How good is mani? an objective analysis
Roob
it is pretty good. you can render something skillfully. your
composition is not bad all of the time like everyone says it is, but
it is kind of cheesy that you have to collage elements to find that
composition. this is something that a lot of art school students (and
even profressional artists) do a lot. i think it's a very contrived,
clichEd, random and calculated approach, but that is just my taste.
i also think you distort your pictures like that because you cannot
draw accurately and proportionally very well. but this is good,
because you play out your strengths and hide your weaknesses (unlike
nerdgerl who just plain sucks).
i think what people mean when they compare you to dali is that you
both render meticulously in small scale oil works, and your
distortions sometimes remind people of dali. the color is scheme is
very earthy, like some of dalis.
overall, i DO think you're better than a majority of art school
students, your work is better than anyone else's i've seen from this
group and if i were a collector, i wouldn't mind purchasing one of
your paintings if it were modestly priced.
i think in the future, you should look at other artists works, so you
can add more weapons to your arsenal. you need to be open-minded and
look to the artists you hate and learn from them. you need to develop
your color sense and to do this, you need to study artists like mark
rothko or van gogh.
i think it is clearly evident that your "all-over" style is inherited
from Jackson Pollock. your distortions are rooted in surrealism, and
collaging elements are rooted in early postmodernists like picabia,
http://www.postershop.com/Picabia-Francis/Picabia-Francis-Cinq-Femmes-1942-2302331.html
and can be traced back to picasso.
but this is how art works. manet and courbet disliked each others'
works, although they belonged to the same lineage. post-imperssionists
disliked the impressionists, even though they were influenced so much
by them. pollock disliked the old masters, but he studied tintoretto's
compositions.
i can go on and on, but my main point is that to develop as an artist
you have to be open-minded.
Flying_Naked_People
library_...@hotmail.com says...
> this is what i really think about mani's work.
> your
> composition is not bad all of the time like everyone says it is, but
> it is kind of cheesy that you have to collage elements to find that
> composition. this is something that a lot of art school students (and
> even profressional artists) do a lot. i think it's a very contrived,
> clichEd, random and calculated approach, but that is just my taste.
>
(1) contrived (2) clichEd (3) random (4) calculated
Can you guess which word just made your "analysis" shredded shet?
Mani Deli
Good critique: Not a word of Artspeak and clearly written. I don't
mean to be patronizing by saying this but so much written here is
convoluted carfuffel that it gets my compliments whether I agree or
not.
>this is what i really think about mani's work.
>
>it is pretty good. you can render something skillfully. your
>composition is not bad all of the time like everyone says it is, but
>it is kind of cheesy that you have to collage elements to find that
>composition. this is something that a lot of art school students (and
>even profressional artists) do a lot.
I can't disagree with this judgment. I can only admit that I like to
combine elements that are mentally cacophonous and give the viewer a
sense of a of visual puns. I go further and admit that most people
don't like this even though they often comment on the skill.
I consider my artwork stunningly out of fashion. Although I was
successful during the years I exhibited I choose to paint what I like
and when it pleases me. I'm a Sunday painter now who paints most every
day except Sunday. I am fortunately one who has never felt compelled
to paint. It amuses me and I enjoy inventing techniques.
> i think it's a very contrived,
>clichEd, random and calculated approach, but that is just my taste.
Again I agree.
>i also think you distort your pictures like that because you cannot
>draw accurately and proportionally very well. but this is good,
I suspect you are wrong in this respect.
>because you play out your strengths and hide your weaknesses (unlike
>nerdgerl who just plain sucks).
>
>i think what people mean when they compare you to dali is that you
>both render meticulously in small scale oil works, and your
>distortions sometimes remind people of dali. the color is scheme is
>very earthy, like some of dalis.
I'm very influenced by Dali. However there are many other artists. The
reason Dali comes up often is that most people have only seen his
surrealism and his format is the most memorable (because he is the
best). My relation to Dali, which is real, is no more than others is
to Cezanne, Matisse, big schmierers, and of course art school ersatz.
I never minded being compared to Dali. But if only in technique Dali
is way beyond me. I'm incapable of his complexity and that of most
others I find good.
