Degas on idiots
Jack Rubin
In the life of Degas, his famous painting, Danseuses a la barre sold for
five hundred thousand francs. When Degas discovered this , he commented:
'The painter who painted this is not necessarily an imbecile; but the person
who paid five hundred thousand francs for this painting, is most definitely
an idiot.
[Anthology of Anecdotes, Noel Claraso, 1982.]
Picasso on Drawing
Picasso said to me once with a good deal of bitterness, they say I can draw
better than Raphael, and probably they are right, perhaps I do draw better
but if I can draw as well as Raphael I have at least the right to choose my
way and they should recognize it, but no, they say no.
[G. Stein, Picasso, 1938]
Modigliani
Italian painter Amedeo Modigliani (1884,1920), established in Paris since
1906, never accomplished success in his lifetime. He is one of the most
evident examples of success arriving too late, soon after his death.
Modigliani never improved his poor economic condition through the sale of
his artworks. Soon after his death his work sold for high prices. Today, an
original Modigliani is worth a fortune.
In Paris he gets help from the owner of a bistro, a woman named Weil. It was
there, in the basement, where Modigliani exhibited his paintings for the
first time, nude women for the most part. The police intervened and Mrs.
Weil was detained and arrested, even though she was soon freed. Back then
Modigliani gave away one painting for a meal. Paintings which now are worth
millions of dollars.
Modigliani died at age 36. He always lived in extreme poverty and fighting
the disease that consumed him. He suffered pulmonary tuberculosis. In 1917,
at the age of 33, he met up with a fellow student from the Beaux Arts
school, Jeanne Hébuterne. Things for her were not going well. They married
and fought against poverty and illness together. They had a child.
Modigliani died at the Charité hospital.
He had been born in Italy, in Livorno, and his last words were:
--Italy! My dear Italy!
The painters mother lived in Italy, and during his last days, Modigliani
tried to save money for a trip to Italy.
He gave his reason:
--I want to see my mother.
He never did. He died without the possibilty of making the journey. On the
same day of his burial, his wife committed suicide.
Paul Cézanne (1839-1906)
French Impressionist painter, wanted to be a painter since he was a child.
He had it in him. His father tried to change his mind. He used to say to
Paul:
--Painters don't make money and a lot is needed to live well. And the boy
said:
--I do not wish to live well; my desire is to paint. Cézanne did not earn
that much money, because he could not find buyers for his paintings, which
never sold well until after his death. He did not live in poverty, because
he was the son of a banker and his father left him well off. But while his
father was alive Paul found himself without money many times. One time in
Paris, (he lived in Aix) he crossed paths with Renoir. Cézanne carried a
painting, which now is very famous "Les Baigneuses", under his arm.
Renoir asked him where he was taking it:
--To see if someone buys it, because I need money. They agreed to meet after
Cézanne finished his business. Afterwards Cézanne appeared without the
painting.
--Have you sold the painting?
--As much as that no. But I have found someone who liked tha painting a lot,
a musician friend of mine.
--So?
--Well...I have given it to him for free. He liked it a lot!
He used to give his paintings away and, after his death, the famous marchant
Vollard was looking for his paintings in all the houses that belonged to the
friends of Cézanne.
One time, a peasant from Aix came up to Vollard. He had with him a painting
under his arm. Vollard looked at it and liked it.
--How much for it?
The peasant took a long time to give him a price, sure that Vollard would
not pay that amount. He finally said:
--One hundred and fifty francs.
Vollard paid him. Later he said that if the peasant had asked for 1500
francs he would have given them to him. What Vollard did not say is for how
much he sold the painting.
http://www.artdaily.com/section/anecdotes/index.asp?int_sec=114
DNALJM
>his artworks. Soon after his death his work sold for high prices.
There you go, I wouldn't pay two dollars for that degenerate garbage. Poor
handling of materials, distortions that don't express anything or enhance the
finished work, and no color sense. Well, I guess I would pay two dollars if I
could get someone to pay "a fortune" for it and move out of my current shitpit,
but I would definitely laugh at the buyer.
Jane
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <20040430034658...@mb-m07.aol.com>):
Modigliani painted gorgeous, nude, cartoon women. They gave French police
officers such massive erections that the cops just had to shut down his
exhibitions. The "distortions" of his paintings are what give them
personality -- elongated necks, scratched out eyes.
Modigliani's nudes are among the few paintings that have made me feel genuine
lust. Is this why you see them as "degenerate"?
Gorne
I heard that once Cezanne, who was in his own way a perfectionist of
kind, got infuriated with one of his painting to the point of throwing
it through the window in anger. The small canvass landed in a tree ,
and Vollard paid a local labourer to claim the tree to fetch it.
I have seen a long time ago a retrospective of Modigliani in
Marseille. This show affected me permanently and remained a huge
influence even after decade have past.
For an artist it seem rather stupid that somebody may value a painting
so much as to pass a large sum of money for it, because for them it is
easy to paint another one. For an economist, the just price is set by
supply and demand. If Vollard is prepared to pay for a mature man to
claim a tree in order to remove a "Cezanne" it must be worth the
money... If no one want to buy a painting offered by the artist, in
the street or in a basement, it is not worth the money the artist
demanded... but it surely was worth making a new friend by giving it
away to somebody who liked it, as long as the act of sympathy was an
acceptable settlement.
