interactive art on the web

[6ed9es]

Mmmultimedia, folks; it's part of our lives, and can help us in so
many ways. what i'm currently concerned with is web-based fine art.
culture on the net, enlightening us all. Assuming it's done right...

so how's it done right? answers here please.

could style over content present a problem? answers here please.

interactivity - a gimmick that takes up precious time, or an essential
and growing part of on-line art? answers here please.

hey, that should be enough to start the ball rolling.

--
hmmm...

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

[jeff_l...@my-deja.com]

In article <8r9uj9$f49$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

6ed9es <alla...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Mmmultimedia, folks; it's part of our lives, and can help us in so
> many ways. what i'm currently concerned with is web-based fine art.
> culture on the net, enlightening us all. Assuming it's done right...
>
> so how's it done right? answers here please.
>
> could style over content present a problem? answers here please.
>
> interactivity - a gimmick that takes up precious time, or an essential
> and growing part of on-line art? answers here please.
>

Site visitors have a short attention span. It's one thing to get
visitors, another to keep them. Huge tracts of text don't necessarily
get read. Pictures can be looked at very quickly and then moved on from
(on from!?). Multimedia is a useful area to explore because it uses
capabilities indigenous to the net. It's an area I'll be able to get
into now I've started college. Style over content can always represent a
problem - though I would venture it's as hard to define as the term
'fine art'.

Jeff

http://website.lineone.net/~jeff_lee

[Marilyn Welch]

Here's a sample of a well designed website with interesting content and no
frills:

<http://www.mcgill.ca/mqup/opening/welcome.html>

[6ed9es]

thanks to Marilyn for the link - i'm impressed, watermarks are pretty
useful, not only as backdrops against which text is easily red, but
also lend continuity to the entire site. interesting, as is Jeffs'.
Thanks to you both.

next question:

I'm relatively new to this web-exploration thing, having only just
joined a college course in multimedia pretty late on, in order to catch
up on the development in computers i've missed since being at
university. what interests me though, in the context of art-related
sites, is the contrast between sites dedicated to bringing existing
artworks to the digital audience, and those designed to be viewed as
stand-alone works in their own right (Maruto's once-upon-a-forest.com
is a perfect example). interactivity stretches across both categories,
but the latter is more... playfull?

where is the trend heading? I know the Guggenheim is engaged in a three
year project to create a virtual gallery space, but is the concept of
real-world galleries going on-line when the experience is (or should
be) far from digital - how can you smell a digital canvas? - slowly
fading into obscurity. Publicity, yes, but digitising artworks just to
have them illustrate a web-site? i dunno...

replies to the usual address, stay well in the meantime.

--
hmmm...

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

[Erik A. Mattila]

Marilyn Welch wrote:

> My idea is that web art is in its infancy and it will become an art form
> of its own, not just a technology to copy and present other forms of fine
> art (especially conservative paintings on canvas or on paper). It's
> more than a marketing tool. Maybe what is lacking is art and design
> background for the techies.
>
> I have Paint Shop Pro 6 but I can't find any instructions on making
> watermark backgrounds. Watermarks to them means the same as it used to
> mean to printers, some identification hidden in the image.
>
> Marilyn

I think you can get software to do this, independant of Paintshop Pro. It's
just code, Marilyn, but it can't be removed from the rest of the code of an
image (until some hacker figures out how to do it, I guess). But you can
put your name, address, copyrite notice and so on, embedded in the image
(but it wouldn't show up on the display).

Take a look here: http://www.webreference.com/multimedia/watermarks.html

Erik

[Chris]

Hi Marilyn;

Well, I ain't Erik but (for what it's worth) the web can handle any
degree of colour accuracy you can digitize, provided you are willing to
wait for the download, or have good connections. 24-bit colour graphics
(for example) allow for roughly 4 million colours, but need to assign 3
bytes to each pixel, rather than the one byte a 256 colour scheme
requires.

You can certainly go higher than 24-bit (=3byte) colour graphics, but
you won't gain much. The big limitations after this (besides our
inability to discern different colours) are those inherent in current
display technology.