>
>overall, i DO think you're better than a majority of art school
>students, your work is better than anyone else's i've seen from this
>group and if i were a collector, i wouldn't mind purchasing one of
>your paintings if it were modestly priced.
I might mention that I have shown very little of my work. I hope to
get beyond my laziness on the matter and put some more on my web site.
>i think in the future, you should look at other artists works, so you
>can add more weapons to your arsenal. you need to be open-minded and
>look to the artists you hate and learn from them. you need to develop
>your color sense and to do this, you need to study artists like mark
>rothko or van gogh.
I'll post some schmiers also. Having lived in NY city for forty years
Iv'e seen these guys in the original since day one. I suspect I was a
member of the MOMA before you were born.
>i think it is clearly evident that your "all-over" style is inherited
>from Jackson Pollock. your distortions are rooted in surrealism, and
>collaging elements are rooted in early postmodernists like picabia,
>
No objection but I suspect that you are totally wrong.
>
>and can be traced back to picasso.
I have a hard time with that.
>but this is how art works. manet and courbet disliked each others'
>works, although they belonged to the same lineage. post-imperssionists
>disliked the impressionists, even though they were influenced so much
>by them. pollock disliked the old masters, but he studied tintoretto's
>compositions.
I like classical painting and technique and the best artists of the
20th century have used it in there own way. Though they rarely show up
in museums those who look can find a lot of their work. I've mentioned
some in "artists I like"
>i can go on and on, but my main point is that to develop as an artist
>you have to be open-minded.
To even begin to develop you have to learn your craft. Most Modern
Academic artists have failed at the basics and depend on excuses. and
PR. If their signature makes it a few get very rich while the millions
who do just about the same drivel starve. It very amusing and I've
observed it first hand.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Seagull Manager
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:s7u6hv0oljakdhclf...@4ax.com...
> (Roob) wrote:
>
> >i think it is clearly evident that your "all-over" style is inherited
> >from Jackson Pollock. your distortions are rooted in surrealism, and
> >collaging elements are rooted in early postmodernists like picabia,
> >
> No objection but I suspect that you are totally wrong.
A problem with that remark of Roob's is the supposition that all-overishness
began with Pollock. A glance at these images might disabuse him. All-over
compositions, in which every part of the picture is covered in detail, with
virtually no empty space, are very common in Renaisance art (Bosch and
Michelangelo are not exceptions), and not uncommon thereafter.
Dr. Slick
> combine elements that are mentally cacophonous and give the viewer a
> sense of a of visual puns. I go further and admit that most people
> don't like this even though they often comment on the skill.
>
Or the lack of it, being that you need a computer to do stuff
truly skilled people can do by hand.
>
> >i also think you distort your pictures like that because you cannot
> >draw accurately and proportionally very well. but this is good,
>
> I suspect you are wrong in this respect.
>
I was a surrealist for too long, and now that i'm trying to get
photo-realistic again, it's a bit of an adjustment to have very strict
proportions!
Perhaps this applies to you, Mani.
>
> >i think what people mean when they compare you to dali is that you
> >both render meticulously in small scale oil works, and your
> >distortions sometimes remind people of dali. the color is scheme is
> >very earthy, like some of dalis.
>
> I'm very influenced by Dali. However there are many other artists. The
> reason Dali comes up often is that most people have only seen his
> surrealism and his format is the most memorable (because he is the
> best). My relation to Dali, which is real, is no more than others is
> to Cezanne, Matisse, big schmierers, and of course art school ersatz.
> I never minded being compared to Dali. But if only in technique Dali
> is way beyond me. I'm incapable of his complexity and that of most
> others I find good.
> >
Nik said it best:
(written to Mani) "Are you denying the powerful influence of Dali
in your work? The big empty skies, the background and foreground
mixing, the vaguely Freudian symbolism, distorted and elongated body
parts, the "dream like" quality mixed with a hyper-realism, etcetera,
etcetera?
It's a criticism many have brought to your work. It's very much like
Dali. I agree with the idea that artists should carefully choose
which
critics to pay attention to -- but if everyone says the same thing
upon
seeing your work, they're probably on to something."
>
> To even begin to develop you have to learn your craft. Most Modern
> Academic artists have failed at the basics and depend on excuses.
