimately prove the efficacy of realism as it rests
upon an unjustified premise.
> Ingres did not. Raphael and Michelangelo
> did not. But by merely representing one doesn't achieve what they
> achieved.
I agree with this completely.
> Really the core difficulty here is that your "fountainhead" could be
> mislaid. You haven't really identified it beyond being related to
> subject matter.
The connection between the fountainhead and subject matter is tenuous
at best; although it does depend on how one defines "subject". If by
subject we mean the *literary* quality of Old Master paintings, then,
indeed it is superfluous to the greatness of the art itself; if by the
term "subject" we mean that "the work takes as its basis the subjects
of real life, rather than simply a narrative" then we can extend it to
include still lifes, landscapes, nudes, and so forth. I confess that I
now question the usefulness of extending the definition of the term
thus far, as it does increase the risk of misunderstanding.
> But I can tell you that subject matter is irrelevent
> to quality in art. We've discussed this before, but I'm not sure
> you've really assimilated it.
No, I think I do understand the point that you have made - in any case,
I agree with it. It is not the subject of a work of art that matters so
much as *what* the work of art is. The subject can be used to add an
extra psychological dimension to the work, but it is quite irrelevant
to the work's aesthetic value. I am not a Victorian in this sense.
> The greatest aspect in Michelangelo is *not* in the fact that he
> renders - Every painter in that day rendered. None was as poetic in
> form as he.
>
> The "fountainhead" of what is great in art is not how well something
> is rendered. Ingres is proof of this. He deliberately mis-rendered
> every figure. He did so to the larger effect of unity in the work. It
> is that unity, that formal whole, which makes a great picture.
I cannot contradict this at any point - indeed, I agree with all of it,
and did so in the past also. What I have tried to accomplish previously
is to unearth the link that exists beteen the fountainhead and
representationalism. In other words: "Why did Michelangelo choose to
draw from real life, rather than confine himself to the distrubutions
of shapes, lines, colours and textures?" My answer to this has been as
follows: "There must be something in the real world that makes
representationalism so efficacious. It seems to have a renewing power,
the ability to shatter convention when observed sincerely (without
mannerisms). It is almost as if the careful observation and devotion to
the real world cultivates in the mind of the artist those qualities and
sensibilities required to create poetry from dirt."
Ultimately, though, I have still yet to justify my assertions
concerning this fountainhead; it is something which I perceive in the
works of the great masters (and also in the lesser artists), but I am
not yet able to explain the reason for it.
> This is how it was understood then as well as now. Frankly, everything
> else is secondary, because without great form a work doesn't survive.
> We don't continue to revere it. It slides off the wall.
Quite so.
> That sense of unity is what is great about Raphael and Poussin and >
> Corot as well as Bonnard and Braque and Balthus. And DeKooning and
> Klee. It is
> the one thing they all share. No one that I know saw this right off
> the bat. It takes time to see, but if art is your field, it worth
> taking the time to see it.
That this sense of unity is necessary for a great work of art, we do
not disagree. Naturally enough we may prefer one artist to the other
because we see in his work a greater sense of this unity; due to our
experience, inexperience, taste, and so forth. I am not at this point
concerned with arguing *against* Bonnard, Braque or Balthus - rather, I
am interested in finding out why the great masters continually devoted
themselves to nature, and why the great movements in art seem to have
been germinated when a movement put aside the wisdom (and the
mannerisms) of their predecessors and established their own connection
to the real world. This may sound mystical and obscure, but it isn't -
it means simply this: Artist Generico turns from his training in
Movementism and begins to draw from life *as he sees it* - if he
applies himself sincerely (ie., frees himself from prior conventions to
the extent that the visual world seems quite new) then his devotion -
coloured by his own personality and temperament - will have created a
new, and living, style.
This can not effectively be used to argue against abstraction -
rather, it is an attempt to explain why the masters continued to return
to the real world for inspiration. I think that this field of inquiry
could be most fruitful, as it asks a a number of questions relevant to
all times: "What role does realism play in great art? Can great art get
along without it? Why are many realistic works mediocre? Does realism
have a special quality denied to pure abstraction, or is this merely an
assumption?" This leads to another question: "Of what ultimate
importance are the technical skills we acquire from life drawing if we
choose not to paint realistically? Why can we not acquire these skills
from either studying or practising abstract painting? If we grant that
something more is needed, what is this 'more'?"
> > I also argued
> > that by ignoring (c) that the A.E., far from freeing himself to
ascend
> > to higher planes of expression, was instead clipping his own wings.
The
> > observation of reality and its stylization in various forms has been
> > the life blood of art since man scrawled bison on cave walls. Not
that
> > there is anything instrinsically "wrong" (in the moral sense) with
> > A.E., rather that it is intrinsically "weaker" as fine art.
>
> Only if you are building your argument on the premise that what is
great
> in great art is the representation of *something* - a faulty premise.
>
> You will at some point be forced to ask yourself why it appears
everyone
> prefers Michelangelo to his many contemporaries - many of whom could
and
> did render the female form much more accurately.
>
> His design, his color combinations, the movement of shapes across the
> space - these things are inventions that have nothing to do with what
> one sees in nature. And they are riveting inventions.
Yes, I agree with this. The tantalizing question I find, though, is
this: "Michelangelo achieved a mastery of form, of colour combinations,
and the movement of shapes, all whilst operating within
'representationalism'. Many of his contemporaries failed to reach his
height, despite their ability to render literally - if Michelangelo
possessed their skills in this area as well as a superior sense of
design, why is it that he did not scorn representationalism like some
of the modern artists? Was it because Michelangelo himself was bound by
a stifling convention, and that if he had lived in our century he would
have sculpted something like Henry Moore? Or could it be that
Michelangelo would have sculpted like Michelangelo whatever century he
was in - because there is a virtue in devoting oneself to the real
world, that by studying it with care and love you can cultivate your
aesthetic sensibilities - and that Michelangelo's contemporaries,
whilst they may have studied the real world, did not do so with the
profundity that the Master brought to his art."
> Likewise, Dekooning, especially in the mid to late 1970s, had
> astonishing color, design and drama of shape. I don't equate him
> with Michelangelo -
> but there is no one closer in this half of this century - not to
> Michelangelo's grandeur.
Is it possible that by applying these qualities to the study of the
real world, that one can achieve even more than Dekooning? What drew
the Masters to nature again and again?
> > > Dewey's "Art in Painting". Read it.
> >
> > It's now on my reading list.
>
> Sorry, I had the title wrong - it is "Art as Experience".
Thanks for the correction.
> Of greatest interest to me is his essay on the Living Creature. It
> refutes much of the thinking in pomo circles that there can be no
> common ground in esthetic experience. A beautiful, if wordy, essay.
I look forward to reading it!
Cheers,
Iian
[1] Leonardo da Vinci: "He who has access to the fountainhead has no
need for the well."
Lauri.L.
I propose a thought game about reading some modern art.
Let us assume you want to make a portrait of your beloved.
(That sure belongs to the sacred in art)
Most often we think a portrait as representational.
So we begin with some rendering:
Her hair. Do you love her less if her hairdo is different some day.
I suppose not, your affection is more than skin deep.
Thus rendering the hair is not essential, misleading at the worst.
Her nose - does precision here really reflect what you like in her.
Her eyes? Yes, the smile and sensitivity of her large eyes.
That we should keep.
And the common love of good music. Should there be
a rack of CD's in the background. Distracting.
We want something of the tonality in the picture.
The only means are the rhytm and flow of lines and composition.
What then did we get?
The M:lle Poignanny series of Brancusi
- lauri
Ps. While writing I was not in position to
check the spelling of the name of the work.
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office mail address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Iian Neill
> I propose a thought game about reading some modern art.
>
> Let us assume you want to make a portrait of your beloved.
> (That sure belongs to the sacred in art).
First of all, thank you for your ideas concerning the thought game. I
found it an interesting and different approach to the issue.
> Most often we think a portrait as representational.
> So we begin with some rendering:
>
> Her hair. Do you love her less if her hairdo is different some day.
> I suppose not, your affection is more than skin deep.
> Thus rendering the hair is not essential, misleading at the worst.
>
> Her nose - does precision here really reflect what you like in her.
>
> Her eyes? Yes, the smile and sensitivity of her large eyes.
> That we should keep.