Cheers;

Chris

--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com
Children at Play #1: http://www.gammarat.com/AtPlay/AtPlay1.jpg

Marilyn Welch wrote:
>
> Erik,
>
> Speaking of graphics on the web.
> Is it true that the web can only handle graphics of
> 256 colours and no more? Thanks,
>
> Marilyn

[Erik A. Mattila]

Chris wrote:

> Hi Marilyn;
>
> Well, I ain't Erik but (for what it's worth) the web can handle any
> degree of colour accuracy you can digitize, provided you are willing to
> wait for the download, or have good connections. 24-bit colour graphics
> (for example) allow for roughly 4 million colours, but need to assign 3
> bytes to each pixel, rather than the one byte a 256 colour scheme
> requires.

Are you sure you are not me, Chris? I would be the last to know...

But add to your imput here 'web safe' palletes - meaning that they won't
distort in cyberspace. I think NetScapes' pallette is 219 colors, and
Explorers a bit different, but not by much. The rest of the 'millions'
are up for grabs - that is they are subject to being distorted by the
browser software first, and then subject to distortion by the user's
monitor settings.

Erik

[Erik A. Mattila]

Gee, I"ve never used PSP so I don't know. In Photoshop it would be a snap - just
a transparent image at hand to slap on there.

But why the worry? You can't do much with a 72 dpi jpeg or gif image pirated
from the web. Take any jpeg and blow it up and see all the ugly compression
artifacts. No good for printing - but I guess you could recycle on the web.
Unless there's some heavey commercial interests involved (like an exclusive photo
of George Bush picking his nose) copyrite infringement on the internet isn't that
big of a deal. Also, anyone who is halfway skilled at a bit map program could
make short-work of your watermark. I know I could.

Erik

Marilyn Welch wrote:

> Thanks Erik, I might do that with original artwork and I will save that
> URL.
>
> For now,
> I really want what WordPerfect calls a 'watermark.'
> That is, a faded image for the background which can
> be overwritten with text. I tried it with PSP and
> it took forever.
>
> There must be a quick way to make a ghostly image of
> any graphic?
>
> If you have a minute, it's at
> <www.islandnet.com/~mwelch/Smallpox.htm>
>
> But, don't worry I haven't put pox all over the screen.
>
> Marilyn

[Chris]

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>
> But add to your imput here 'web safe' palletes - meaning that they won't
> distort in cyberspace. I think NetScapes' pallette is 219 colors, and
> Explorers a bit different, but not by much. The rest of the 'millions'
> are up for grabs - that is they are subject to being distorted by the
> browser software first, and then subject to distortion by the user's
> monitor settings.
>
> Erik
>

And we can't forget the monitor itself! It's educational to look at
one's artwork on a variety of monitors and see how much variation there
is, all else being the same. One machine I spend too much time on is an
SGI, with two 21" SGI monitors. It's got matching video cards - the
monitors are identical - and yet side-by-side the displays are
completely different. Go figure...

BTW - another point that is often overlooked by artists who are curious
as to why their colours don't reproduce well - there are just certain
colours that monitors can't reproduce - even when they are perfectly
represented in memory; just as not all colours can be perfectly
represented in a three colour basis, no matter how many bits one uses.
It gives one pause :)

Chris

--
"An' it on'y got unholy when one mis'able little fella got the bit in
his teeth an' run off his own way, kickin' an' draggin' and fightin'.
Fella like that bust the holiness." - John Steinbeck, "The Grapes of
Wrath"

[Erik A. Mattila]

Chris wrote:

> And we can't forget the monitor itself! It's educational to look at
> one's artwork on a variety of monitors and see how much variation there
> is, all else being the same. One machine I spend too much time on is an
> SGI, with two 21" SGI monitors. It's got matching video cards - the
> monitors are identical - and yet side-by-side the displays are
> completely different. Go figure...

Hmmmmmmm. My guess would be that the two are calibrated differently. Or
perhaps a cockroach piddled on the blue-gun of one of them.