Some even depend on computers....
> >because you play out your strengths and hide your weaknesses (unlike
> >nerdgerl who just plain sucks).
> >
Regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks about someone's
work, I'd like to get something across to everyone.
I respect ANYONE who has the courage to put up their work on the
very public internet. Props out to anyone who can expose their work
and their vulnerabilities for all to judge and criticize and even
actually admire sometimes. You need to be a strong person to post
your website and not give a sh** what people say about it.
So even if you hate Mani like I do, at the very least he has the
balls to post his work so i can criticize his work too. Certainly, I
will give him and everyone else a chance to sling sh** back at me in
the near future.
I think it's funny how we all flame each other's work
online...it's entertaining and empowering at the same time. Very
similar to the class
critiques we had in my one college painting class.
Dr. Slick
Mani Deli
Most classical painting has detail all over. Some Portraits like
Holbein etc have paint as backgrounds but usually complex work fills
the picture.
In my case I think they lack the full detail I would prefer. I doubt
that Pollock influenced anything other than volumes of Artspeak.
Seagull Manager
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > reason Dali comes up often is that most people have only seen his
> > surrealism and his format is the most memorable (because he is the
> > best). My relation to Dali, which is real, is no more than others is
> > to Cezanne, Matisse, big schmierers, and of course art school ersatz.
> > I never minded being compared to Dali. But if only in technique Dali
> > is way beyond me. I'm incapable of his complexity and that of most
> > others I find good.
>
> Nik said it best:
>
> (written to Mani) "Are you denying the powerful influence of Dali
> in your work?
>
Is that a criticism though? Is it wrong to be influenced by another artist?
Especially knowingly, as Mani is?
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<s7u6hv0oljakdhclf...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> I can't disagree with this judgment. I can only admit that I like to
>> combine elements that are mentally cacophonous and give the viewer a
>> sense of a of visual puns. I go further and admit that most people
>> don't like this even though they often comment on the skill.
>>
>
> Or the lack of it, being that you need a computer to do stuff
>truly skilled people can do by hand.
>
I repeat my opinion. What counts is what's on the wall. I happen to
use a mixed technique of computer and hand. Only because the computer
still can't simulate the fine work necessarily done by hand. If the
computer can ever simulate the hand work and achieve what I consider
the equal of classical finish I will use the computer exclusively. And
because I know my craft I will in my opinion create a better image
than those who don't.
> I was a surrealist for too long, and now that i'm trying to get
>photo-realistic again, it's a bit of an adjustment to have very strict
>proportions!
>
> Perhaps this applies to you, Mani.
Well lets see the evidence
>
>>
>> >i think what people mean when they compare you to dali is that you
>> >both render meticulously in small scale oil works, and your
>> >distortions sometimes remind people of dali. the color is scheme is
>> >very earthy, like some of dalis.
>>
>> I'm very influenced by Dali. However there are many other artists. The
>> reason Dali comes up often is that most people have only seen his
>> surrealism and his format is the most memorable (because he is the
>> best). My relation to Dali, which is real, is no more than others is
>> to Cezanne, Matisse, big schmierers, and of course art school ersatz.
>> I never minded being compared to Dali. But if only in technique Dali
>> is way beyond me. I'm incapable of his complexity and that of most
>> others I find good.
>> >
>
>
> Nik said it best:
>
> (written to Mani) "Are you denying the powerful influence of Dali
>in your work? The big empty skies, the background and foreground
>mixing, the vaguely Freudian symbolism, distorted and elongated body
>parts, the "dream like" quality mixed with a hyper-realism, etcetera,
>etcetera?
>
>It's a criticism many have brought to your work. It's very much like
>Dali. I agree with the idea that artists should carefully choose
>which
>critics to pay attention to -- but if everyone says the same thing
>upon
>seeing your work, they're probably on to something."
>
They're on to nothing, read what I wrote. Perhaps you can write an
essay about what's wrong with being influenced by Dali and don't
forget to mention what's supposedly wrong with being influenced by
anybody.
I'll say it again, I'm very influenced by Dali. I wish I was also more
influenced by Vermeer, Van Eyck, Dutch flower painters and Bouguereau,
to name a few but my abilities are not up to it.