This reminds me a little of an article I read last year concerning the
mind-body problem. I regret to say that I do not recall the title or
author of this work, but it was read as part of an assignment for
Introductory Philosophy at university - it may be in a journal, or an
anthology somewhere.
In any case, the argument went something like this: The mind-body
problem is an illusion, due to an incorrect understanding of the
term "mind". For example, what does one point to when asked to show the
whereabouts of a university? Does one point to its library, and
say, "This is the university!" - or the administration office, or the
sports ground? The answer is that neither of these things individually
is the university, but all together they comprise it.
The same applies to a portrait. If I were to do a portrait of you and
focus only on the nose, or the ears, or the eyes it would be to
misrepresent you - to fail in the portrait, in other words. But all of
these things taken together, in the right proportion, painted in a way
that captures your character, then this would be to have painted a true
portrait. There is no hard and fast rule as to how detailed each part
must be, or how distorted the proportion can be - but what seems clear
is that the parts must fuse with the character of the painting in a
unity that captures the appearance and the personality of the subject.
Obviously a portrait must be realistic to some degree as an
abstracted work could never convey precisely who one has painted!
> And the common love of good music. Should there be
> a rack of CD's in the background. Distracting.
> We want something of the tonality in the picture.
> The only means are the rhytm and flow of lines and composition.
>
> What then did we get?
> The M:lle Poignanny series of Brancusi
... Or Ingres' portrait of Madame d'Haussonville, or Madame Moitessier,
or Pauline Eleanore de Galard de Brassac de Bearn, Princesse de Broglie.
Cheers,
Iian
John Haber
would probably take the enclave of a school, meaning going back to
one, which I'm not sure I'd like! That and I'm so slow. My closest
approximation to it, a long review of three books on van Eyck, took me
about two months to write.
Oh, sorry about the word "chide." Poor choice of words. I didn't
mean I was offended.
John
John Haber
>What then did we get? The M:lle Poignanny series of Brancusi
That was a nice post. I could really think of his work that way.
Of course, it's also only one way of seeing Modernism -- one of paring
things down to essences. Others have seen it as adding ambiguity, so
denying essence and opening up reference. They've associated your
approach (what in my beloved really counts) with the reductiveness of
porn.
There's something to both arguments. They both give a lot of insight
into some great art.
Now, I try to think of what's most important about my life these days,
and I end up with a self-portrait as a computer mouse.
mark webber
(snip to the punch)
> >
> > By your own logic you would have to admit that the R.A. could be
> > cutting themselves of from formal issues.
>
> Oh yes, absolutely. My argument can not be used as a wholesale
> endorsement of the "superiority" of realism in its many forms - as I
> noted in the beginning of it, realism is no guarantee of artistic
> quality. I guess it all comes down to my belief that the real world is
> the fountainhead of all genuinely creative art, and that all advances
> in art have been made by returning to this source and re-interpreting
> it in a sincere and unaffected manner.
Ok, I won't argue that. I'm not sure I agree, but I won't argue. How you
define "real world" is I guess the pivotal issue.
> I do not mean by this that those
> movements did not accrete mannerisms around them, but rather at the
> start they ingested the real world through their personality and
> aesthetic sensibilities (developed by their training and experiences)
> and forged a new and unique style.
> It seems to me that history is replete with examples of styles that
> have died because they became stifled with mannerisms and conventions;
> in short, the artists neglected the "fountainhead in favour of the
> well" [1]. To answer the point you raised: No, it is true that my
> argument does not ultimately prove the efficacy of realism as it rests
> upon an unjustified premise.
Nicely put.
>
> > Really the core difficulty here is that your "fountainhead" could be
> > mislaid. You haven't really identified it beyond being related to
> > subject matter.
>
> The connection between the fountainhead and subject matter is tenuous
> at best; although it does depend on how one defines "subject". If by
> subject we mean the *literary* quality of Old Master paintings, then,
> indeed it is superfluous to the greatness of the art itself; if by the
> term "subject" we mean that "the work takes as its basis the subjects
> of real life, rather than simply a narrative" then we can extend it to
> include still lifes, landscapes, nudes, and so forth. I confess that I
> now question the usefulness of extending the definition of the term
> thus far, as it does increase the risk of misunderstanding.
It still isn't assisting in your quest for quality. That is directly
related to the visual evidence of the problem-solving process (where to
put this figure, how it needs to be drawn in order to make it work well
with this one, how much contrast is needed to draw our attention to this
movement or not detract from that one. How to balance color. etc.
This is Form. It is the art in painting.
>
> > But I can tell you that subject matter is irrelevent
> > to quality in art. We've discussed this before, but I'm not sure
> > you've really assimilated it.
>
> No, I think I do understand the point that you have made - in any case,
> I agree with it. It is not the subject of a work of art that matters so
> much as *what* the work of art is. The subject can be used to add an
> extra psychological dimension to the work, but it is quite irrelevant
> to the work's aesthetic value. I am not a Victorian in this sense.
I think you're coming along pretty well.
>
> > The greatest aspect in Michelangelo is *not* in the fact that he
> > renders - Every painter in that day rendered. None was as poetic in
> > form as he.
> >
> > The "fountainhead" of what is great in art is not how well something
> > is rendered. Ingres is proof of this. He deliberately mis-rendered
> > every figure. He did so to the larger effect of unity in the work. It
> > is that unity, that formal whole, which makes a great picture.
>
> I cannot contradict this at any point - indeed, I agree with all of it,
> and did so in the past also. What I have tried to accomplish previously
> is to unearth the link that exists beteen the fountainhead and
> representationalism. In other words: "Why did Michelangelo choose to
> draw from real life, rather than confine himself to the distrubutions
> of shapes, lines, colours and textures?"
He didn't. He combined both. This was his way of finding the
fullest expression of his sensibility. Missing either half of the equation
is to miss his greatness. His greatness - not Dekooning's. Dekooning found
his way to full expression of his sensibility another way - one without
representation.
> My answer to this has been as
> follows: "There must be something in the real world that makes
> representationalism so efficacious. It seems to have a renewing power,
> the ability to shatter convention when observed sincerely (without
> mannerisms).
I won't say my personal taste never gets in the way of informing what I
like, either.
Also, I won't say that I know enough to know everything that is worth
liking.
> It is almost as if the careful observation and devotion to
> the real world cultivates in the mind of the artist those qualities and
> sensibilities required to create poetry from dirt."
For some. Plenty of people make careful observations and make dirt. Others
make poetry without observation.
> Ultimately, though, I have still yet to justify my assertions
> concerning this fountainhead; it is something which I perceive in the
> works of the great masters (and also in the lesser artists), but I am
> not yet able to explain the reason for it.
Well I want to express respect for the process you are undertaking.
(snip)
> ...This may sound mystical and obscure, but it isn't -
> it means simply this: Artist Generico turns from his training in
> Movementism and begins to draw from life *as he sees it* - if he
> applies himself sincerely (ie., frees himself from prior conventions to
> the extent that the visual world seems quite new) then his devotion -
> coloured by his own personality and temperament - will have created a
> new, and living, style.
Only if he is good. Artist Generico may well turn from a fad, take up
observation, and be just as drab and uninteresting as before - no matter
how sincere he is. He may just have a lousy sensibility.
> This can not effectively be used to argue against abstraction -
> rather, it is an attempt to explain why the masters continued to return
> to the real world for inspiration. I think that this field of inquiry
> could be most fruitful, as it asks a a number of questions relevant to
> all times: "What role does realism play in great art? Can great art get
> along without it? Why are many realistic works mediocre? Does realism
> have a special quality denied to pure abstraction, or is this merely an
> assumption?" This leads to another question: "Of what ultimate
> importance are the technical skills we acquire from life drawing if we
> choose not to paint realistically? Why can we not acquire these skills
> from either studying or practising abstract painting? If we grant that
> something more is needed, what is this 'more'?"
Good questions.
> > His design, his color combinations, the movement of shapes across the
> > space - these things are inventions that have nothing to do with what
> > one sees in nature. And they are riveting inventions.
