Interview with Balthus
Owen F. Ransen
Two of his comments struck me:
1) Modern artists have forgotten that Art is a Craft.
2) Modern artists think that they must "express themselves",
they shouldn't, they should just paint.
--
Owen F. Ransen
http://www.ransen.com/
Home of Gliftic & Repligator Image Generators
Jean-Jacqu...@wanadoo.fr
Ransen) wrote:
>I saw an interview with Balthus a couple of days ago.
>Two of his comments struck me:
>
>1) Modern artists have forgotten that Art is a Craft.
>
>2) Modern artists think that they must "express themselves",
> they shouldn't, they should just paint.
>
Balthus is actually a painter.
not a seller.
--
UBU
Mais l'age d'or sans cesse est remis aux calendes
Et c'est la mort, la mort toujours recommencée.
tonton georges.
William Engell
Do you expect painters to paint without expression? What sort of
painting might that produce? I suspect you need to elaborate.
WE
Owen F. Ransen wrote in message <3a41ef9e...@news.newsguy.com>...
Owen F. Ransen
<wen...@erie.net> wrote:
>Owen,
> Do you expect painters to paint without expression? What sort of
>painting might that produce? I suspect you need to elaborate.
>
>WE
Er...I did not say that, Balthus did! Just thought it was
interesting.
William Engell
Owen F. Ransen wrote in message <3a42e5a...@news.newsguy.com>...
jeff_l...@my-deja.com
>
> Er...I did not say that, Balthus did! Just thought it was
> interesting.
>
Owen
What's interesting or striking about the statements?
Jeff
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
seow...@my-deja.com
making art is not just about making crafts. Cos' I think the whole
experiece of making art is equally as important as the art piece itself.
I personally find joy in doing art.Making art is a way of finding myself
and communicating with those who see my art the way I do.
Cheers,
Seow Puay
In article <3a41ef9e...@news.newsguy.com>,
ransen_sp...@nemo.it (Owen F. Ransen) wrote:
Owen F. Ransen
>Just some after thought abt this discussion. Personally, I feel that
>making art is not just about making crafts. Cos' I think the whole
>experiece of making art is equally as important as the art piece itself.
>I personally find joy in doing art.Making art is a way of finding myself
>and communicating with those who see my art the way I do.
>Cheers,
>Seow Puay
I'd prefer that people enjoyed and/or understood art irrespective
of how the artist sees his own artwork. Real communication does
not mean I have to see it with the eyes of someone else, it just
communicates directly.
Owen F. Ransen
>Owen
>What's interesting or striking about the statements?
>Jeff
What he is saying is "just do it" don't talk about it
or theorise it, just do it and do it well.
Maybe because I am based in Italy I see a lot of
art theory and art history and in the newspapers and
I often wonder if the theorisers and historians are
missing the point. So it was refreshing to hear
Balthus's viewpoint.
Maybe other parts of the world have a more practical
approach to art.
seow...@my-deja.com
the piece of art or do not receive the message that the artist has
intended?
Art is not just a craft for aesthetic purpose. Well, I do not know abt
other art makers. But as far as I am concern, art is not just that.
I have the urge to connect with my audience, perhaps, educating or
perhaps inspiring. And by being inspired and getting my intended
message, the viewer is seeing it the way I intended and that makes it
meaningful. What I meant by 'see' in my previous message is not really
in that literal sense.
Seeing an art work is not just seeing the surface of the work cos' it
would be too shallow, wouldn't it?
There are so many interesting factors to look out for when 'seeing' an
art work. For examples, why the artist makes it and the intended
or hidden message. This is real communication and definitely not just
some mere surface interaction between the audience and the artist.
Cheers,
Seow Puay
> I'd prefer that people enjoyed and/or understood art irrespective
> of how the artist sees his own artwork. Real communication does
> not mean I have to see it with the eyes of someone else, it just
> communicates directly.
>
> --
> Owen F. Ransen
> http://www.ransen.com/
> Home of Gliftic & Repligator Image Generators
>
In article <3a4c768d...@news.newsguy.com>,
ransen_sp...@nemo.it (Owen F. Ransen) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:21:46 GMT, seow...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Just some after thought abt this discussion. Personally, I feel that
> >making art is not just about making crafts. Cos' I think the whole
> >experiece of making art is equally as important as the art piece
itself.
> >I personally find joy in doing art.Making art is a way of finding
myself
> >and communicating with those who see my art the way I do.
> >Cheers,
> >Seow Puay
>
seow...@my-deja.com
is based in Italy, that makes him or her more critical than other art
enthusiasts from other parts of the world.