Thank you for your post.
Mani Deli
who would have fared admirably as a manufacturer of enamel headed
canes.
Cezanne is the finest expression of this decadence. He was truly
unable to imitate the masterpieces and all of his admired technique is
merely proof of his inability. His apples are made of cement. The
paradox is that what is least admirable is most admired: nullity! What
a symbol for a period! On the pretext of the academic being
detestable, the worst in the class was made a hero! He opens the door
to the ethics of shit! Newness at whatever cost?and art becomes just a
latrine! The logic of this search for newness leads to the
glorification of total shit of which Cezanne is the high priest."
Dali "unspeakable Confessions"
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Degas
>Picasso on Drawing
>
>Picasso said to me once with a good deal of bitterness, they say I can draw
>better than Raphael, and probably they are right, perhaps I do draw better
>but if I can draw as well as Raphael I have at least the right to choose my
>way and they should recognize it, but no, they say no.
The only time Picasso came close to a Raphael was when he was standing
near one of his works.
Mani Deli
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Modigliani's nudes are among the few paintings that have made me feel genuine
>lust. Is this why you see them as "degenerate"?
No, its why I see you as frustrated. Take another look if you ever get
layed.
DNALJM
>officers such massive erections that the cops just had to shut down his
>exhibitions.
Probably what was going on was that he liked to look at nude prositutes and
used art as an excuse to get off. Particularly the "reclining nude" shows a
lack of any sort of artisic merit. If I saw that orange blob with thalidomide
flippers coming towards me I'd run! "Seal pup woman with third-degree burns"
also shows a lack of concern for the background. The "exploding paint can"
effect can be seen in many student works, used as a default when a lack of
understanding of light and space is present. It's distracting-even a plain,
solid color would work better.
http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/modigliani/recline_nude.html
Here our hero finds a solution to his hand problem-learn to draw them through
study and hard work, hell's bells, you jest! He hides them by severing one
with the bottom of the canvas and placing the other behind the head.
http://www.mystudios.com/gallery/modigliani/left_arm.html
>The "distortions" of his paintings are what give them
>personality -- elongated necks, scratched out eyes.
>
Maybe you go for babes with wide angle glaucoma but one of the sexy aspects
of a woman is to be looked at by her, and to look into her eyes. Gerome could
tell a story, build an environment, make a woman seem vulnerable, soft,
attractive. This person is stumbling around, looking for some easy out to say
"oh, look, a peice of ass." Nothing wrong with ass, but it's the difference
between working your way through the Karma Sutra twice and wacking to a vid.
Jane
Thur
"DNALJM" <dna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040430220314...@mb-m11.aol.com...
I dont quite get what is the basis of your complaints about the artist.
Are you complaining that he has not copied the nude exactly?
Is copying objects from life something that you would describe as
"having artistic merit?
Thur
DNALJM
>Are you complaining that he has not copied the nude exactly?
>Is copying objects from life something that you would describe as
>"having artistic merit?
>Thur
Not at all, but he claims to be capturing a sexuality. Ok, elongating the
neck, tall women are sexy, but why do the hands look like a box of broken
cigars? How does this enhanse his vision if he wants to make a "sexy nude?"
It doesn't! The reason they look like that is he has never learned to draw.
I am receptive to all levels of abstraction in an artwork. However, his
mucky backgrounds are distracting and serve not to make the final image any
better. They do nothing for the sitter or the content. You see this in a
beginer's work, what shall I do with the background, smear paint around, to
make it "interesting." Anyone willing to defend what he's done I will
consider. But I don't respect "artspeak" like "I love all the energy and
reckless abandon, it's just like the sex act itself!"
Jane
Dilettante
> There you go, I wouldn't pay two dollars for that degenerate garbage. Poor
> handling of materials, distortions that don't express anything or enhance the
> finished work, and no color sense.
>
> Jane
I would cut off my right arm to be able to invent an original style
like Modigliani. He created a mood and form of expression no one else
has equalled.
Dilettante, he who sees and knows all
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <20040430220314...@mb-m11.aol.com>):
> Probably what was going on was that he liked to look at nude prositutes and
> used art as an excuse to get off.
Well, as long as we're engaged in rabid speculation, I'd like to suggest that
Modigliani was probably from outer space, and he painted nudes because he was
trying to capture the female form for the invasion fleet. Mars needs women
and all that.
> Particularly the "reclining nude" shows a
> lack of any sort of artisic merit. If I saw that orange blob with
> thalidomide
> flippers coming towards me I'd run!
You picked the less sexy of the Mo nudes. Alas, I have no time to track down
the better ones for you, as it is "clean up day" in my housing co-op, and I
now have to go get showered and get my ass outside to sweep up the various
driveways.
That's the trouble with internet debate. The person who "wins" tends to be
some jobless, loser, shut-in, weirdo who has 24 hours a day to rant and rave
and write opinions. Meanwhile, the sane, employed, busy, active folk have to
settle for a quick post and run. Oh well.