>> To even begin to develop you have to learn your craft. Most Modern
>> Academic artists have failed at the basics and depend on excuses.
>
>
> Some even depend on computers....
>
> Regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks about someone's
>work, I'd like to get something across to everyone.
>
> I respect ANYONE who has the courage to put up their work on the
>very public internet. Props out to anyone who can expose their work
>and their vulnerabilities for all to judge and criticize and even
>actually admire sometimes. You need to be a strong person to post
>your website and not give a sh** what people say about it.
Agreed! However, I have never understood the fear of negative
criticism. I have always found that if you know your craft other
peoples negative opinions are usually worthwhile.
I have exhibited in galleries where compliments prevail. I never
enjoyed it. The best compliments I had were unspoken. Years ago when I
lived in NY City I was able to hang just one of my small paintings in
a friends antique store window on a popular walking street. I was
thrilled when the painting stopped people and I could note how long
they looked and what they said. If people like your work under these
conditions I feel you are on to something. Go to a museum and see how
long people look at their Modern stuff and listen in on them. I do
this often It is very illuminating.
> So even if you hate Mani like I do, at the very least he has the
>balls to post his work so i can criticize his work too. Certainly, I
>will give him and everyone else a chance to sling sh** back at me in
>the near future.
>
>
> I think it's funny how we all flame each other's work
>online...it's entertaining and empowering at the same time. Very
>similar to the class critiques we had in my one college painting class.
Seagull Manager
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:54:47 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:s7u6hv0oljakdhclf...@4ax.com...
> >> (Roob) wrote:
> >>
> >> >i think it is clearly evident that your "all-over" style is inherited
> >> >from Jackson Pollock. your distortions are rooted in surrealism, and
> >> >collaging elements are rooted in early postmodernists like picabia,
> >> >
> >> No objection but I suspect that you are totally wrong.
> >
> >A problem with that remark of Roob's is the supposition that
all-overishness
> >began with Pollock. A glance at these images might disabuse him. All-over
> >compositions, in which every part of the picture is covered in detail,
with
> >virtually no empty space, are very common in Renaisance art (Bosch and
> >Michelangelo are not exceptions), and not uncommon thereafter.
> >
> >
> Most classical painting has detail all over.
Yes, absolutely. However, a subset of these have no backgrounds to speak of,
but push everything to the foreground. Two very clear examples are Bosch's
"Christ Carrying the Cross", and Frans Floris' marvellous "Fall of the
Rebellious Angels" (but there are many more).
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/f/floris/frans/rebellio.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/louvre/paint/auth/bosch/carrying/
Flying_Naked_People
seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk says...
> http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/f/floris/frans/rebellio.html
>
Well well well! Looks like this guy "influenced" ol Dore right down to the
composition!
I can't find a name for Dore's etching. But it's one of the illustrations for
Paradise Lost... (Book I, Line 44, 45)
Roob
i never said it began with pollock, i even say pollock studied
tintoretto. but an all-over style that actually worked well begins
with pollock.
Flying_Naked_People
wrote in message news:<bf0fgn$109$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> A problem with that remark of Roob's is the supposition that all-overishness
> began with Pollock. A glance at these images might disabuse him. All-over
> compositions, in which every part of the picture is covered in detail, with
> virtually no empty space, are very common in Renaisance art (Bosch and
> Michelangelo are not exceptions), and not uncommon thereafter.
All Over could have begun with Mayan art. Some dated before Heppy Jesus.
Seagull Manager
"Roob" <library_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1783836.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
> i never said it began with pollock, i even say pollock studied
> tintoretto.
You did say that Mani's "horror vacui" came from Pollock's all-over style.
To make that inference, you need to be confident that he didn't get it from
somewhere else, or that Pollock is the originator of that style, so even if
Mani got it from somewhere else, it came indirectly from Pollock. Since you
know that Mani does not admire Pollock's painting and that he could have got
the idea from elsewhere (or, indeed, from an internal inclination to work
that way), why did you claim that Mani must have inherited the "all-over
style" from Pollock? As far as I can see, it is an implausible claim made
without any evidence.
> but an all-over style that actually worked well begins with pollock.