>
> Yes, I agree with this. The tantalizing question I find, though, is
> this: "Michelangelo achieved a mastery of form, of colour combinations,
> and the movement of shapes, all whilst operating within
> 'representationalism'. Many of his contemporaries failed to reach his
> height, despite their ability to render literally - if Michelangelo
> possessed their skills in this area as well as a superior sense of
> design, why is it that he did not scorn representationalism like some
> of the modern artists? Was it because Michelangelo himself was bound by
> a stifling convention, and that if he had lived in our century he would
> have sculpted something like Henry Moore? Or could it be that
> Michelangelo would have sculpted like Michelangelo whatever century he
> was in - because there is a virtue in devoting oneself to the real
> world, that by studying it with care and love you can cultivate your
> aesthetic sensibilities - and that Michelangelo's contemporaries,
> whilst they may have studied the real world, did not do so with the
> profundity that the Master brought to his art."
I'm sure there is a best way to deal with these hypothetical questions -
but I'm not that interested in them, so I don't know what it is.
>
> > Likewise, Dekooning, especially in the mid to late 1970s, had
> > astonishing color, design and drama of shape. I don't equate him
> > with Michelangelo -
> > but there is no one closer in this half of this century - not to
> > Michelangelo's grandeur.
>
> Is it possible that by applying these qualities to the study of the
> real world, that one can achieve even more than Dekooning? What drew
> the Masters to nature again and again?
Dekooning was a Master. He din't return to "nature" as you are thinking of
it. He simply knew paint and his relationship to it. That was his nature.
Anyway, it is really nice to be on friendlier terms again, and you are
sounding much more open to learning rather than demonstarting what you
already know.
best regards,
Mark
mark webber
> Mark, I would like to do more traditional art history, although it
> would probably take the enclave of a school, meaning going back to
> one, which I'm not sure I'd like!
Wouldn't really have to. Most of my understanding of art history came
after school, on my own. Casual reading. No quizes.
> Oh, sorry about the word "chide." Poor choice of words. I didn't
> mean I was offended.
No need to apologize - I thought I was coming across the wrong way. It
happens here. I try to be careful when I think of it.
I'm in some group shows opening this month. Hope to see you somewhere
along the way....
Mark
tstp
I also understand that Michaelangelo was a very devout Catholic. He
was painting and sculpting for the Church. Perhaps his devotion was
part of why there is such greatness there. What is more sacred in art
than the Pieta?
Perhaps being spiritually devoted , within the context of an old and
established Church art tradition, combined with the daring realism of
that time, made him great-- besides a bit of talent .
And he had almost as many arguments with Pope Julius as are on rec.arts.
fine.
Nancy
mark webber
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, in some sort of typing frenzy, I wrote:
> Anyway, it is really nice to be on friendlier terms again, and you are
> sounding much more open to learning rather than demonstarting what you
> already know.
I really have to slow down and look a little more carefully at my absurd
spellings and typos. The above was not meant to imply satanic advocacy of
any sort.
Sorry,
Mark
Alison A Raimes
<ts...@webtv.net> writes
>
>And he had almost as many arguments with Pope Julius as are on rec.arts.
>fine.
>
>Nancy
>
was he as good as you are at role playing, Dan ?
--
Alison
tstp
I am not sure what you mean by your
response, unless you meant it for
someone else's post.
Regards,
Nancy
John Haber
>along the way....
Oh, post here for others and e-mail me when you get a chance about it.
j
Iian Neill
> > [...] I guess it all comes down to my belief that the real world
is
> > the fountainhead of all genuinely creative art, and that all
advances
> > in art have been made by returning to this source and
re-interpreting
> > it in a sincere and unaffected manner.
>
> Ok, I won't argue that. I'm not sure I agree, but I won't argue. How
you
> define "real world" is I guess the pivotal issue.
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head here. My definition of what this
"real world" is in relation to fine art is by no means conclusive, and
is probably heavily conditioned by my metaphysics (which is not yet
explicit). Nevertheless, it is a fascinating area to explore.
To say that the "real world" is simply the universe of visual
impressions is not to penetrate to the essence of fine art, which is
almost a spiritual exercise. This comment does - on the surface - appear
to be rather mystical, but if we understand the artist's relationship
with the visual world to be a dynamic relationship of "expression"
(aesthetic output) entwined with "inpression" (aesthetic input), then to
say that art is a spiritual exercise does not seem so bizarre.
The "realist debate" should therefore be divorced from historical
and/or stylistic concerns, as the process of life-drawing (an example of
realist technique at a basic level) can be used towards any end: whether
political, religious, or philosophical. It is not so much a matter of
refuting abstraction (which cannot be refuted), but instead a matter of
recognizing what makes realism unique. This leads one to question why it
has been the chosen vehicle for so many artists in history; whether or
not they decided to render exactingly, or in a more stylized manner.
What does seem to elevate realist work above literal representation is
its inherent abstracting tendencies. Again, this may sound mystical but
it is not so: a composition is an abstraction, one which encompasses
pose, orchestration of mass and colour, as well as a microcosmos of
minute details which contribute to the unity of the whole. This argument
is quite neutral in that it can be used as well for Titian and
Michelangelo as Braque or Brancusi.
Any argument that favours technical skill must explain what it is that
such skill offers that other disciplines may not, or as effectively. And
to answer this adequately ... requires a very subtle argument!
> > [...] If by
> > subject we mean the *literary* quality of Old Master paintings,
then,
> > indeed it is superfluous to the greatness of the art itself; if by
the
> > term "subject" we mean that "the work takes as its basis the
subjects
> > of real life, rather than simply a narrative" then we can extend it
to
> > include still lifes, landscapes, nudes, and so forth. I confess that
I
> > now question the usefulness of extending the definition of the term
> > thus far, as it does increase the risk of misunderstanding.
>
> It still isn't assisting in your quest for quality.
Yes, it is ultimately a theoretical pursuit, perhaps even an
insignificant one. Michelangelo and Leonardo required no intellectual
justification to paint the way they did - they just did so.
Your point is taken.
> This is Form. It is the art in painting.
Nicely put.
> I won't say my personal taste never gets in the way of informing what
I
> like, either.
>
> Also, I won't say that I know enough to know everything that is worth
> liking.
A wise attitude.
> > It is almost as if the careful observation and devotion to
> > the real world cultivates in the mind of the artist those qualities
and
> > sensibilities required to create poetry from dirt."
>
> For some. Plenty of people make careful observations and make dirt.
Others
> make poetry without observation.
Both points are correct.
> > ...This may sound mystical and obscure, but it isn't -
> > it means simply this: Artist Generico turns from his training in
> > Movementism and begins to draw from life *as he sees it* - if he
> > applies himself sincerely (ie., frees himself from prior conventions
to
> > the extent that the visual world seems quite new) then his devotion
-
> > coloured by his own personality and temperament - will have created
a
> > new, and living, style.
>
> Only if he is good. Artist Generico may well turn from a fad, take up
> observation, and be just as drab and uninteresting as before - no
matter
> how sincere he is. He may just have a lousy sensibility.
Yes, this is indeed a real possibility. In the case of artist Generico,
I was presupposing an artist of not inconsiderable talent, and a poetic
nature. Such a nature (and a talent) becomes the painterly alchemist.
> > This can not effectively be used to argue against abstraction -
> > rather, it is an attempt to explain why the masters continued to
return
> > to the real world for inspiration. I think that this field of
inquiry
> > could be most fruitful, as it asks a a number of questions relevant
to
> > all times: "What role does realism play in great art? Can great art
get
> > along without it? Why are many realistic works mediocre? Does
realism
> > have a special quality denied to pure abstraction, or is this merely
an
> > assumption?" This leads to another question: "Of what ultimate
> > importance are the technical skills we acquire from life drawing if
we
> > choose not to paint realistically? Why can we not acquire these
skills
> > from either studying or practising abstract painting? If we grant
that
> > something more is needed, what is this 'more'?"
>
> Good questions.
I wish I knew the answers in full detail!
This seems to me a fair attitude to take. The hypothetical questions,
though, were merely a re-phrasing of the question offered earlier: "Why
did the masters express their sensibilities via realism?"
> > > Likewise, Dekooning, especially in the mid to late 1970s, had
> > > astonishing color, design and drama of shape. I don't equate him
> > > with Michelangelo -
> > > but there is no one closer in this half of this century - not to
> > > Michelangelo's grandeur.
> >
> > Is it possible that by applying these qualities to the study of the
> > real world, that one can achieve even more than Dekooning? What drew
> > the Masters to nature again and again?