> Maybe you go for babes with wide angle glaucoma but one of the sexy
> aspects
> of a woman is to be looked at by her, and to look into her eyes.
I appreciate distortion and a demented colour pallette, as I think realism is
dull. Impressionism is about capturing a feeling, a personality, a flavour.
Modigliani and other impressionists capture a colourful, personal essence of
a thing. Coming to their work and saying, "That's not what a person really
looks like!" is like eating cherries and complaining that they taste nothing
like pineapple.
Lauri Levanto
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>...
> That's the trouble with internet debate. The person who "wins" ...
In my opinion, the person who wins
is the one who leaves the scene first with grace.
-lauri
Mani Deli
>I would cut off my right arm to be able to invent an original style
>like Modigliani.
Please list the parts you have already cut off.
>Dilettante, he who sees and knows all
How's your elephant coming?
Mani Deli
>>Is copying objects from life something that you would describe as
>>"having artistic merit?
>>Thur
-frequently it is taking real objects and enhancing their appearance
and placement. Dutch still life painting is a good example of the
extreme. Try imitating that with any aid you like.
>
> Not at all, but he claims to be capturing a sexuality.
Well it seems that Maack comes in his pants over the image. On the
other hand most artzy fartzies here say Bouguereau is porno and he's
selling sex for the bourgeois; a high crime if its not a Modern doing
it.
What counts in my opinion is how well its done in order to express the
subject matter. That is what actually attracts the viewer.
It may surprise you but I like M, his composition, color and format
and what he does with the figure. He learned something about technique
and used it in what seems original.
Is it great art? NO.
It can easily be imitated but this would require someone who knows a
bit unlike most of the garbage in museums from that period and on. And
it attempts beauty as opposed to the fashionable ugliness which is why
its likeable.
If it were done today I'd classify it as second rate illustration and
note, that requires skill and competence.
DNALJM
like
>That's the trouble with internet debate. The person who "wins" tends to be
>some jobless, loser, shut-in, weirdo who has 24 hours a day to rant and rave
>and write opinions. Meanwhile, the sane, employed, busy, active folk have to
>
>settle for a quick post and run.
I work a full-time retail job, just finished writing a novel, and work as an
artist's assistant. I also have a portrait commision that will pay for this
year's IRA contribution. If you want to make speculations about my life and
finances why not have the balls to say "YOU are probably some jobless loser
shut-in."
Jane
denise
Modern artists you like? Walt Disney? Are you kidding? How old are you?
denise
This is not a contest. How can you express yourself accurately when the
whole time you are posting you are believing you are competing in a
popularity contest. I bet there is a newgroup for just that.
Jonsmind
Didn't we hear all this tripe before? My theory on Mani Deli, is that
he is a parrot. He paints like one, and recants the same shallow
quotes... over and over and over and over and over.... "Squak!! No
skill no Art" "Squak!! No skill no Art" "Squak!! No skill no Art"
"Squak!! No skill no Art"
Evil Ortho
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli wrote:
>
>> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
>Modern artists you like? Walt Disney? Are you kidding? How old are you?
and Max Fletsher, the Simpsons, Batman, underground comics, Vargas
(does he look like photos to you?) Crumb, etc etc.
How stale are you? Your problem is that you don't understand Goofy.
Hope you laugh until you drop dead.
Two minutes of Dumbo surpasses everything Picasso ever thought of.
Mani Deli
wrote:
-because I know it bothers the hell out of you
. "Squak!! No
>skill no Art" "Squak!! No skill no Art" "Squak!! No skill no Art"
>"Squak!! No skill no Art"
bet he has no skill
Greenbud
> >Well, as long as we're engaged in rabid speculation,
>
>
as an
> artist's assistant. I also have a portrait commision that will pay for
this
> year's IRA contribution. If you want to make speculations about my life
and
> finances why not have the balls to say "YOU are probably some jobless
loser
> shut-in."
>
> Jane
I'm sure Nik wasn't referring to you. After all, who could possibly
disparage a woman that is willing to grace us all with images of her breasts
without the exchange of $. The value of this is incalculable and easily
recognised by all self-aware men.
Thank you. No, I mean Thank You,
Greenbud
denise
Dilettante
> who would have fared admirably as a manufacturer of enamel headed
> canes.
>
> Cezanne is the finest expression of this decadence. He was truly
> unable to imitate the masterpieces and all of his admired technique is
> merely proof of his inability.
Not at true and not at all logical. The fact that he had a technique,
which he did, does not prove an "inability." He was attempting to
develop a technique equal in seriousness to that of the great masters
but using the aesthetics of the impressionists and
post-impressionists.
His technique involved meticulously orchestrated compositions. If
anyone cares to, they should put a piece of tracing paper over a
Cezanne painting and see how he laid out the major lines of force. One
thing that disaffects me from him is that his compositions were so
classical, stable, and boring.
Another technique he applied was to construct every surface from
warm-cold colour variations. Anyone who doubts this should look
closely at a single surface in one of his works, for example at a a
piece of white fabric.