You obviously know that not everyone is going to agree with you on that.
Even if Pollock's style was an aesthetic success (and I personally do not
believe it is), a large number of Renaissance paintings, as we have
mentioned, use an all-over style with what most agree is truly *great*
success.
Seagull Manager
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:vh8oqh9...@corp.supernews.com...
All-overishness has been with us forever, as some cave paintings show. It
was certainly not Pollock's idea.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>i never said it began with pollock, i even say pollock studied
>tintoretto. but an all-over style that actually worked well begins
>with pollock.
It began with floor covering, towels, wallpaper, textile design,
bedsheets etc. and these were around long before Pollock had his first
drink and Greenberg had his first orgasm.
keith o'connor
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Roob" <library_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1783836.03071...@posting.google.com...
keith o'connor
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:s7u6hv0oljakdhclf...@4ax.com...
Dr. Slick
> On 15 Jul 2003 05:55:30 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<s7u6hv0oljakdhclf...@4ax.com>...
> >
> use a mixed technique of computer and hand. Only because the computer
> still can't simulate the fine work necessarily done by hand. If the
> computer can ever simulate the hand work and achieve what I consider
> the equal of classical finish I will use the computer exclusively. And
> because I know my craft I will in my opinion create a better image
> than those who don't.
>
I don't think you do anything with the computer that can't be
easily done by hand.
If anything, the purely computer graphics people do things that
would extremely difficult and time consuming if not almost impossible
to do by hand.
> > I was a surrealist for too long, and now that i'm trying to get
> >photo-realistic again, it's a bit of an adjustment to have very strict
> >proportions!
> >
> > Perhaps this applies to you, Mani.
>
> Well lets see the evidence
Do you have any purely realistic work?
> >
> They're on to nothing, read what I wrote. Perhaps you can write an
> essay about what's wrong with being influenced by Dali and don't
> forget to mention what's supposedly wrong with being influenced by
> anybody.
>
> I'll say it again, I'm very influenced by Dali. I wish I was also more
> influenced by Vermeer, Van Eyck, Dutch flower painters and Bouguereau,
> to name a few but my abilities are not up to it.
>
Absolutely nothing wrong with having influences, everyone does.
It's when the influence is too strong that you don't appear to have
"made-it-your-own" that is limiting.
>
> Agreed! However, I have never understood the fear of negative
> criticism. I have always found that if you know your craft other
> peoples negative opinions are usually worthwhile.
>
"Learn to Draw!" is just a disrepectful pot-shot at someone else
who wants to show their work. My problem with your so-called
criticism is that it is NEVER constructive or respectful in any way,
shape or form. You never go into details of what someone could do to
make a painting better.
Like i said, at least you don't say this and then not show your
own work, which at least gives everyone else a chance to dump sh** on
you. But we could be more constructive, couldn't we?
Dr. Slick
Erik A. Mattila
> I don't think you do anything with the computer that can't be
> easily done by hand.
>
> If anything, the purely computer graphics people do things that
> would extremely difficult and time consuming if not almost impossible
> to do by hand.
Here's a bit of ancient history, Slick. Working in graphic arts in the
early days of the electronics brochure market, just to make a clean,
crisp rectangle was a huge project. We would outline with a ruling pen
in india ink, overextending the lines a 16" or so, fill in the rectangle
with another ink - I forget what it was called - nice stuff as it
wouldn't leave those glossy spots like India Ink solids would. But then
we would "cut" the corner with an exacto knife, and scrape off the ends
carefully (if you ruptured the surface of the illustration board the
camera would pick it up. It was really a "tight-assed" job. Now, we
can just use the rectangle tool, and viola! About a 3000% reduction in
time.
I grabbed the first beta copy of Adobe Illustrator when it surfaced -
dang, it would run on a Mac 512. That was heaven after all those
MacPaint jaggies.
Erik
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<1ga8hvcbmib0c9029...@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Jul 2003 05:55:30 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>>
>> >Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<s7u6hv0oljakdhclf...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> I repeat my opinion. What counts is what's on the wall. I happen to
>> use a mixed technique of computer and hand. Only because the computer
>> still can't simulate the fine work necessarily done by hand. If the
>> computer can ever simulate the hand work and achieve what I consider
>> the equal of classical finish I will use the computer exclusively. And
>> because I know my craft I will in my opinion create a better image
>> than those who don't.