By the way, I am not from Italy. But I too read a lot of articles on
art, whether it be art theory, art reviews art history and provocative
writings on the art world simply because I am interested in art.
Seow Puay
> Maybe because I am based in Italy I see a lot of
> art theory and art history and in the newspapers and
> I often wonder if the theorisers and historians are
> missing the point. So it was refreshing to hear
> Balthus's viewpoint.
>
> Maybe other parts of the world have a more practical
> approach to art.
>
> --
> Owen F. Ransen
> http://www.ransen.com/
> Home of Gliftic & Repligator Image Generators
>
Owen F. Ransen
>I am sorry to say this, but it is indeed new to me that because someone
>is based in Italy, that makes him or her more critical than other art
>enthusiasts from other parts of the world.
I was not definite about it, just a suggestion. Anyway I
agree with Balthus, which is why it struck me when I heard
him.
>By the way, I am not from Italy. But I too read a lot of articles on
>art, whether it be art theory, art reviews art history and provocative
>writings on the art world simply because I am interested in art.
You've missed my point. The Italian media is horribly divided
into serious stuff and rubbish (quiz shows and bad comedians with
recorded laughter). They find it difficult to make light,
interesting, educational programs/articles about serious subjects.
The Anglo-Saxons are more interested in imparting information
than "being serious", which means that, in my experience (15 years
in Italy, 4 in Japan and 22 in the UK) they manage to educate
via the *popular* media MUCH better than the Italians.
Owen F. Ransen
>What is real communication when the viewer does not see or understand
>the piece of art or do not receive the message that the artist has
>intended?
Exactly! But sometimes the "artist" wants to impress or shock rather
than communicate.
>Art is not just a craft for aesthetic purpose. Well, I do not know abt
>other art makers. But as far as I am concern, art is not just that.
All I was trying to say is that if an artwork has to be
explained by knowing the artists viewpoint, then it has failed
to communicate.
What, excactly, would you be communicating anyway?
Some art works are pure decoration - but they hit the pleasure
centers of my brain immediately, without theory or knowledge
of the artist, or theoretical analysis. THAT is direct communication.
>I have the urge to connect with my audience, perhaps, educating or
>perhaps inspiring. And by being inspired and getting my intended
>message, the viewer is seeing it the way I intended and that makes it
>meaningful.
Could you point me to an artwork of yours where I will get the
message without you having to explain it? This is a serious
question, not a bait.
seow...@my-deja.com
ransen_sp...@nemo.it (Owen F. Ransen) wrote:
> sometimes the "artist" wants to impress or shock rather
> than communicate.
Well, I think most of us are guilty of judging. Anyway it is part of
looking. But, is it fair to say that Monet's painting 'Sunflower' is
better than Marcel Duchamp's urinal entitled 'Fountain'? I don't think
so. For those who does not understand the reason why Duchamp call that
crude object an art might assume that he is simply trying to 'shock' the
viewers or trying hard to impress others with his so-called avant-garde
art. However. for those who have heard or read about Duchamp's
readymade, and have understood the reason for the making of that art,
they will understand that the urinal is not just that urinal which one
sees in the male washroom.
Hence, I feel that what is considered 'shocking' or 'trying hard to
please' are very subjective. Similarly, what might appear to lack that
touch of communication level to one might be otherwise to another. I
feel it is sometimes really hard to tell what is better or worse about
the art of your own age when you compared it to the art of another age.
Perhaps, let's all be open about art and be slow in our negative
comments. Maybe it might help by understanding the background of the
art.
> All I was trying to say is that if an artwork has to be
> explained by knowing the artists viewpoint, then it has failed
> to communicate.
>
> What, excactly, would you be communicating anyway?
Many a time, because the viewers do not understand the background of the
art, they misinterprete the artist and his/her work and give unfair
judgements. For instance, the exhibition in Shanghai titled 'Art for
Sale', many people do not understand the intention of the exhibition and
critized it. The fact is that, due to the ignorance of the audience, the
artists are not giving their fair share of the credits. I am
in fact impressed by their way of stressing on the problems of art
becoming a commodity, viewers have failed to communicate with the art.
> Some art works are pure decoration - but they hit the pleasure
> centers of my brain immediately, without theory or knowledge
> of the artist, or theoretical analysis. THAT is direct communication.