Since he is now regarded as a painter's painter, he obviously
succeeded in elaborating a valid technique, but this technique is
dismaying to me personally because the overall effect is gray. But
some artists will tell you a neutral gray is the ideal final
impression a good picture should make.
Dilettante
Dilettante
"Squak!! No
> skill no Art" "Squak!! No skill no Art" "Squak!! No skill no Art"
> "Squak!! No skill no Art"
There is hope, however. You can join the No Skill Art Movement and
liberate yourself.
Dilettante
Dilettante
> -because I know it bothers the hell out of you
Yes, now we know mani's reason for posting and probably also Dali's
reason for saying what he did. In both cases it gets attention. Dali
was a complete attention junkie. So it is logical he would say things
merely for the sake of attention.
Dilettante
Miriam
> I'm sure Nik wasn't referring to you. After all, who could possibly
> disparage a woman that is willing to grace us all with images of her breasts
> without the exchange of $. The value of this is incalculable and easily
> recognised by all self-aware men.
> Thank you. No, I mean Thank You,
>
> Greenbud
Not to intervene in a discussion between Jane and you - she's also
beyond doubt able to defend herself. So I'm not defending Jane here
and I don't agree with her about Degas - and a lot of other things -
but - If Jane paints her own breast and exhibite the painting that's
for your wellbeing - A man painting Jane's breast would be art? No
art exhibition - except museums - sells entrance tickets.
Unfortunately. You pay for a painting to own it, not to have a look
upon it. A little bit too banal this argument of yours. Are You a
Painter Yourself, or?
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news
>
>> -because I know it bothers the hell out of you
>
>
>Yes, now we know mani's reason for posting and probably also Dali's
>reason for saying what he did. In both cases it gets attention.
Why does it get attention. Tell us Dill?
Mani Deli
No skill dill is president.
How's the elephant coming along?
Dilettante
> Please list the parts you have already cut off.
the part that takes you seriously
>
> How's your elephant coming?
ask his wife.
>
>
>
> No skill no art!
No mani no problem!
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<squ4901bmrkitk4eu...@4ax.com>...
>>" Cezanne is the finest expression of this decadence. He was truly
>> unable to imitate the masterpieces and all of his admired technique is
>> merely proof of his inability.
>
>Not at true and not at all logical. The fact that he had a technique,
>which he did, does not prove an "inability."
Name an artist who doesn't have a technique.
> He was attempting to
>develop a technique equal in seriousness to that of the great masters
>but using the aesthetics of the impressionists and
>post-impressionists.
Cezanne's technique is conventional present day art school
incompetence. That's why students and teachers love him. The students
think they can learn to do as well and the teachers who come close
doing as badly think they have something to offer.
> His technique involved meticulously orchestrated compositions.
His composition is nothing more than ordinary conventional third rate
art student, he couldn't handle complexity.
If
>anyone cares to, they should put a piece of tracing paper over a
>Cezanne painting and see how he laid out the major lines of force.
"Lines of force," Art school bullshit! Lines if farce!
> One
>thing that disaffects me from him is that his compositions were so
>classical, stable, and boring.
Because Cezanne is a conventional bourgeois fifth rate Sunday painter.
Cezanne had no ideas, he couldn't draw, and had no technical ability.
That is why he is chosen as the father of the no-skill realism which
followed.
> Another technique he applied was to construct every surface from
>warm-cold colour variations.
any artist can do that.
> Anyone who doubts this should look
>closely at a single surface in one of his works, for example at a a
>piece of white fabric.
Yes check the piece of sheet rock (1) next to the bubble assed nude
(2) in his idiotic painting.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/behind.htm
> Since he is now regarded as a painter's painter,
By all those painters who can't draw and think technique is just
schmiering around and people like Dill who can't possibly show their
work.
> he obviously
>succeeded in elaborating a valid technique, but this technique is
>dismaying to me personally because the overall effect is gray.
its pure crap superimposed on horrible drawing..
> But
>some artists will tell you a neutral gray is the ideal final
>impression a good picture should make.
>
-on those who never look at a work but believe what they are told .
Cezanne's color is 20th century impressionist jelly-bean schmier.
Gorne
Fleming's style."
Salvador claimed than his extravagant statement were unsuccessful
attempt to return to sanity and that they had no pretension as skilful
artistic expressions.
On the contrary, Cezanne painted apples to transform them into
artistic expression. He wanted for instance to limit the universe to
what was said in the canvass. Harmonizing line and colours inside,
ignoring what happened outside. Concentrating on colour and
composition and limiting perspective to apparent three dimension, but
giving no information about texture, smell, temporality etc... In
other the apple could be made of card board or cement was not relevant
problem for him, their colours and volume was. That choice was a
statement... something he brought our attention to in order to reveal
something new and previously undistinguished.
It is troubling to notice that Mani vehemently refuse to accept the
possibility of looking at apple as Cezanne proposed, while Mani claims
that no possible regard on Cezanne paintings could possibly be
rewarding. Mani is not blind. He refuse to see. But it is Mani who is
loosing an opportunity... so tough luck on him!
Greenbud
"Miriam" <pos...@chello.no> wrote in message
news:c37739c3.04050...@posting.google.com...