>
> Dekooning was a Master. He din't return to "nature" as you are
thinking of
> it. He simply knew paint and his relationship to it. That was his
nature.
The achievements of the abstract artists in history are not to be
overlooked - one can only marvel at the genius of the architects who
created such edifices as the Parthenon or Saint Peters. These
are abstract artists of the highest order.
Integral to their abstraction, though, was the mastery of craft;
embracing both the engineering and aesthetic aspects. Perhaps the
"mystery" of art lies in its craft-nature after all!
Best regards,
Iian
mark webber
> To say that the "real world" is simply the universe of visual
> impressions is not to penetrate to the essence of fine art, ...
I'm on board with that.
> ...which is
> almost a spiritual exercise. This comment does - on the surface - appear
> to be rather mystical, but if we understand the artist's relationship
> with the visual world to be a dynamic relationship of "expression"
> (aesthetic output) entwined with "inpression" (aesthetic input), then to
> say that art is a spiritual exercise does not seem so bizarre.
I agree. I hesitate to assign spiritual edges to making pictures, but the
way you put that is ok with me.
> The "realist debate" should therefore be divorced from historical
> and/or stylistic concerns, as the process of life-drawing (an example of
> realist technique at a basic level) can be used towards any end: whether
> political, religious, or philosophical. It is not so much a matter of
> refuting abstraction (which cannot be refuted), but instead a matter of
> recognizing what makes realism unique. This leads one to question why it
> has been the chosen vehicle for so many artists in history; whether or
> not they decided to render exactingly, or in a more stylized manner.
Well, what were their alternatives?
> What does seem to elevate realist work above literal representation is
> its inherent abstracting tendencies. Again, this may sound mystical but
> it is not so: a composition is an abstraction, one which encompasses
> pose, orchestration of mass and colour, as well as a microcosmos of
> minute details which contribute to the unity of the whole. This argument
> is quite neutral in that it can be used as well for Titian and
> Michelangelo as Braque or Brancusi.
Exactly.
> Any argument that favours technical skill must explain what it is that
> such skill offers that other disciplines may not, or as effectively. And
> to answer this adequately ... requires a very subtle argument!
And a definition of skill. Obviously, in rendering a large part of skill
can be considered to be related to the ability to render. But can skill be
anything else? Can it be related to composition? Paint application? Touch?
Handwriting? Color sense?
> > I'm sure there is a best way to deal with these hypothetical questions
> -
> > but I'm not that interested in them, so I don't know what it is.
>
> This seems to me a fair attitude to take. The hypothetical questions,
> though, were merely a re-phrasing of the question offered earlier: "Why
> did the masters express their sensibilities via realism?"
Again, I'm not sure what their alternative was, if by realism you mean
representation. I don't, by the way. The representation of Ingres and
Michelangelo is not realistic to me. It is very idealized. Millet and
Courbet look more realistic to me. I know they don't provid as much detail
as Ingres, but I don't experience detail in nature the way that Ingres
depicts it. Not always.
But if by realism you mean depicting what was actually there - then they
did not choose to express themselves that way. The great masters of the
Renaissance were not interested in realism, they were interested in
classicism - idealization, geometry, artificial perspectives. These things
are contrivances - beautiful, but untrue. Unreal.
But they did not choose abstraction in the sense that Dekooning did
because it was available for them to choose from.
> > Dekooning was a Master. He din't return to "nature" as you are
> thinking of
> > it. He simply knew paint and his relationship to it. That was his
> nature.
>
> The achievements of the abstract artists in history are not to be
> overlooked - one can only marvel at the genius of the architects who
> created such edifices as the Parthenon or Saint Peters. These
> are abstract artists of the highest order.
Good point. I like that.
> Integral to their abstraction, though, was the mastery of craft;
> embracing both the engineering and aesthetic aspects. Perhaps the
> "mystery" of art lies in its craft-nature after all!
>
I think Dekooning was a craftsman par excellance. His brushwork is very
beautiful to me - and evidently to the entire generation of painters who
have and still are copying him.
Iian, you are seeming very much on top of things, and I congratulate you.
Mark
br...@wralaw.com
"tugi" <tu...@ains.net.au> wrote:
> Iian Neill <nei...@kraz.tafe.tas.edu.au> wrote:
> >As far as I can
> >understand, Nietzsche considered that following either fanatically
gives
> >birth to the industrialist Philistine or to the world-despising
mystic.
> >He stood for another path, one which negated the previous value
system
> >in favour of a re-invented one; one which could look into the Abyss
of
> >the Death of God and still say "Yes!" to this life.
>
> This is a kind'a popular reading of Nietzsche.
Does 'popular' denote right or wrong reading of Nietzche?
> On the other hand
> a number of theorists are keen to emphasize Nietzsche's skepticism
> regarding *all* values
This basically doesn't contradict Ians post nor does 'skepticism'
of *all* values go beyond a popular extraction of Nietzche IYO!
> and moreover some would take him, in the old
> good metaphysical manner, for a historical demarcation point
> between Modernism and Postmodernism.
Since each is a time period and not a philosophy or a philosophy
and not a time period uttering either in this company is uttering
nonesense...
Ciao-Babes@! Bryn
br...@wralaw.com
Lauri.L. <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> To Iian
-And yet Bryn responds-
> Let us assume you want to make a portrait of your beloved.
> (That sure belongs to the sacred in art)
Internally one may or may not believe that there own heart is
the source of what is 'Sacred.'
What I experience as 'Sacred' to myself or conversly what I
hope is 'Sacred' (at worst an extension of the ego) cannot be
trasmitted with certainty -If it can even be experienced with
certainty. Each person only knows relevance to his own
experience, and from individual experience one can +guess+
what another experiences as 'Sacred.'
> Most often we think a portrait as representational.
> So we begin with some rendering:
> Her hair. Do you love her less if her hairdo is different some day.
> I suppose not, your affection is more than skin deep.
"Superficial" Amore, one haistyle may more significantly convey
a person or personality than another;
> Thus rendering the hair is not essential, misleading at the worst.
Nor is the painting; if the emotional connection is there or not.
I will answere that what can be transmited is a metaphor or aesthetic
of the personality, light and dark can be used subtly to convey
attitudes that one may have about the subject, 'IE lightness may
be allowed over the subjects heart to convey a light or radiant
heart or a dark shadow may simularly be cast on the genitals to
convey a sense of mistrust or phobia'
> Her nose - does precision here really reflect what you like in her.
IF the nose is painted badly the portraite could be of anyone. -
Modern artists like Picasso didn't use models as guides for
precision or to paint any one in person in particular (-since
picasso could do the work he is famous for without any models)
but used the painting as an excuse to get laid, or to hire a
naked girl to lie around the studio (-so they could see a
naked girl I guess)
> Her eyes? Yes, the smile and sensitivity of her large eyes.
> That we should keep.
Now we are talking about Cattle. But the Hindi's do believe that
they are more enlightened beings than ourselves(or at least more
enlightened than themselves)
> And the common love of good music. Should there be
> a rack of CD's in the background. Distracting.
This obviously depends on what one is trying to accomplish.
> We want something of the tonality in the picture.
> The only means are the rhytm and flow of lines and composition.
br...@wralaw.com
Alison A Raimes <Ali...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
^^^^^^
Does the 'Demon' have something to do with Satan?
Why are all the brits in league with Satan?
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <v9zVl8AQ...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
> Alison A Raimes <Ali...@signature.in.address> wrote:
>
> > ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> ^^^^^^
> Does the 'Demon' have something to do with Satan?
>
> Why are all the brits in league with Satan?
>
You can find my answer at http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk/satan.html since
you ask.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
Lauri.L.
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <7qg5fb$8al$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Lauri.L. <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> > To Iian
> -And yet Bryn responds-
>
L:> > Her hair. Do you love her less if her hairdo is different some
day.
L:> > I suppose not, your affection is more than skin deep.
>
L:> "Superficial" Amore, one haistyle may more significantly convey
B:> a person or personality than another;
L: Yes, I'm writing here in a foreign language,
a courtesy to you, and I am glad to learn more precise expressions.
L:> > Thus rendering the hair is not essential, misleading at the worst.
L: Our nationally famous political cartoonist, Kari*
had extraordinary skill to pick the hair as the identifier of his
subjects.