Of course, if you like art of pure decoration, that is fine. And if to
you, just that surface communication is what you fancy, that is also
fine. I did not once say it is not right. All I say is that, personally,
that is not enough for me. When I look at an art, of course the
aesthetic appeal is very important for me to look at it. After that, I
always try to understand the title, hoping to get some hints into the
artist's soul. After which, I will read the write-out to understand the
work on another level.
> Could you point me to an artwork of yours where I will get the
> message without you having to explain it? This is a serious
> question, not a bait.
Is it important to you since you wrote:
> Some art works are pure decoration - but they hit the pleasure
> centers of my brain immediately, without theory or knowledge
> of the artist, or theoretical analysis. THAT is direct communication.
Seow Puay
Owen F. Ransen
>> What, excactly, would you be communicating anyway?
>Many a time, because the viewers do not understand the background of the
>art, they misinterprete the artist and his/her work and give unfair
>judgements.
And I repeat, if the artist cannot communicate through his art,
but needs to give "background info" then he is not communcating
well. If would be better to write a book about yourself than
create an artwork which needs to be explained.
>Of course, if you like art of pure decoration, that is fine.
You seem to think that pure decoration is on a "lower level" than
other art. I don't. Other art *can* be egocentric and "oh how special
and sensitive we artists are".
Artists are no more special than other people. Once they were
more special because art was the only way of saying or displaying
certain things. Now education is available to more people, and
these people can discuss and write and do more direct communicating
than, say, 100 years ago.
>And if to
>you, just that surface communication is what you fancy, that is also
>fine.
You think that by decoration I mean "surface". I probably should
have used a different word - but in the end visual artists
communicate via the viewers eye and so needs to be understandable
and interesting to the eye.
Please read my post. If something communicates to me without
the need theoretical analysis, if it hits my mind or soul or eye
directly, then THAT is better communication than something
which is supposed to communicate but needs explanation.
>When I look at an art, of course the
> 1) Aesthetic appeal is very important for me to look at it.
> 2) After that, I always try to understand the title,
> hoping to get some hints into the artist's soul.
> 3) I will read the write-out to understand the
> work on another level.
I never get to 2) unless 1) has already communicated.
>Is it important to you since you wrote:
You mean you do not want to show me your artworks?
What great communication between artist and viewer!
seow...@my-deja.com
is NOT concerning life or death, is it?. C'mon, it is just a forum for
heaven's sake. By the way, I think it is really interesting as a mere
after-thought of A PERSONAL VIEW (not pointing or bombarding anyone at
all !!!!)of a young lady could lead to big man's imposition and further
accusations and 'verbal wars'. Um...
>You seem to think that pure decoration is on a "lower level" than other
art.
Allow me to repeat myself. Of course, if you like art of pure
decoration, that is fine. And if to you, just this level of
communication is what you fancy, that is also fine. I did not once said
that it is not right. Neither did I wrote the above accusation. PLEASE
DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH, thank you. Cos' I believe I wrote
previously that it is not fair to say what is better or worse about the
art of your own age when compared to the art of another age. I gave an
example saying that it is difficult to tell whether Van Gogh's
'Sunflower' is better than Duchamp's 'Fountain' as they are just like
two different genres. There is no basis for comparison at all. I think
it does not take much efforts to understand this simple fact, is it?
>If the artist cannot communicate through his art,
>but needs to give "background info" then he is not communcating well.
If would be better to
>write a book about yourself than
>create an artwork which needs to be explained.
Well, the term 'communicate' suggests different meanings to different
people. Basically, a general explanation could be 'to connect'. And 'to
connect' is also very individualistic as one's standard of connection
could be different from another person's expectation. You solely believe
in 'A painting paints a thousand words.' Okay, that is fine. I too
believe in that sometimes, but not all the time.
Especially, in art, as from my experiences, I find a work more
interesting after knowing the background knowledge of the period that
the art is created or the artist's life and so on rather than just the
visual effects. Please note: I have been stressing that for me, this is
the way. I did not impose that everyone should be like me. So please do
not be so worked out over this after-thought of mine.
For instance, the many portraits by Frida Kahlo were actually a
reflection of her obsessive love for Diego Rivera and her painful life
experiences. For those who are not familiar with her sad life story will
definitely still be attracted by her magnificent paintings.
Nevertheless, for those who know about her and her sad life stories,
they will be able to connect and relate better to the portraits. For
instance, they can see the significance of the animals in her portraits
which were actually 'her children' as she had many miscarriages. But for
those who do not know the background (about her life story), they will
not be able to connect at that intimate level and be emotionally
attached to the work like her fans do. What I stressed upon in my
previous post was that DUE TO VIEWERS' IGNORANCE, sometimes artists are
not given a fair share of their deserved credits. If it is due to
viewers' ignorance and hence incapable to connect with the art as much
as they wish they could, is it the artist's fault? If the author and the
reader of a poem is dislocated both across space and time due to the
fact that the reader could not understand the situational context, does
it mean the poem is not well written?