> BTW - another point that is often overlooked by artists who are curious
> as to why their colours don't reproduce well - there are just certain
> colours that monitors can't reproduce - even when they are perfectly
> represented in memory; just as not all colours can be perfectly
> represented in a three colour basis, no matter how many bits one uses.
> It gives one pause :)

You know, I've had some interesting experiences with clients on print jobs.
I try to explain to them that the pantone 281 they are seeing on their
monitor, and especially on the sheet of paper they print with their office
printer, isn't the same color that will roll off the printing press. But it
doesn't seem to do any good. Then I tell them if exact color is a critical
issue with them, they need to bear the expense of a printer's proof. Now
this is pretty amazing. A good Chromalin print or color proof is reliable
matched to the color that will come from the inks.

But in ancient times, before cyber invaded the printing industry, it was even
worse. Do you remember? Color separations were really expensive, and they
involved about 16 color correction steps before any sort of correspondence
between the art and the image was established.

And then there's camera film. You want to distort? Take pictures with some
different brands and types of film.

Erik

[Chris]

Marilyn Welch wrote:
>
> My idea is that web art is in its infancy and it will become an art form
> of its own, not just a technology to copy and present other forms of fine
> art (especially conservative paintings on canvas or on paper). It's
> more than a marketing tool. Maybe what is lacking is art and design
> background for the techies.
>

All though it sounds pretty far-fetched, I'd say keep an eye on the
on-line gaming community. Artistic innovations are often derived from
innovations in popular culture, and it's pretty clear that there is
quite a large (and broad) culture developing in that direction. For me
the art here isn't the visual representation - which tends to be pretty
repetitive - but in the construction of virtual societies, such as those
found in EverQuest, with it's current population of 250,00-500,000
players, all paying $10/month to play.

Not that I have any great fondness for it, myself.

[Erik A. Mattila]

Marilyn Welch wrote:

> 21" monitor, that's giant!

NEC has just anounced a 50' Plasma monitor. Well, it's actually a HDTV,
but you can plug you're pc into it. It will probably cost around 12,000US
if you're interested.

> As for colour film, there's also the discrepancy with the developers.
> Reaching for true colours is much like reaching for the Truth period,
> the more you chase it, the more illusive it becomes.

And indeed, when the dust from Krakatoa surround the earth for two or three
years in 1882, all the paintings looked different.

> I was reassured when I moved here, to see a huge sign
> CHURCH OF THE TRUTH and told friends, at last I've found it.
> The Truth, it's here! But it was only a sign and I never entered the
> building because of the afterthought that they were being a little smug.
> Lately I passed by and the sign was toppled no doubt by the nearby
> high school kids who have a better grasp on Truth than any of us.

Kewl. For years eveytime I encountered botanical names such as "True Oak"
or "True Milkweed" I just assumed that the rest were fakes. But it turns
out there was this botanist named Mr. True who liked to append his name on
plants he discovered.

Erik

[Sharon Barcone]

"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1001018115442.18333B-100000@vtn1...
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Chris wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Marilyn Welch wrote:
> > >
>
> When I think of computer graphics engineers (not sure what they call
> themselves) taking design courses: The courses would have to be structured
> for the computer format. We can't continue to use the traditional Greek
> laws of design for such a new medium, or can we?
>

FYI...the Barnes and Noble.com site is offering free courses. One on
building web pages. Wonder how intensive the graphic side of it is. They are
also offering an introduction to programming...

sharon

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Erik A. Mattila]

Marilyn Welch wrote:

>
> I think you meant 1982 above. Mount Baker on the west coast was active
> around 1882, but only steam and clouds. That could have affected any
> paintings framed under glass, in the vicinity. Mood paintings.
>
> M.