>>
>
> I don't think you do anything with the computer that can't be
>easily done by hand.
This is because your work lacks any degree of complexity. I've clearly
stated the advantages of using the computer earlier.
> If anything, the purely computer graphics people do things that
>would extremely difficult and time consuming if not almost impossible
>to do by hand.
>
I'm one of them.
>
> Do you have any purely realistic work?
>
Sure.
> "Learn to Draw!" is just a disrepectful pot-shot at someone else
>who wants to show their work. My problem with your so-called
>criticism is that it is NEVER constructive or respectful in any way,
>shape or form. You never go into details of what someone could do to
>make a painting better.
If you want lessons go find a teacher, check books etc. If someone
doesn't know arithmetic and claims to know calculus. I might say,
learn to add. If he came to me as a student I might help him if I felt
so inclined.
> Like i said, at least you don't say this and then not show your
>own work, which at least gives everyone else a chance to dump sh** on
>you. But we could be more constructive, couldn't we?
I come here for fun. Dumping shit on me amuses me and the activity is
usual mutual. However I believe I have written more serious messages
here than most. That's why most artzy fartzies here concentrate on me.
Seriously though, the conference has informed me of the lines of
argument of both sides and this is continually illuminating. It has
helped me state my opinions as clearly and concisely as I can make
them and helped me with my writing.
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Now, we
>can just use the rectangle tool, and viola! About a 3000% reduction in
>time.
Don't forget the improvement over using rub-on lettering or (shudder)
hand lettering.
I don't miss the days of manual layout a bit. Computers allow far
more flexibility and creativity in a much shorter time.
I still prefer to sketch ideas out by hand, though, because mice and
digital pens are just not the same. Maybe all I need is a drawing
tablet with integrated display... yeah, that's it, one more tool and I
can really be creative!
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Dr. Slick
> >>
> >
> > I don't think you do anything with the computer that can't be
> >easily done by hand.
>
> This is because your work lacks any degree of complexity. I've clearly
> stated the advantages of using the computer earlier.
>
More Complex does not equal a Better painting. Dali couldn't
understand that either. Some of my stuff is complex, but some simple.
Emotional effect is what i'm after. Too much complexity and too many
things floating aimlessly around is the sign of no focus in the work
and lack of compositional/arranging skills.
The key was I didn't initially know that your stuff was computer
manipulated. If it really did things that would be difficult by hand,
i would have known it immediately.
> > If anything, the purely computer graphics people do things that
> >would extremely difficult and time consuming if not almost impossible
> >to do by hand.
> >
> I'm one of them.
All of your stuff can be done by hand.
> >
> > Do you have any purely realistic work?
> >
> Sure.
>
With people with realistic proportions? Can we see?
> > "Learn to Draw!" is just a disrepectful pot-shot at someone else
> >who wants to show their work. My problem with your so-called
> >criticism is that it is NEVER constructive or respectful in any way,
> >shape or form. You never go into details of what someone could do to
> >make a painting better.
>
> If you want lessons go find a teacher, check books etc. If someone
> doesn't know arithmetic and claims to know calculus. I might say,
> learn to add. If he came to me as a student I might help him if I felt
> so inclined.
>
Teachers often learn from the students, you know.
> > Like i said, at least you don't say this and then not show your
> >own work, which at least gives everyone else a chance to dump sh** on
> >you. But we could be more constructive, couldn't we?
>
> I come here for fun. Dumping shit on me amuses me and the activity is
> usual mutual. However I believe I have written more serious messages
> here than most. That's why most artzy fartzies here concentrate on me.
>
You act like an asshole to bring attention to yourself, just like
Dali pissed off all the surrealists. Understood, i cannot judge. We
all love attention.
> Seriously though, the conference has informed me of the lines of
> argument of both sides and this is continually illuminating. It has
> helped me state my opinions as clearly and concisely as I can make
> them and helped me with my writing.
>
The NGs have helped everyone's writting skills.
Dr. Slick
Roob
> understand that either. Some of my stuff is complex, but some simple.