I was exaggerating in a weak attempt to be humerous, meaning to say that
a woman who makes an extra effort toward making this existence a little more
worthwhile earns perhaps some extra consideration and courtesy. Most men
recognize this.
The $ was simply another lame symbol for all the crap we usually have to
go through to get a little shot of tittie, but don't let me stop you from
burning your bra...
Greenbud
Mani Deli
> Cezanne painted apples to transform them into
>artistic expression. He wanted for instance to limit the universe to
>what was said in the canvass. Harmonizing line and colours inside,
>ignoring what happened outside. Concentrating on colour and
>composition and limiting perspective to apparent three dimension, but
>giving no information about texture, smell, temporality etc...
Pure Artspeak! Five heard this sort of crap for forty years.
> In
>other the apple could be made of card board or cement was not relevant
>problem for him, their colours and volume was.
His volume is flat as a board. The guy couldn't express volume in
anything he ever did. In fact that is why he is so well liked among
no-skill-realists who are mostly even worse.
>That choice was a
>statement... something he brought our attention to in order to reveal
>something new and previously undistinguished.
Yes, just as Dali says, "What
a symbol for a period! On the pretext of the academic being
detestable, the worst in the class was made a hero! He opens the door
to the ethics of shit! Newness at whatever cost and art becomes just a
latrine! The logic of this search for newness leads to the
glorification of total shit of which Cezanne is the high priest."
>It is troubling to notice that Mani vehemently refuse to accept the
>possibility of looking at apple as Cezanne proposed,
He didn't propose anything other than drawing in good perspective.
Something which due to his astounding lack of knowledge deluded him.
>while Mani claims
>that no possible regard on Cezanne paintings could possibly be
>rewarding. Mani is not blind. He refuse to see. But it is Mani who is
>loosing an opportunity... so tough luck on him!
I've seen Cezanne in the original in most all major museums and many
one man shows. When they are no better than student work they are an
abomination.
Tough luck for you. I bet your work is ten times worse.
Mani Deli
Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist
"Bathers." You can read my illustrated criticism and praise of his
brilliant invention on my web page illustrated with some details
under the title, "behind the behind."
Tell us about the great
draftsmanship in proclaimed masterpiece the "Card-players, Especially
the hands and the drapery and the brilliant color of the table cloth
and the well fitted hat on the conehead on the left.
In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two
directions. Also don't fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and
color in the background.
Miriam
>
> I was exaggerating in a weak attempt to be humerous, meaning to say that
> a woman who makes an extra effort toward making this existence a little more
> worthwhile earns perhaps some extra consideration and courtesy. Most men
> recognize this.
> The $ was simply another lame symbol for all the crap we usually have to
> go through to get a little shot of tittie, but don't let me stop you from
> burning your bra...
>
> Greenbud
Pardon!!!
Just a weak attempt to be humerous. From my point of view, it would
have been easier to excuse you if you have suggested using the bra as
a rag.
Biljo White
Marc Sabatella
And it definitely says something about you that after all that time of
having people explain it to you, you still haven't to managed to
understand something that is plainly obvious to so many millions of
others.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Mani Deli
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> ive heard this sort of crap for forty years.
>
>And it definitely says something about you that after all that time of
>having people explain it to you, you still haven't to managed to
>understand something that is plainly obvious to so many millions of
>others.
We can see by your no-skill output that that you like millions of
others have swollowed the forty years of crap I refer to. I think its
plainly obvious to many more millions that Modern Academic Art is
crap.
>
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
>ma...@outsideshore.com
>
>The Outside Shore
>Music, art, & educational materials:
>http://www.outsideshore.com/
>
>
Gorne
> Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsman ship in his conformist
> "Bathers."
The "Bathers" were not conformed to the idea people had about skill.
It was in many way anti conformist, because Cézanne disagreed with the
opinion French petty bourgeois had on what was relevant.
He proposed new possibilities and with time his opinion was accepted
by the majority.
The public decided that Cezanne was more fun than San Sulpice
painting.
Photography was becoming an art in itself and historic revival would
soon be the domain of Cecil B de Mille.
There are some big birds with their own way for not seeing what is
evident. What do you call them when they put their heads in the sand
and their arses in the sun?... They are great in lunie tunes.
denise
Ostriches with sunburned butts.
Jack Rubin
How the gauche dauber managed to realise his genius? Michael Casey, the
Irish art historian and critic, explains why Paul Cézanne was a hopeless
painter, but a great artist.
If Paul Cézanne had died not in l906 at the age of 67 but in his early
thirties, we should never have heard of him. Almost every picture that he
made before 1870 is as clumsy and unconvincing as anything by a rank
amateur. The man who became the most formidable and influential painter of
his age was not naturally gifted. For years his enormous ambition and
enthusiasm were not enough to compensate for his technical inadequacies. He
nevertheless somehow came to transcend his disabilities and turn them into
strengths.
How the gauche dauber managed to realise his genius is one of art history's
biggest mysteries. The early work gives no hint of the greatness to come.