B:> Nor is the painting; if the emotional connection is there or not.
>
B:> I will answere that what can be transmited is a metaphor or
aesthetic
B:> of the personality,
L: I see these two consecutive sentences as contradictory.
L: I think the orthodox semiotic answer is that nothing is transmitted.
but there may be associations created on the observer's mind
that are close to those the painter had.
L: In an earthy language, a portrait may lead to a good guess
what kind of person the subject was (or more precicely - the artist's
opinion of the subject).
L:> > Her nose - does precision here really reflect what you like in
her.
>
L: > IF the nose is painted badly the portraite could be of anyone.
L: My story referred to particular series by Brancusi
http://www.lasvegassun.com/dossier/gaming/bellagio/legerbrancusi.html
Compare the nose to the Mlle Pogany from 1912.
L:> > Her eyes? Yes, the smile and sensitivity of her large eyes.
> > That we should keep.
>
B:> Now we are talking about Cattle.
L: A lip of concentration, my friend, I was still talking about
Brancusi :-)
- lauri
a journeyman of sculpture
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office mail address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
br...@wralaw.com
Lauri.L. <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> In article <7qq91b$k5d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > In article <7qg5fb$8al$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Lauri.L. <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> > > To Iian
> B:> "Superficial" Amore, one haistyle may more significantly convey
> B:> a person or personality than another;
> L: Yes, I'm writing here in a foreign language,
> a courtesy to you, and I am glad to learn more precise expressions.
'"Superficial" Amore' is not used by anyone, I made it up ad-hoc;
> L:> > Thus rendering the hair is not essential, misleading at the
worst.
> B:> Nor is the painting; if the emotional connection is there or not.
B:> > L: I see these two consecutive sentences as contradictory.
B:>I will answere that what can be transmited is a metaphor or
B:> aesthetic
B:> of the personality,
L:>I see these two sentences as contradictory
What I mean is that as far as the 'deeper meaning' in the
relationship is concerned- No painting or artifact whatsoever
is necessary! -A shoddy artifact or badly done painting doesn't
imply that there is 'no emotion' either(obvious); -What +you+ want
to believe as a Modernist is that a shoddy artifact or second
rate painting is implicit of a deeper meaning of relationship
or whatever -Its also obvious that this kind of thinking is
wrong.
The second sentence basically means
>B:>I will answere that what can be transmited is a metaphor or
>B:> aesthetic of the personality,
That the 'emotion' obviously cannot be +definitely+ transmitted
through a painting... One can however use design and object
elements as metaphors. For instance if I see a person as
Mysterious(mon amore) I might use a darker composition with
richer colors and compositional elements simular to
Moorish tiles- Or as I stated in the last post using light
cast on the subjects heart might be symbolic etc.
> L: I think the orthodox semiotic answer is that nothing is
transmitted.
> but there may be associations created on the observer's mind
> that are close to those the painter had.
Yes.
> L: In an earthy language, a portrait may lead to a good guess
> what kind of person the subject was (or more precicely - the artist's
> opinion of the subject).
> L:> > Her nose - does precision here really reflect what you like in
> her.
As far as I know the ability to render a nose is not a pre-requisite
for falling in love, or making a shoddy artifact of someone you do
love. I imagine that a shoddy artifact +might+ have a childish
charm! -In fact after writing this sentence I remember seeing a
work by a friend of mine who used stick figures holding hands as
a representation for an effect of childish hope-And he was otherwise
a capable realist/surrealist so it wasn't an effect of his real
skill.
> >
> B: > IF the nose is painted badly the portraite could be of anyone.
I stand by this,.
> L: My story referred to particular series by Brancusi
> http://www.lasvegassun.com/dossier/gaming/bellagio/legerbrancusi.html
> Compare the nose to the Mlle Pogany from 1912.
>
> L:> > Her eyes? Yes, the smile and sensitivity of her large eyes.
> > > That we should keep.
> >
> B:> Now we are talking about Cattle.
>
> L: A lip of concentration, my friend, I was still talking about
> Brancusi :-)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Iian Neill
Because we seem to be in agreement about a number of the concerns raised
in my last post, it would be mere repetition to go over these again.
Therefore, please excuse the extensive pruning I will apply to this
response, in order to address those issues that still need to be covered
....
> > This leads one to question
why it
> > has been the chosen vehicle for so many artists in history; whether
or
> > not they decided to render exactingly, or in a more stylized manner.
>
> Well, what were their alternatives?
A more pure abstraction. That is to say, one which does not treat the
surface of the canvas as an illusionistic window into an ideal reality.
However, we both agree that architecture is in some ways comparable to
the modern understanding of the term "abstract" (ie. subjectless,
non-representational art), and it would therefore follow that
pure abstraction was never really ignored at any point in history.
Granted, it may not explain the reason why Michelangelo bothered to
"represent" the visual world in paint (no matter how stylized).
> > Any argument that favours technical skill must explain what it is
that
> > such skill offers that other disciplines may not, or as effectively.
And
> > to answer this adequately ... requires a very subtle argument!
>
> And a definition of skill. Obviously, in rendering a large part of
skill
> can be considered to be related to the ability to render. But can
skill be
> anything else? Can it be related to composition? Paint application?
Touch?
> Handwriting? Color sense?
I do not see why skill can not be applied to these other areas as well.
If we understand "skill" to mean a technique developed (or learnt) to
accomplish a goal with the greatest efficiency, then it is hard to see
how skill does not play a part in composition, colour sense and even
handwriting. This word, "skill", can also be used to describe paint
application, if we grant that the consistently successful application of
paint is no mere random affair.
> > "Why
> > did the masters express their sensibilities via realism?"
>
> Again, I'm not sure what their alternative was, if by realism you mean
> representation. I don't, by the way. The representation of Ingres and
> Michelangelo is not realistic to me. It is very idealized. Millet and
> Courbet look more realistic to me. I know they don't provid as much
detail
> as Ingres, but I don't experience detail in nature the way that Ingres
> depicts it. Not always.
You are very right to draw this distinction between representationalism
and the idealism (if one may call it that!) of Ingres and Michelangelo.
Obviously the art of Courbet differs from Ingres, and we might describe
part of this difference (separate from temperament) as stemming from
style. It would be fair to say that there as many potential styles in
representationalism as there are artists.
When I use the terms "realism", I do not refer specifically to the
Social Realism of a Courbet, or to the hyper-realism of a Photo-Realist.
Rather, I refer to the common trait an Ingres or a Poussin shares with
them: - that is, they take the objects of the real world as their
starting point, and in some manner deal with them in paint (stylize
them) - they do, nonetheless, remain recognizable as "representations"
as well as elements in a composition. No matter how Ingres chooses to
stylize his women, they are still recognizably feminine and human - this
may not necessarily be the case with an abstract artist, however, who
may utilize the curves and contours associated with femininity, yet not
combine them in shapes that are objectively identifiable as "female".
> But if by realism you mean depicting what was actually there - then
they
> did not choose to express themselves that way. The great masters of
the
> Renaissance were not interested in realism, they were interested in
> classicism - idealization, geometry, artificial perspectives. These
things
> are contrivances - beautiful, but untrue. Unreal.
Quite so. And I would be the last to decry them for this very unreality.
> But they did not choose abstraction in the sense that Dekooning did
> because it was available for them to choose from.
Perhaps you have misplaced a "not" here ... ?
> > Integral to their abstraction, though, was the mastery of craft;
> > embracing both the engineering and aesthetic aspects. Perhaps the
> > "mystery" of art lies in its craft-nature after all!
> >
>
> I think Dekooning was a craftsman par excellance. His brushwork is
very
> beautiful to me - and evidently to the entire generation of painters
who
> have and still are copying him.
It is true that craftsmanship takes many forms; perhaps the distinction
to be made is what particular craft (skill) is most necessary - or is
most present - in great art. An artist like Dekooning or Delacroix may
be a master of brushwork, but so also are the more conservative Cot or
Alma-Tadema, who could evoke textures in a very tactile way when so
inspired. My point here is not to elevate one at the expense of the
other, merely to point out (for the sake of completeness, if nothing
else) that great art involves the convergence of many crafts together;
and even then may not be forged without that miraculous syzergy of
talent and inspiration we call genius.
-- Iian
Lauri.L.