Nope, I meant 1882. But I was wrong, it was 1883.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/southeast_asia/indonesia/krakatau.html

Erik

[jeff_l...@my-deja.com]

In article <39ED0684...@ns.sympatico.ca>,

Chris

I have to plead ignorance with how SGI users have their machines set up
, but I've always been amazed at the inconsistencies between PCs in
offices and Macs at college. It seems that few users calibrate their
screens and conduct any kind of initial testing for the best colour
match. This was something I sent the first 2 weeks of ownership on when
onboxing my iMac. The closest match between screen and print, which has
proven very reliable, was the result of a manual screen calibration and
using factory workspace settings in Photoshop (after exhaustively trying
all the others). In addition to this I printed pure B+W bars then
scanned them and found a slight shift in the scanner for which I have a
colour balance correction macro. The consistency is fine for what I do,
but, you couldn't run a professional colour matching service from it!
Am in a minority in doing this colour testing? Has anyone out there had
problems doing it?

Jeff

http://website.li

[Erik A. Mattila]

jeff_l...@my-deja.com wrote:

> I have to plead ignorance with how SGI users have their machines set up
> , but I've always been amazed at the inconsistencies between PCs in
> offices and Macs at college. It seems that few users calibrate their
> screens and conduct any kind of initial testing for the best colour
> match. This was something I sent the first 2 weeks of ownership on when
> onboxing my iMac. The closest match between screen and print, which has
> proven very reliable, was the result of a manual screen calibration and
> using factory workspace settings in Photoshop (after exhaustively trying
> all the others). In addition to this I printed pure B+W bars then
> scanned them and found a slight shift in the scanner for which I have a
> colour balance correction macro. The consistency is fine for what I do,
> but, you couldn't run a professional colour matching service from it!
> Am in a minority in doing this colour testing? Has anyone out there had
> problems doing it?
>
> Jeff

My guess is that you are a minority, Jeff. I think most people don't have
a compelling reason to calibrate their monitors, and the factory settings
are just fine.

The only problem I've had is that different software handles color
differently, so what I've set for Photoshop may not be the best for
Fireworks or Painter. (Mac). But anything that I do for press is either
going to be Photoshop or Illustrator (InDesign or Quark notwithstanding) so
I have my setting aimed at these applications.

Erik Mattila

[Thomas Ziorjen]

"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:

Yikes -- I just looked at my website on a windows machine for the first time,
and was startled by the differences between that & the mac that I'm used to!
The images were considerably *darker*, and didn't have the luminosity that I
was used to. Even the background grey was different -- on my monitor it is a
completely neutral grey. Neither warm nor cold; completely flat. On this
other computer it was a greenish grey. Weird.

What a strange way to publish -- you have no idea exactly what your viewer is
going to see. I sure hope this technology is moving towards standardization.

--
Thomas

online portfolio:
http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~sn3222

http://www.egroups.com/group/artlives
http://artlives.homestead.com

[Peter H.M. Brooks]

"Thomas Ziorjen" <thomas_...@sunshine.net> wrote in message
news:39F093FF...@sunshine.net...

>
> What a strange way to publish -- you have no idea exactly what your
viewer is
> going to see. I sure hope this technology is moving towards
standardization.
>

I don't know. Many artists have had their works seen differently. Look
at the Sistine Chapel, the controversy over its cleaning was all about
the question of authentic vision. Isn't is possible that an art work
seen in a different medium will reveal a facet that even the artist
hasn't seen?

--
Tu es ianua diaboli - Tertullian

[lauri levanto]

What is a right color of a painting.

All cats are grey in the dark. The pysical "color"

of your pigments is never what you see.

You have to multiply the spectral reflectancy of pigments

with the spectral distribution of the light

and finally with the chromatic adaptation of your eye.

When you look at a picture all three are in play.

The adaptation of the eyes makes wonders in color

correction in everyday situation. Look what color

film sees at sunset or incandescent light.

For most of us the eye compensates much of screen balance.

Albers went as far as claiming that colors do not

exist alone. Musician may have an absolute ear

but no artis has an absolute color eye. The relations of colors,

"chords", remain fairly reliably in different situations.

-lauri

"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:8sqhe9$hg5$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...