The portraits are hamfisted, none more so than that of his father reading a
newspaper (1860-63). The feverish depictions of orgies, rapes, and murders
are cringingly embarrassing, full of anatomical monstrosities, exaggerated
chiaroscuro and ill judged passages of paint, all of which portray both
technical and emotional immaturity. They are so unlike his later pictures as
to look like the work of someone else entirely. It is a wonder that he did
not destroy a lot of them.
Cézanne's early paintings are inept but revealing. Ill-mannered and uncouth,
they are much like the man himself. They reveal the overheated imagination
of an artist whose ambition so outstripped his skill that his every
desperate attempt to rival the past by creating complex, emotionally charged
canvases in the grand manner was doomed.
Cézanne did have some perfunctory training. But classes at the municipal art
school in his native Aix-en-Provence did nothing to disguise a lack of
talent. Understandably, he failed the entrance exam to the Ecole des Beaux
Arts in Paris. The rough and clumsy provincial, however, was to persevere
with his efforts.
Of the great painters, Cézanne was unique in the extent of his lack of
ability. He was quite unlike his most important disciple, Picasso, whose
prodigious gifts were evident at an early age. Cézanne never needed to
discover what Picasso knew: that effortless facility is a mixed blessing.
Since Picasso could do anything in any medium as naturally as breathing, he
found it difficult to know what was worth doing at all - and how to do it
without appearing meretricious or shallow. He therefore had to repeatedly
make difficulties for himself.
Cézanne was denied such discomfiting luxury. Always aware of the enormous
gulf between his skill and ambition, he struggled increasingly to bridge it
by making a virtue of his weaknesses. In his own terms he was never
successful, and it is, paradoxically, the evidence of ultimate failure, the
ambiguities and imperfections in his paintings, that make them so memorable
and moving.
It was during the 1870s that Cézanne developed an approach that would expose
his inadequacies less mercilessly. Unable to be spontaneous, he worked more
deliberately. Unable to paint figures from his imagination or anything in
movement convincingly, he turned increasingly to landscape and still life.
While he continued to produce the occasional portrait and figure
composition, he treated everything as though it were an arrangement of
grapes, apples or trees.
The quality of his painting now derived as much from what he left out as put
in. Cézanne was finally able to describe and express more with a single,
carefully considered brushmark than other artists have been able to do in an
entire career.
Two of his greatest strengths were persistence and honesty. He slowly came
to understand the complexity of natural forms and the contradictions
involved in perceiving and representing them. He realised that painting from
nature is a paradoxical business. How can one ever satisfactorily create an
illusion of three-dimensional reality on a flat surface? If such difficult
questions had struck anyone before, they had been ignored. In attempting to
answer them, Cézanne redirected the course of painting. The late and
disadvantaged developer overhauled and pulled so far ahead of his
contemporaries that artists born long after his death found it difficult
even to draw abreast of him.
Cézanne's importance is so obvious, his historical status so secure, that we
can fail to notice the inconsistencies and infelicities in so much of his
art. The unquestionable greatness of some of his works has led many to deny
the glaring inadequacies in them. It is sometimes even claimed that his
initial clumsiness was deliberate. This is to misunderstand his unusual
development and minimise the bravery his transformation required. Nor is
everything he produced after that transformation a masterpiece.
Evidence of his limitations remains, above expression of his genius, bristle
with awkward poses and anatomical impossibilities. His portraits, frequently
claimed to possess psychological insights, are formally marvellous but
emotionally void. Whatever personality they have is similar to that of his
apples and onions - "Be an apple!" Cézanne would shout when a sitter did
anything so human as moving.
Cézanne was painfully aware of his continuing inadequacy. He considered few
of his paintings finished. He would labour for months on a single picture,
only to cast it aside in despair. His portrait of, for example, Louis
Guillaumen (1879-82) involved no fewer than 114 sittings, and even then the
clear signs of indecision remain, most obviously in the position of the
shoulder. When Guillaumen was finally allowed to see the painting, Cézanne
conceded that he was not altogether satisfied.
During his lifetime, Cézanne had few admirers. As late as l903 he was still
being denounced as a maker of "pictorial inanities." Significantly, almost
all of the tiny minority who recognised his genius were other painters who
were not always convinced. Renoir thought his work admirable, but crude.
Pissarro called him a "refined savage." But in l907, when two memorial
exhibitions were staged in Paris, attitudes had changed. Cézanne quickly
came to be seen as, in Matisse's words, "a god of painting" and the father
of modern art.
His influence was indeed immediate and far-reaching. Everything from cubism
to abstraction is inconceivable without his example, and painters as
different as Agnes Martin and Ellsworth Kelly achieved their own personal
voices by examining and exploiting certain aspects of his bewildering
achievements. The belief in the primacy and integrity of the picture
surface, the central concern of most important 20th-century painting,
derives entirely from Cézanne.
Yet his influence on modern art has almost as much to do with his example as
his work, and the influence, like that of so many painters of towering
originality, has not been wholly benign. As a pioneer of a new kind of
painting in which honesty of intention could seem more important than
technical ability, he appealed to artists who had little or any innate skill
and did not bother to acquire it. Having achieved little success in his
lifetime, he convinced others that a lack of recognition was itself proof of
artistic worth. His habit of explaining his intentions by means of enigmatic
pronouncements ("treat nature by the cylinder, the sphere and the cone" is
the most famous example) has also, alas, had its imitators.