> Emotional effect is what i'm after. Too much complexity and too many
> things floating aimlessly around is the sign of no focus in the work
> and lack of compositional/arranging skills.
i agree very much with this. True that.
Mani Deli
-The rules for drawing form.
-mechanical and architectural drawing.
-Perspective, light and shade and how to draw complex form..
How to draw from imagination.
How to draw the chair the model is sitting on.
How to let the viewer decide the value of your work without the usual
load of verbal BS.
Flying_Naked_People
In article <j3ekhvgr4ub4l34si...@4ax.com>, ma...@sympatico.ca
says...
> Subject: What artzy fartzies shouldn't learn:
> From: Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Are you on drugs?
>
Highly unlikely. Opiates over a long period of time might give that sort of
result but a person who had that many would be unlikely to get their shit
together to post anything.
Remember that 'reality is for people who can't handle drugs'.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Roob
> Are you on drugs?
mani sounds crazy don't he?
well, this is what you sound like when you diss michelangelo, van
gogh, goya, velazquez.. etc...
Flying_Naked_People
library_...@hotmail.com says...
> mani sounds crazy don't he?
> well, this is what you sound like when you diss michelangelo, van
> gogh, goya, velazquez.. etc...
>
Aww... isn't that cute... Little Pimple Dick tried to made a point. Not a big
one, but a point never-the-less.
Andrew D
<http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>Are you on drugs?
The evidence suggests that if he were on drugs, he'd support and produce
modern academic tripe rather than trash it.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Flying_Naked_People
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
> In article <vhkhva8...@corp.supernews.com>, "Flying_Naked_People"
> <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
>
> >Are you on drugs?
>
> The evidence suggests that if he were on drugs, he'd support and produce
> modern academic tripe rather than trash it.
Mani is suggesting that people *not* do what he, himself, *can't* do. That's
nuts, unless this is his way of admitting he's an undercover artzy fartzy.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <right-21070...@i172-006.nv.iinet.net.au>,
> right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
> > In article <vhkhva8...@corp.supernews.com>, "Flying_Naked_People"
> > <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote:
> >
> > >Are you on drugs?
> >
> > The evidence suggests that if he were on drugs, he'd support and produce
> > modern academic tripe rather than trash it.
>
> Mani is suggesting that people *not* do what he, himself, *can't* do.
That's
> nuts, unless this is his way of admitting he's an undercover artzy fartzy.
>
1. Mani can't do X.
2. Mani advises others not to do X
3. Therefore Mani is 'nuts'
I'm not sure that that is really that mad. After all, if I had tried to
change a spark plug with the engine running and a cigar in my mouth and
failed horribly and painfully, then I think it would be reasonable for me to
advise others not to. Mind you, in my case, even changing a spark plug with
a cold engine and the right tools is a job I'd leave to a mechanic - and
recommend others to do the same, unless they have a particular yen for
engine maintainance.
So, it seems fairly sane to me. Maybe it depends on the X.
Of course, just that this is not evidence for Mani being barmy does not
constitute evidence that he is sane.
--
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde
Flying_Naked_People
> > Mani is suggesting that people *not* do what he, himself, *can't* do.
> That's
> > nuts, unless this is his way of admitting he's an undercover artzy fartzy.
> >
> Let's get this right:
>
> 1. Mani can't do X.
> 2. Mani advises others not to do X
> 3. Therefore Mani is 'nuts'
>
> I'm not sure that that is really that mad. After all, if I had tried to
> change a spark plug with the engine running and a cigar in my mouth and
> failed horribly and painfully, then I think it would be reasonable for me to
> advise others not to. Mind you, in my case, even changing a spark plug with
> a cold engine and the right tools is a job I'd leave to a mechanic - and
> recommend others to do the same, unless they have a particular yen for
> engine maintainance.
>
> So, it seems fairly sane to me. Maybe it depends on the X.
Of course it depends on "x". But you have to replace "x" with an activity that
others have done successfully - since Mani hasn't described a single one that
is impossible. Eg: (feed himself, use the toilet, count to five, etc.)
1. Mani can't X.
2. Mani advises others not to X
3. Therefore Mani is 'nuts'
> Of course, just that this is not evidence for Mani being barmy does not