[mdeli]

For the last 40 years I have heard little more then unchallenged
orgasmic praise for the so called masters of MODERN ART and their
imitators. I have never read a critic in any newspaper even
mildly criticizing any of the founding fathers of MA or their
predecessors. Denigration is strictly reserved for those artists
who practiced certain evil tendencies such as what critics call
kitsch, illustration and commercial art. These are not considered fine
artists and are banned from our museums to intellectual Purgatory
(By that I mean rarely mentioned). Indeed this is just now
beginning to change a bit.

In my student days you might be surprised to know, Art Nouveau
and Art Deco were dead out evil. There were also lot of no-no artists
who have since entered the classical repertoire: Beardsley,
Mucha, Erte', Harnet, the Hudson River School (better than the
Impressionists in my opinion)to name a few. Those kitschy
illustrators who still raise the tempers of present day critics
were also out. In architecture Gaudi was the paragon of evil as
everything had to be functional. Nobody in art schools even today
knows the names of the great 19th century sculptors although
their work is widely admired. Books on Victorian art and French
Academic art were then nonexistent. Today they are beginning to
appear in small quantities which indicates that there is a
rebel taste out there for something other than bread and butter
MODERNISM.

While I was in school in the late 50's the prevailing opinion in
art history books was that artistic evil emanated from the
academic painters of the 19th century. Especially evil to more
scholarly historians were the painters Gerome, Cabanel and
Messionier and the arch-evil Bouguereau. Their
work was hardly to be seen anywhere. Students still condemn
"Academic Art" though they can hardly name five academic artists. The
partially accurate history of the evil Academy persecuting the
poor Impressionists was coached in almost biblical terms . A more
accurate version can only be found deep in the stacks of our
larger libraries.
...no skill no art

Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.

Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!

http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/

[Tracy Miller]

Pure GoodArt list Dogma. I've heard it parroted soooooo many times.
Why not go back to school and take a refresher course?

Gypsys in Italian landscapes. Children that could never convince you
they are peasants. Not too far from Elvis on Velvet.

They sell books on Bouguereau in new age shops where all the other
new-age-y fluffy white-buffalo-woman-on-greeting-card art can be
found.

[Ricardo Pontes]

--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/

"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3abe0cd0....@news.pipeline.com...

A refresher course in what? Do you suggest maybe art history? Are you well
acquainted with art history? Then perhaps you could enlighten us on a few
things?

> Gypsys in Italian landscapes. Children that could never convince you
> they are peasants. Not too far from Elvis on Velvet.
>

That goes back to what Mani was saying. People have learned to think these
things are bad and are to be considered Kitsch that they no longer see with
their eyes. Tracy you are wrong. You have been brainwashed into thinking
that. Ask a child somewhere what he likes and find out what the truth is.
Regardless of subject matter, Bouguereau makes everyone seem pathetic when
it comes to painting. Tracy you have invested so much money in your ego that
you will never admit to have wasted your life.

> They sell books on Bouguereau in new age shops where all the other
> new-age-y fluffy white-buffalo-woman-on-greeting-card art can be
> found.
>
>

Hmm, you spend allot of your time in new age y fluffy white buffalo woman on
greeting card art shops? Thats nice, perhaps you should spend more of your
time in a museum or in your studio studying.

Tracy, why do you like modern art? Or, what is it exactly that you like? The
usual stuff, Picasso etc...

BTW
You know the KKK preys on gullible people, modernist artists are a easy
target for these groups. ;)

Ricardo Pontes

>

[Tracy Miller]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 12:56:56 -0500, "Ricardo Pontes"
<Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Gypsys in Italian landscapes. Children that could never convince you
>> they are peasants. Not too far from Elvis on Velvet.
>>
>
>That goes back to what Mani was saying. People have learned to think these
>things are bad and are to be considered Kitsch that they no longer see with
>their eyes. Tracy you are wrong. You have been brainwashed into thinking
>that. Ask a child somewhere what he likes and find out what the truth is.
>Regardless of subject matter, Bouguereau makes everyone seem pathetic when
>it comes to painting. Tracy you have invested so much money in your ego that
>you will never admit to have wasted your life.

Maybe you want to brainwash me into thinking Bouguereau's Kitsch is
good! Just try it, baby, come a little closer.............yeah
that's it..........