> -What +you+ want
> to believe as a Modernist is that a shoddy artifact or second
> rate painting is implicit of a deeper meaning of relationship
> or whatever -Its also obvious that this kind of thinking is
> wrong.
lauri: What +you+ want to believe is that I am a modernist.
Did my web page give that impression? Here I was discussing
with Iian an example how to read post-Ingres artwork.
If I don't show prejudice against it, does that make me a modernist?
Which of the three versions of Mlle Pogany you regard as shoddy?
I have reasons to believe that the later versions
involved much more intense study and effort.
Neither of us has seen Mlle Pogany in person. We cannot verify the
accuracy
of any of these sculptures. Which one gives +you+ the most _explisit_
impression of what kind of person she was.
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office mail address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
mark webber
Hi Iian,
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Iian Neill wrote:
> > > This leads one to question why it has been the chosen vehicle
> > > for so many artists in history; whether or
> > > not they decided to render exactingly, or in a more stylized manner.
> >
> > Well, what were their alternatives?
>
> A more pure abstraction. That is to say, one which does not treat the
> surface of the canvas as an illusionistic window into an ideal reality.
I don't really see that as an alternative until it is developed in the
20th century. Although in a lot of renaissance and rococo drawings I see
plenty that looks like like gestural abstraction.
But as an alternative to polished figure compositions, I don't think it is
really something anyone thought of - until enough art history was
"available" to look at and the common thread of formal play was evident
that abstaction could develop. I see this as very specificly a 20th
century concern.
> However, we both agree that architecture is in some ways comparable to
> the modern understanding of the term "abstract" (ie. subjectless,
> non-representational art), and it would therefore follow that
> pure abstraction was never really ignored at any point in history.
> Granted, it may not explain the reason why Michelangelo bothered to
> "represent" the visual world in paint (no matter how stylized).
Well, look at it this way: achitecture has a different function - to
protect us from the elements. The function of painting had been to depict
- usually a religious theme. Architecture usually doesn't depict a theme -
not so literally. But we don't have to depict anymore. (I do, but not
because of an attitude to abstraction. Just because it has been just fine
to depict for all these centuries. I like depicting. I like the potential
for content. I just don't want it to over-ride the form.)
>
> I do not see why skill can not be applied to these other areas as well.
> If we understand "skill" to mean a technique developed (or learnt) to
> accomplish a goal with the greatest efficiency, then it is hard to see
> how skill does not play a part in composition, colour sense and even
> handwriting. This word, "skill", can also be used to describe paint
> application, if we grant that the consistently successful application of
> paint is no mere random affair.
Yes, my feeling too.
>
> > > "Why
> > > did the masters express their sensibilities via realism?"
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure what their alternative was, if by realism you mean
> > representation. I don't, by the way. The representation of Ingres and
> > Michelangelo is not realistic to me. It is very idealized. Millet and
> > Courbet look more realistic to me. I know they don't provid as much
> detail
> > as Ingres, but I don't experience detail in nature the way that Ingres
> > depicts it. Not always.
>
> You are very right to draw this distinction between representationalism
> and the idealism (if one may call it that!) of Ingres and Michelangelo.
Well, it isn't a new distinction - not mine at all. I wish I could take
credit for it. But this is part of why I think it is so important for
people to read a bit of the great writers - Wolflin handles the subject of
Classicism, idealism and the picturesque pretty well.
When we haven't read what some of the great 'lookers' have written we are
sort of reinventing the wheel, and we can sound rather foolish. That is
very often what I've been vocal about in this group.
In other words, if someone wants to "write" their own art history, its no
skin off my back, but when they start publishing it - on the web or
otherwise - its the sort of misinformation that I rather enjoy refuting.
> Obviously the art of Courbet differs from Ingres, and we might describe
> part of this difference (separate from temperament) as stemming from
> style. It would be fair to say that there as many potential styles in
> representationalism as there are artists.
Not only fair, but inevitable. Well, let's modify it: original artists -
original to some degree.
> When I use the terms "realism", I do not refer specifically to the
> Social Realism of a Courbet,
sorry to interrupt, but I don't think art historians use that term for
Courbet. Just "realist". A social realist would be someone for whom social
issues are a content statement. Courbet allowed visual experience to
outway content.
> or to the hyper-realism of a Photo-Realist.
> Rather, I refer to the common trait an Ingres or a Poussin shares with
> them: - that is, they take the objects of the real world as their
> starting point, and in some manner deal with them in paint (stylize
> them) -
Again, I understand what you mean, but they aren't realists - they are
both classicists, involved in idealization. Their work *departs* from
nature - not returns to it. This is a very important distinction.
By the way, I love their work very much. You'll see excellent example in
Paris. There is also a fair amount of Poussin in a little, very affluent
community just north of Paris called Chantilly, in a very grand
palace/museum. The Musee Conde. You would love it. Two wonderful
Michelangelo Slaves (copies - but pretty ggod ones) at the entrance. Very
grand.
> they do, nonetheless, remain recognizable as "representations"
> as well as elements in a composition.
Yes, but this is also true of Corot, Manet, and many other "borderline"
interpreters. Also true of such proto-impressionists in the Italian
Renaissance as Titian and Tintoretto. You may not love them yet - most
people love the Florentines before they love the Venetians - but you will.
In spite of the looser brush work.
> No matter how Ingres chooses to
> stylize his women, they are still recognizably feminine and human - this
> may not necessarily be the case with an abstract artist, however, who
> may utilize the curves and contours associated with femininity, yet not
> combine them in shapes that are objectively identifiable as "female".
I understand your point - I don't disagree. But there is a lot of
middleground, with very high quality painting, lying between Ingres and
DeKooning. Ingres is among the most polished of painters, and probably
most people respond positively to polish at the expense of enjoying
soemthing a little less tight. That usually changes with education.
>
> > But they did not choose abstraction in the sense that Dekooning did
> > because it was available for them to choose from.
>
> Perhaps you have misplaced a "not" here ... ?
Yes, thanks, sorry. My typing skills and garbled thinking are frequently
at odds. Thanks.
>
> It is true that craftsmanship takes many forms; perhaps the distinction
> to be made is what particular craft (skill) is most necessary - or is
> most present - in great art.
Well, I really believe that to embrace the huge variety of what is great
we have to accept that which skills are most pertinant will shift from
individual to individual.
> An artist like Dekooning or Delacroix may
> be a master of brushwork, but so also are the more conservative Cot or
> Alma-Tadema, who could evoke textures in a very tactile way when so
> inspired. My point here is not to elevate one at the expense of the
> other, merely to point out (for the sake of completeness, if nothing
> else) that great art involves the convergence of many crafts together;
> and even then may not be forged without that miraculous syzergy of
> talent and inspiration we call genius.
Nicely put. Here is my definition of art: The expression of sensibilty.
Here is my definition of great art: A sublime sensibilty expressed
excellently.
(I know that the word sublime means something different to many folks here
in RAF, but it does have usage today that is meant to evoke something more
earth-bound. That's how I mean it.)
Hey, it has gotten pretty enjoyable to talk with you.
Thanks,
Mark
Iian Neill
> > > Well, what were their alternatives?
> >
> > A more pure abstraction. That is to say, one which does not treat
the
> > surface of the canvas as an illusionistic window into an ideal
reality.
>
> I don't really see that as an alternative until it is developed in the
> 20th century. Although in a lot of renaissance and rococo drawings I
see
> plenty that looks like like gestural abstraction.
Your point is eminently logical and does, I think, pretty much answer
the question I raised.
> > However, we both agree that architecture is in some ways comparable
to
> > the modern understanding of the term "abstract" (ie. subjectless,
> > non-representational art), and it would therefore follow that
> > pure abstraction was never really ignored at any point in history.
> > Granted, it may not explain the reason why Michelangelo bothered to
> > "represent" the visual world in paint (no matter how stylized).
>
> Well, look at it this way: achitecture has a different function - to
> protect us from the elements. The function of painting had been to
depict
> - usually a religious theme. Architecture usually doesn't depict a
theme -
> not so literally.
Yes, the practical limitations of the medium would have inhibited the
more explicit narrative works typical to painting and sculpture. Of
course, this was circumvented to a certain extend by architectural
ornamentation, frescoes, mosaics, and the calligraphic inscriptions of
Islamic and Christian monuments. But then, by viewing a monument in this
total perspective we are approaching a synthesis of art in the Berninian
sense (synaesthetics?).