Less damaging, Cézanne demonstrated that an inability to produce
conventional paintings in a conventional way could be turned to advantage.
The recognition of what one was unable to do became the prerequisite of
original achievement. Had Mondrian been a better landscape painter or lacked
the instructive example of Cézanne, chances are that he would not have had
the courage to turn to abstraction. Had Hans Hofmann been more gifted, he
would probably have remained an unremarkable figurative painter.
Since Cézanne, and largely because of him, painting has become more
concerned with doubts than certainties. Questions have seemed more important
than solutions; process has become more interesting than result.
Cézanne's example has had one indirect but even more dramatic repercussion.
His achievement is so intimidating, so fraught with problems about the
nature and effectiveness of painting itself, that to some artists it has
seemed more like an end than a beginning. Marcel Duchamp, one of the most
pioneering artists of the early twentieth century, was so frustrated by the
disparity between his ambition and abilities that he abandoned painting
altogether, and with his "ready-made objects" pronounced the entire question
of skill to be dead.
Cézanne had no idea of the extent of his influence. "I am dying without any
pupils," he told a friend in l906. "There is no one to carry on my work." He
also died believing that his achievement was limited. "I see the promised
land before me... Shall I be able to enter? Why so late and with such
difficulty?" He was still acutely aware of his inadequacies even after he
had triumphantly transcended them.
http://yliopistolehti.helsinki.fi/1996_4/ylart12.htm
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>> Cezanne just tell us
>> Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsman ship in his conformist
>> "Bathers."
>Cezanne is dead, so he cannot tell you much.
Are you also dead?
>The "Bathers" were not conformed to the idea people had about skill.
It contains no skill and as such is crap.
>It was in many way anti conformist, because Cézanne disagreed with the
>opinion French petty bourgeois had on what was relevant.
Its totally conformist by a person who had little less than student
ability.
>He proposed new possibilities
Name some. I maintain he proposed nothing at all new.
>and with time his opinion was accepted
>by the majority.
By a majority of students who have no skill and a small public who
believes they see what they have been indoctrinated to imagine.
>The public decided that Cezanne was more fun than San Sulpice
>painting.
I don't think the public is interested in Cezanne at all.
>Photography was becoming an art in itself and historic revival would
>soon be the domain of Cecil B de Mille.
and incompetence as an excuse for claiming its new.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>MICHAEL CASEY
> explains why Paul Cézanne was a hopeless
>painter, but a great artist.
Doesn't explain it. Hopeless painters called great artists is a 20th
century phenomenon. It won't last.
> Almost every picture that he
>made before 1870 is as clumsy and unconvincing as anything by a rank
>amateur. The man who became the most formidable and influential painter of
>his age was not naturally gifted. For years his enormous ambition and
>enthusiasm were not enough to compensate for his technical inadequacies.
>
>How the gauche dauber managed to realise his genius is one of art history's
>biggest mysteries.
Its a mystery because it never happened.
> The early work gives no hint of the greatness to come.
>The portraits are hamfisted, none more so than that of his father reading a
>newspaper (1860-63). The feverish depictions of orgies, rapes, and murders
>are cringingly embarrassing, full of anatomical monstrosities, exaggerated
>chiaroscuro and ill judged passages of paint, all of which portray both
>technical and emotional immaturity. They are so unlike his later pictures as
>to look like the work of someone else entirely. It is a wonder that he did
>not destroy a lot of them.
>Of the great painters, Cézanne was unique in the extent of his lack of
>ability.
Well said! But not true. Museums are filled with such crap.
>The quality of his painting now derived as much from what he left out as put
>in. Cézanne was finally able to describe and express more with a single,
>carefully considered brushmark than other artists have been able to do in an
>entire career.
( total bullshit, express what?)
>Two of his greatest strengths were persistence and honesty.
Not interested in any artists honesty or persistence. When a painting
is crap its just another excuse. Most artistic failures are honest and
persistent. So what!
> He slowly came
>to understand the complexity of natural forms and the contradictions
>involved in perceiving and representing them. He realised that painting from
>nature is a paradoxical business. How can one ever satisfactorily create an
>illusion of three-dimensional reality on a flat surface?
By looking at fine classical work; which is exactly what Cezanne did.
> If such difficult
>questions had struck anyone before, they had been ignored.
They occur to every artist who can think.
>In attempting to
>answer them, Cézanne redirected the course of painting.
total mythology!
> The late and
>disadvantaged developer overhauled and pulled so far ahead of his
>contemporaries that artists born long after his death found it difficult
>even to draw abreast of him.
He produced little more than student errors.
>Cézanne's importance is so obvious, his historical status so secure, that we
>can fail to notice the inconsistencies and infelicities in so much of his
>art.
People like you can but that won't last.
> The unquestionable greatness of some of his works has led many to deny
>the glaring inadequacies in them.
The greatness is totally questionable because of this.