>
>
>BTW
>You know the KKK preys on gullible people, modernist artists are a easy
>target for these groups. ;)

Guys named Ricardo are also often easy targets for the KKK!

>
>Ricardo Pontes
>
>>
>
>

[mdeli]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:25:20 GMT, tra...@pipeline.com (Tracy Miller)
wrote:

I wrote:

>> While I was in school in the late 50's the prevailing opinion in
>>art history books was that artistic evil emanated from the
>>academic painters of the 19th century. Especially evil to more
>>scholarly historians were the painters Gerome, Cabanel and
>>Messionier and the arch-evil Bouguereau. Their
>>work was hardly to be seen anywhere. Students still condemn
>>"Academic Art" though they can hardly name five academic artists.
>
>Pure GoodArt list Dogma. I've heard it parroted soooooo many times.
>Why not go back to school and take a refresher course?

Sure, take a course in Artspeak and how to fail while proclaiming
your creed or take a course called drawing by a teacher who can't
draw?

>
>Gypsys in Italian landscapes. Children that could never convince you
>they are peasants. Not too far from Elvis on Velvet.

I suppose Picasso's schmiery "Damoiselles" convinces you that they are
whores.

The average art patzer here hasn't the skill to copy Elvis' nose on a
velvet. People like you who have seen little more then critically
approved modern art can't tell the difference between the two.

A well exicuted Elvis on velvet is more interesting than a bunch of
stripes, drips or a big schmier accompanied by a large volume of
Artspeak gas used to give people like you the impression that this is
great art.

>They sell books on Bouguereau in new age shops where all the other
>new-age-y fluffy white-buffalo-woman-on-greeting-card art can be
>found.

Most large book stores have books on Modern Academic Art boogymen from
Bouguereau to Norman Rockwell sitting with the stuff on Matisse and
Picasso etc. That wasn't the case a while back.

Bouguereau also appears all over the place on book covers, posters
cards etc, without any mention of his name. He is continually chosen
because people like it.

I know people liking something that lacks a certified Artspeak
appendage doesn't please artzy fartzies.

[Tracy Miller]

Mani, why don't you come over here too and try to brainwash
me..........yeah that's it, just a little closer, baby.......come on,
now.........

Lissa, notice now that they have not denied what they are......
insanely bitter GoodArt Listers.

[Ulrich Osterloh]

It's funny but Bouguereau's art probably really is a bit 'evil' in its
detailed perfection and materialism, but so was probably his time. I share
Tracy's view that many of B's paintings are done 'for the effect' rather
than real human concerns or compassion- at the same time we need such works
too. We need all types of art to gain a complete picture of ourselves. We
are what we choose to be.

[Chris]

Hi Ulrich;

First, let me say how refreshing it is to see a poster who isn't pushing
one party line or another w/r to WB! While Even though Camille Pissarro
is my current favourite from that time period, I am amazed by
Bouguereau's skill, and have lots of respect for both the man and his
art. Certainly he was the pre-eminent artist of traditionalist
representational imagery of his day (& I can't think of anyone since who
surpasses him) and as such deserves to be wider known.

In terms of the technical aspects of his paintings, there is little
criticism that one could level at him that doesn't apply equally to
those who are often held up as his antitheses. For example, a lack of
social relevance is often ascribed to his work - but if so, then surely
even much worse could be said about (say) Matisse or Renoir. OTOH, it
seems that the concept of "surface", "composition", and "form" are quite
au courant these days - and if those are prime criteria for evaluating
art, then his work can not be dismissed.

As for the question of human concerns, I think it is very hard to tell
much from this distance in time. Were his paintings of (obviously well
fed) waifs and the dispossessed deliberate lies, or simply ill informed,
or calculatedly manipulative and opportunistic? Or were they an honest
attempt to address the issue, but in terms he & his clientele could
understand? I have absolutely no idea, and haven't found much to inform
me one way or the other. OTOH, if at his his day-to-day life - where he
was known to be personally charitable, and also ran an organization to
aid distressed artists, I think in retrospect it is wise to give him the
benefit of the doubt.