> But we don't have to depict anymore.
This has always been an option, even in previous eras - except such work
was confined to architecture, or considered to be craft. What has
changed is this re-definition of 'fine art' and also of craft.
> (I do, but not
> because of an attitude to abstraction. Just because it has been just
fine
> to depict for all these centuries. I like depicting. I like the
potential
> for content. I just don't want it to over-ride the form.)
A laudable concern, I need not emphasize.
> > You are very right to draw this distinction between
representationalism
> > and the idealism (if one may call it that!) of Ingres and
Michelangelo.
>
> Well, it isn't a new distinction - not mine at all. I wish I could
take
> credit for it. But this is part of why I think it is so important for
> people to read a bit of the great writers - Wolflin handles the
subject of
> Classicism, idealism and the picturesque pretty well.
I understand that this distinction was not invented by you, but
acknowledging and comprehending the distinction is significant. It is,
after all, one of the cornerstones of fine art in the West.
> When we haven't read what some of the great 'lookers' have written we
are
> sort of reinventing the wheel, and we can sound rather foolish. That
is
> very often what I've been vocal about in this group.
Reinventing the wheel is more time-wasting than foolish, although the
two are not mutually exclusive.
> > It would be fair to say that there as many potential styles
in
> > representationalism as there are artists.
>
> Not only fair, but inevitable. Well, let's modify it: original artists
-
> original to some degree.
I accept your re-definition.
> > When I use the terms "realism", I do not refer specifically to the
> > Social Realism of a Courbet,
>
> sorry to interrupt, but I don't think art historians use that term for
> Courbet. Just "realist". A social realist would be someone for whom
social
> issues are a content statement. Courbet allowed visual experience to
> outway content.
Thank you for the subtle correction of this point. It has to be
admitted, though, that Courbet was certainly concerned with social
issues, particularly those of the lower class. That he was able to
prevent this overwhelming the content of his work demonstrates his good
taste as an artist.
Remember, whatever I think personally of Gustave Courbet's style does
not prevent me admiring his skill as a painter, and his originality as a
person.
> > or to the hyper-realism of a Photo-Realist.
> > Rather, I refer to the common trait an Ingres or a Poussin shares
with
> > them: - that is, they take the objects of the real world as their
> > starting point, and in some manner deal with them in paint (stylize
> > them) -
>
> Again, I understand what you mean, but they aren't realists - they are
> both classicists, involved in idealization. Their work *departs* from
> nature - not returns to it. This is a very important distinction.
I agree enthusiastically with this.
> By the way, I love their work very much. You'll see excellent example
in
> Paris. There is also a fair amount of Poussin in a little, very
affluent
> community just north of Paris called Chantilly, in a very grand
> palace/museum. The Musee Conde. You would love it. Two wonderful
> Michelangelo Slaves (copies - but pretty ggod ones) at the entrance.
Very
> grand.
Thanks for the recommendation - I wouldn't miss a chance to see Poussin
or Michelangelo for the world.
> > they do, nonetheless, remain recognizable as "representations"
> > as well as elements in a composition.
>
> Yes, but this is also true of Corot, Manet, and many other
"borderline"
> interpreters. Also true of such proto-impressionists in the Italian
> Renaissance as Titian and Tintoretto. You may not love them yet - most
> people love the Florentines before they love the Venetians - but you
will.
Your point is grounded in truth - I do not at all question it. Indeed,
my above comments concerning "representation" are as applicable to a
Raphael as they are to a Rodin. Both, despite their differences of style
and purpose, did paint works which feature elements that are
recognizably from the visual world - ie., they "represent" the visual
world, although a better phrase might be, "re-create the visual world".
At the risk of going out on a limb here, I wonder whether this has
anything to do with Leonardo's belief that the painter is second to God
as a creator? Before I give my reasoning, remember that I am agnostic
even though I am arguing from the premise that there was a creator, for
the purpose of addressing Leonardo's comment:
God (in his role as creator) fashioned the laws by which the universe
operates. The Renaissance painter, also, was godlike in that he created
a microcosmos of objects (men, women, children, animals, trees, etc.)
and bound these all together with the immutable laws of art. We could
call these laws the "form", or the abstract composition which determines
the nature and position of all the parts in relation to the whole.
This argument is obviously fallacious if one applies it literally - the
laws of physics are rooted in Time, whereas whatever "laws" in art do
not serve to restrain or promote states of matter and energy. In a
poetic sense, though, the argument is valid - a work of art is "little
world" created by the artist, which ideally exists on its own terms, and
which is shaped by those aesthetic laws of its creator, the artist.
The Renaissance painter is thus "godlike" in that the form of his work
is comparable to the laws that bind the universe together, which
determine its unique nature as a system.
> > No matter how Ingres chooses to
> > stylize his women, they are still recognizably feminine and human -
this
> > may not necessarily be the case with an abstract artist, however,
who
> > may utilize the curves and contours associated with femininity, yet
not
> > combine them in shapes that are objectively identifiable as
"female".
>
> I understand your point - I don't disagree. But there is a lot of
> middleground, with very high quality painting, lying between Ingres
and
> DeKooning. Ingres is among the most polished of painters, and probably
> most people respond positively to polish at the expense of enjoying
> soemthing a little less tight. That usually changes with education.
I also agree with this. A more approachable example than DeKooning for
many may be Goya.
> > > But they did not choose abstraction in the sense that Dekooning
did
> > > because it was available for them to choose from.
> >
> > Perhaps you have misplaced a "not" here ... ?
>
> Yes, thanks, sorry. My typing skills and garbled thinking are
frequently
> at odds. Thanks.
No problem.
> (I know that the word sublime means something different to many folks
here
> in RAF, but it does have usage today that is meant to evoke something
more
> earth-bound. That's how I mean it.)
>
> Hey, it has gotten pretty enjoyable to talk with you.
Likewise.
best regards,
br...@wralaw.com
Lauri.L. <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> Bryn:
> > -What +you+ want
> > to believe as a Modernist is that a shoddy artifact or second
> > rate painting is implicit of a deeper meaning of relationship
> > or whatever -Its also obvious that this kind of thinking is
> > wrong.
> lauri: What +you+ want to believe is that I am a modernist.
This is potentially one of the problems with my writing style.
What I mean is that inherent in postmodern interpretations of
Modernism(berk!) is the sentemental notion that profundity is
a product of only those artist who show a genuine lack of
understanding of the physical art of painting or sculpting.
> Did my web page give that impression? Here I was discussing
> with Iian an example how to read post-Ingres artwork.
> If I don't show prejudice against it, does that make me a modernist?
There is a little modernist in all of us. But I don't think of
you as being particularly modern, so if I can take back this
impression or undue my statement -Recant! I have.
> Which of the three versions of Mlle Pogany you regard as shoddy?
None -I'm not sure I know these works even.
> I have reasons to believe that the later versions
> involved much more intense study and effort.
perhaps -I dont know them that well... I exist only to
expand on the philosophical questions of art. I don't have
that much specific to say.
> Neither of us has seen Mlle Pogany in person. We cannot verify the
> accuracy
> of any of these sculptures.
I guess not. I suppose the answere you may be searching for is that
we can +only maybe+ verify the artist attitude?
> Which one gives +you+ the most _explisit_
> impression of what kind of person she was.
None; only if the artists work communicates well can we guess
what kind of attitude that artist had for that subject(which
may extend beyond the subject as well)-
Obviously we can also tell which representation is a most likely
candidate for realism just by looking -in most casese.
> - lauri
> journeyman of sculpture
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
mark webber
Hi Iian,
> Your point is grounded in truth - I do not at all question it. Indeed,
> my above comments concerning "representation" are as applicable to a
> Raphael as they are to a Rodin. Both, despite their differences of style
> and purpose, did paint works which feature elements that are
> recognizably from the visual world - ie., they "represent" the visual
> world, although a better phrase might be, "re-create the visual world".
Either phrase works equally for me. The only hairsplitting for me now
would be the paintings of Rodin - which I am unfamiliar with. I only know
his sculpture.
But that says a lot, I think for our level of agreement.
> At the risk of going out on a limb here, I wonder whether this has
> anything to do with Leonardo's belief that the painter is second to God
> as a creator?