>It is sometimes even claimed that his
>initial clumsiness was deliberate. This is to misunderstand his unusual
>development and minimise the bravery his transformation required. Nor is
>everything he produced after that transformation a masterpiece.
Double talk in order to excuse the clumsiness apparent even to this
author.
>Evidence of his limitations remains,
It persists!
> above expression of his genius, bristle
>with awkward poses and anatomical impossibilities. His portraits, frequently
>claimed to possess psychological insights, are formally marvellous but
>emotionally void. Whatever personality they have is similar to that of his
>apples and onions - "Be an apple!" Cézanne would shout when a sitter did
>anything so human as moving.
I"m sure this should impress any idiot.
>
>Cézanne was painfully aware of his continuing inadequacy.
Most artzy fartzies aren't. At least this author and Cezanne himself
are.
>He considered few
>of his paintings finished. He would labour for months on a single picture,
>only to cast it aside in despair. His portrait of, for example, Louis
>Guillaumen (1879-82) involved no fewer than 114 sittings, and even then the
>clear signs of indecision remain, most obviously in the position of the
>shoulder. When Guillaumen was finally allowed to see the painting, Cézanne
>conceded that he was not altogether satisfied.
Even Cezanne recognized a piece of crap when he saw it. I'll give him
credit for that. He loved classical painting and that made him evern
more miserable.
>Renoir thought his work admirable, but crude.
>Pissarro called him a "refined savage." But in l907, when two memorial
>exhibitions were staged in Paris, attitudes had changed. Cézanne quickly
>came to be seen as, in Matisse's words, "a god of painting" and the father
>of modern art.
>
Matisse is the biggest artwork idiot of the 20th century. Check out
his "blue nude." Cezanne is a genius by comparison.
>His influence was indeed immediate and far-reaching. Everything from cubism
>to abstraction is inconceivable without his example, and painters as
>different as Agnes Martin and Ellsworth Kelly achieved their own personal
>voices by examining and exploiting certain aspects of his bewildering
>achievements. The belief in the primacy and integrity of the picture
>surface, the central concern of most important 20th-century painting,
>derives entirely from Cézanne.
Kelly does average bathroom tiles. Cezanne influenced little more than
abominable craftsmanship, which even this author half admits.
>Since Cézanne, and largely because of him, painting has become more
>concerned with doubts than certainties.
>" He was still acutely aware of his inadequacies even after he
>had triumphantly transcended them.
>
He never transcended them and he new it better than artzy fartzies who
wrote 100 years of similar stuff.
DNALJM
>
>How the gauche dauber managed to realise his genius? Michael Casey, the
>Irish art historian and critic, explains why Paul Cézanne was a hopeless
>painter, but a great artist.
8< ! D00d, just post the link to the article if you're going to repaste the
whole thing. Nobody's going to read it through a newsreader.
Jane
Mani Deli
>Picasso's dick is a thousand times the size of Dali's, which was always, btw, in his own mouth.
I'm sure that you judge paintings on this important basis.
Your vast knowledge of art would not lead anyone to doubt that Dali's
dick was indeed considerably smaller than Picasso's
By reading the recent list of the Dill's self compliments it would be
hard to imagine that the Dill's dick is any smaller then a very large
unsliced baloney.
I'm sure this is the reason as the Dill claims, that people are lining
up to see his work, or is it his dick?
Of course when the thing gets to that size it is somewhat hard to fit
a women and I suspect that is why the Dill is so keen on elephants.
Dill, I'm always interested in important new information and
respectfully ask if you will reveal the actual Picasso and Dali dick
dimensions. Yes, and don't forget to include references.
denise
dill is a man? d.
Dilettante
> dill is a man? d.
am I! just check this out baby!
Dilettante
Yuck Yuck Yuck
Mani Deli
Gee, I doubt that its a bull dyke with a big plastic dick who wears
extra lage panties and molests elephants, but anything is possible. It
has a lot to hide.
Mani Deli
>Picasso's dick is a thousand times the size of Dali's, which was always, btw, in his own mouth.
I'm sure that you judge paintings on this important basis.
Your vast knowledge of art would not lead anyone to doubt that Dali's
dick was indeed considerably smaller than Picasso's
By reading the recent list of the Dill's self compliments it would be
hard to imagine that the Dill's dick is any smaller then a very large
unsliced baloney.
I'm sure this is the reason as the Dill claims, that people are lining
up to see his work, or is it his dick?
Of course when the thing gets to that size it is somewhat hard to fit
a women and I suspect that is why the Dill is so keen on elephants.
Dill, I'm always interested in important new information and
respectfully ask if you will reveal the actual Picasso and Dali dick
dimensions. Yes, and don't forget to include references.
No skill no art!
denise
> Yuck Yuck YuckFor some reason in the
Oh stop it We've heard enough about your anatomy. For some reason in
the beginning I thought you were a woman. Probably because you seemed so
intelligent and witty. Why am I up so late. returning e-mail from
Europeans that don't have the slightest idea of time and that Americans
sleep while they work. And I'm drinking mango juice with whiskey. ewwww
So do you really have a big dick? One of the uglyest friends I have
has a shlong you would not believe, but you wouldn't want to touch it
either. So where's the glory? d.