I like what you said in your other post on Bouguereau (about the need
for different forms of art). But I disagree with you on the issue of
"co-creating" - though it is definitely necessary in art I disagree that
the Bouguereau's technical level prevents this. The biggest impediment
is our own lack of understanding of the visual language of his time, a
problem he is no longer in a position to deal with <g>. It is, of
course, one we can address by improving the artistic education of our
children, through (guess what) teaching them, first of all, to draw.

Regards;

Chris

[Ulrich Osterloh]

Good point - thanks for response. It's true, we can't possibly know what the
work does to the viewer's imagination. Some people are left cold, and some
are probably inspired. Although I really do prefer abstraction, at the same
time, I would find it almost unbearable if nothing else was available. All
things depend on each other for definition.

[mdeli]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 00:47:08 +0100, "Ulrich Osterloh"
<Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>It's funny but Bouguereau's art probably really is a bit 'evil' in its
>detailed perfection and materialism, but so was probably his time. I share
>Tracy's view that many of B's paintings are done 'for the effect' rather
>than real human concerns or compassion-

Name any 3 works by any of the three stooges of Modern Academic Art,
Rothko, de Kooning, Pollock which show, "real human concerns or
compassion," what ever that is in relation to painting.

> at the same time we need such works
>too. We need all types of art to gain a complete picture of ourselves. We
>are what we choose to be.

We are what we happen to be and very often its not our choice.

[Brian Shapiro]

Tracy,

I have seen gaudy reproductions of Gaugin and Picasso paintings alongside
those of Bouguereau paintings in bad quality antique shops. You shouldn't
judge the merit of art by superficial appreciation of it.

--Brian

"Tracy Miller" <tra...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:3abe0cd0....@news.pipeline.com...

[Brian Shapiro]

Its funny that you should characterize it that way, as Idealism was the
prevalent philosophy in the late 19th century and that held by the
academics, while Materialism was the prevalent philosophy in the early 20th
century and that held by the modern avant-garde.

"Ulrich Osterloh" <Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99m04b$bhp$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...

[Tracy Miller]

AGAIN with the assuming. What are you,some kind of meshuganah?

[RBrac53660]

why do you do this? R/u just mean?
>
>obby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!europa.netcrusader.net!63
.208.208.143!feed2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!n
ewsfeed.earthlink.net!newsmaster1.prod.itd.earthlink.net!newsread2.prod.it
d.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-f
>or-mail
>From: "Brian Shapiro" thesh...@earthlink.net
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine

www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html

[Tracy Miller]

Yes, he is just mean.

Tracy

[Andrew D]

In article <3abe0cd0....@news.pipeline.com>, tra...@pipeline.com wrote:

[snip]
+Pure GoodArt list Dogma. I've heard it parroted soooooo many times.
+Why not go back to school and take a refresher course?

+Gypsys in Italian landscapes. Children that could never convince you
+they are peasants. Not too far from Elvis on Velvet.

Why is that if I glue a harddrive to a cow's backside and title it "urban
sprawl"* I'm likely to receive critical acclaim but if I paint a
recognisable portrait on fabric I'm likely to be condemned?

*Copyright 2001

Andy

"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"

[Tracy Miller]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:17:35 +0800, right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew
D) wrote:

>In article <3abe0cd0....@news.pipeline.com>, tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>[snip]
>+Pure GoodArt list Dogma. I've heard it parroted soooooo many times.
>+Why not go back to school and take a refresher course?
>
>+Gypsys in Italian landscapes. Children that could never convince you
>+they are peasants. Not too far from Elvis on Velvet.
>
>Why is that if I glue a harddrive to a cow's backside and title it "urban
>sprawl"* I'm likely to receive critical acclaim but if I paint a
>recognisable portrait on fabric I'm likely to be condemned?

You wouldn't get any critical acclaim from me for that either.
As for the rest, see my previous post in a previous thread.

[Brian Shapiro]

What did I do?

"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010403002950...@ng-cc1.aol.com...