Did he really believe it or did he simply declare it. I think Leonardo was
a rather poetic fellow. Personally, I've never felt a need to find the
place of "artist" in the God-like hierarchy.
> Before I give my reasoning, remember that I am agnostic
> even though I am arguing from the premise that there was a creator, for
> the purpose of addressing Leonardo's comment:
>
> God (in his role as creator) fashioned the laws by which the universe
> operates. The Renaissance painter, also, was godlike in that he created
> a microcosmos of objects (men, women, children, animals, trees, etc.)
> and bound these all together with the immutable laws of art. We could
> call these laws the "form", or the abstract composition which determines
> the nature and position of all the parts in relation to the whole.
>
> This argument is obviously fallacious if one applies it literally - the
> laws of physics are rooted in Time, whereas whatever "laws" in art do
> not serve to restrain or promote states of matter and energy. In a
> poetic sense, though, the argument is valid - a work of art is "little
> world" created by the artist, which ideally exists on its own terms, and
> which is shaped by those aesthetic laws of its creator, the artist.
> The Renaissance painter is thus "godlike" in that the form of his work
> is comparable to the laws that bind the universe together, which
> determine its unique nature as a system.
Ok, very handsome. I will add two things, if I may:
First, what you say applies to many more periods of art than the
Renaissance - in fact may actually apply to more occupations than those of
the artist,
and
second, all of the above can be found just as useful *without* the
comparison to God. In fact the whole "god" thing gets in the way of what
is really useful there, maybe?
> > ...Ingres is among the most polished of painters, and probably
> > most people respond positively to polish at the expense of enjoying
> > soemthing a little less tight. That usually changes with education.
>
> I also agree with this. A more approachable example than DeKooning for
> many may be Goya.
A good selection!
Thanks again!
Mark
Iian Neill
> > Your point is grounded in truth - I do not at all question it.
Indeed,
> > my above comments concerning "representation" are as applicable to a
> > Raphael as they are to a Rodin. Both, despite their differences of
style
> > and purpose, did paint works which feature elements that are
> > recognizably from the visual world - ie., they "represent" the
visual
> > world, although a better phrase might be, "re-create the visual
world".
>
> Either phrase works equally for me. The only hairsplitting for me now
> would be the paintings of Rodin - which I am unfamiliar with. I only
know
> his sculpture.
I must admit I was thinking of Rodin's sculptures as I wrote the above
paragraph, but it could also apply to his drawings. Perhaps a better
(easier to visualize) comparison might be Raphael and Delacroix.
> > At the risk of going out on a limb here, I wonder whether this has
> > anything to do with Leonardo's belief that the painter is second to
God
> > as a creator?
>
> Did he really believe it or did he simply declare it. I think Leonardo
was
> a rather poetic fellow. Personally, I've never felt a need to find the
> place of "artist" in the God-like hierarchy.
Not being an expert on Leonardo, I regret that I cannot answer your
question with any certainty. Based on my own experiences with his
writings and paintings (in reproduction), I am tempted to think that
Leonardo believed in an abstract supernatural force that created the
universe, and that he saw an analogy between this and the artist and the
inventor. The un-dogmatic attitude of da Vinci suggests to me that he
was by no means an orthodox Christian, and I have heard rumours that he
was involved in alchemy in any case. My conclusion: He believed in a
Prime Mover and called that God out of the convention of his age.
> Ok, very handsome. I will add two things, if I may:
Thank you. Your suggestions were welcome.
> First, what you say applies to many more periods of art than the
> Renaissance - in fact may actually apply to more occupations than
those of
> the artist,
Certainly this is how at present I understand it. One might even say -
tongue in cheek - that the Universal Man's idea can be applied
universally.
Seriously, though, your suggestion that it can apply to occupations
other than that of artist is quite interesting ...
> second, all of the above can be found just as useful *without* the
> comparison to God. In fact the whole "god" thing gets in the way of
what
> is really useful there, maybe?
I think I see where you are coming from, and I agree. The word "God" has
over the millenia accrued so many conflicting and extinct ideas around
it that its use must now be subject to precise clarification. When I
used it with regard to Leonardo, I applied it as I thought he understood
it - as the Prime Mover, an abstract universal force that one might as
well call "The Laws of Physics". Surely my reading of his works is not
comprehensive, but I have never seen him talk of Christian dogma outside
of the subjects of his paintings, which were painted for the Church in
most cases.
Conclusion: one can as well compare the 'microcosm theory' to the
broad theoretical structures underlying modern physics.
Best regards,
mark webber
Hello Iian,
> > ... what you say applies to many more periods of art than the
> > Renaissance - in fact may actually apply to more occupations than
> > those of the artist,
>
> Certainly this is how at present I understand it. One might even say -
> tongue in cheek - that the Universal Man's idea can be applied
> universally.
I like that one.
> Seriously, though, your suggestion that it can apply to occupations
> other than that of artist is quite interesting ...
>
> > second, all of the above can be found just as useful *without* the
> > comparison to God. In fact the whole "god" thing gets in the way of
> what
> > is really useful there, maybe?
>
> I think I see where you are coming from, and I agree. The word "God" has
> over the millenia accrued so many conflicting and extinct ideas around
> it that its use must now be subject to precise clarification. When I
> used it with regard to Leonardo, I applied it as I thought he understood
> it - as the Prime Mover, an abstract universal force that one might as
> well call "The Laws of Physics". Surely my reading of his works is not
> comprehensive, but I have never seen him talk of Christian dogma outside
> of the subjects of his paintings, which were painted for the Church in
> most cases.
> Conclusion: one can as well compare the 'microcosm theory' to the
> broad theoretical structures underlying modern physics.
I guess so. It isn't really an area if study for me, so I would hesitate
to draw any conclusions. I've sort of lost track of what you were saying
now, but I was following an aspect of it that implied a responsibility on
the artist's part to decision-making and unity. That part is just as
interesting to me without making the comparison to prime movers of a more
mystical sort.
Anyway, it has been really nice talking with you. As you read some of the
books we've discussed, I hope you'll let us know about some of your
impressions.
best,
Mark
Iian Neill
> > Conclusion: one can as well compare the 'microcosm theory' to the
> > broad theoretical structures underlying modern physics.
>
> I guess so. It isn't really an area if study for me, so I would
hesitate
> to draw any conclusions. I've sort of lost track of what you were
saying
> now, but I was following an aspect of it that implied a
responsibility on
> the artist's part to decision-making and unity. That part is just as
> interesting to me without making the comparison to prime movers of a
more
> mystical sort.
The reference to a "prime mover" was related to Leonardo da Vinci's
comments on the godlike role of the painter. One could as well describe
a work of art as a system governed by a creator, given form and meaning
by the laws of aesthetics. This is merely a conceptual model to think
about art - no more than that.
> Anyway, it has been really nice talking with you. As you read some of
the
> books we've discussed, I hope you'll let us know about some of your
> impressions.
I would like to say I have read these books, however they are proving
very hard to find down here. I've searched the state library system and
most of them are kept in reference libraries, rather than public ones.
Until I find works by the aforementioned authors, I've decided to work
through Philip McMahon's "The Art of Enjoying Art" - simply because I
have it handy.
I will keep you posted on when I find (and read) more books on
aesthetics.
Cheers,
mark webber
Greetings Iian,
>
> The reference to a "prime mover" was related to Leonardo da Vinci's
> comments on the godlike role of the painter. One could as well describe
> a work of art as a system governed by a creator, given form and meaning
> by the laws of aesthetics. This is merely a conceptual model to think
> about art - no more than that.
I understand, thanks.
>
> > Anyway, it has been really nice talking with you. As you read some of
> the
> > books we've discussed, I hope you'll let us know about some of your
> > impressions.
>
> I would like to say I have read these books, however they are proving
> very hard to find down here. I've searched the state library system and
> most of them are kept in reference libraries, rather than public ones.
> Until I find works by the aforementioned authors, I've decided to work
> through Philip McMahon's "The Art of Enjoying Art" - simply because I
> have it handy.
>
> I will keep you posted on when I find (and read) more books on
> aesthetics.
I'm sorry to hear they are tough books to find. Best of luck, and again,
it was very satisfying to catch up with you. (I also enjoyed you rejoinder
im another thread this morning.)
Best wishes,
Mark