>You mean you do not want to show me your artworks?
Um... by the way, why are you so eager to accuse again? Which part of my
previous sentence stated the negation?
Owen F. Ransen
>Hi, please be slow in imposing your views and cool it please, cos' this
>is NOT concerning life or death, is it?.
Errm, I'm not the one using capital letters and accusing others
of starting flame wars...
Happy New Year!
Owen
William Engell
I'd like to propose that a works being decorative is not necessarily
dependent on, or closely related to, its being a work of art. There are
decorations which are not likely to be called art by most observers, and
there are works of art which are not partiularly decorous.
lauri levanto
<seow...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:92lb6j$mg9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3a5076cb...@news.newsguy.com>,
> ransen_sp...@nemo.it (Owen F. Ransen) wrote:
>
> > sometimes the "artist" wants to impress or shock rather
> > than communicate.
>
> Well, I think most of us are guilty of judging. Anyway it is part of
> looking. But, is it fair to say that Monet's painting 'Sunflower' is
> better than Marcel Duchamp's urinal entitled 'Fountain'? I don't think
> so. For those who does not understand the reason why Duchamp call that
> crude object an art might assume that he is simply trying to 'shock' the
> viewers or trying hard to impress others with his so-called avant-garde
> art. However. for those who have heard or read about Duchamp's
> readymade, and have understood the reason for the making of that art,
> they will understand that the urinal is not just that urinal which one
> sees in the male washroom.
is better, on which criteria? I think Duchamp's fountain was better
if judged by the effect on artworld. It was a stronger statement.
With many other artistic criteria the Sunflower is better, as it
contributed more to art and less to art discussion.
It was maybe also more aesthetic, had more artistic effort involved.
Long ago Erik Mattila introduced here an idea that art-pieces
contein more or less 'art'.
Let us compare three examples:
The Cellini salt pot is canonical art (also an art piece in unique sense)
A Kaj Frank salt pot is crafts (mass produced design, maybe industrial art)
Any anonymous salt pot is not art.
All three are salt pots. Made with an intention to be usable, not art pour
art.
All are designed by someone, with specific aesthetic objectives.
The amount or role of the design work is different.
There is a different amount of artistic effort put in them. I think
it is fair to regard them as being more or less art.
On the same continuum, not as categorially different.
If this reasoning is valid on 3D objects, can't we apply it
topaintings. Some paintings like Monet's Sunflower are
more art than a landscape of garage-sale variety.
- lauri
lauri levanto
"Owen F. Ransen" <ransen_sp...@nemo.it> wrote in message
news:3a50236...@news.newsguy.com...
(snip)
> Please read my post. If something communicates to me without
> the need theoretical analysis, if it hits my mind or soul or eye
> directly, then THAT is better communication than something
> which is supposed to communicate but needs explanation.
I have seen Duchamp's fountain before reading art history.
it did not impress.
After reading in understood his question (from explanations).
Now the Warhol' Brillo box? It needed no explanation anymore.
It asked the same duchamp question. It communicated very little to me.
One more me-too piece. Like those beautiful abstract paintins or landscapes
old ladies make at local evening classes. Nor do them need
exclamatory comments, I have learned them already before seeing.
Can anyone provide me with an explanation of the Brillo Box?
- lauri
seow...@my-deja.com
> Errm, I'm not the one using capital letters and accusing others
> of starting flame wars...
>
>
Well, it seems so easy to point your fingers again. Anyway, you started
the capitalised 'THAT' and repeated it. ( Pls refer to your own
posts before accusing me again.)
Owen F. Ransen
wrote:
>A sidebar issue:
I suppose the challenge is doing both, if possible, sometimes.
I suppose that works generated from anger or despair will not
be decorous, whereas those generated from joy and love could
be.
Owen F. Ransen
>Well, it seems so easy to point your fingers again. Anyway, you started
>the capitalised 'THAT' and repeated it. ( Pls refer to your own
>posts before accusing me again.)
>Seow Puay
OUCH!
lauri levanto
Unfortunately I don't have access to Danto just now.
Does he make a significant difference between Fountain and Brillo box?
For me both seem to address the same question the same way.
The other point here was that For me Brillo needed less
axplanatory text as it was a variant of familiar case.
Sure it did not make it better communication in my eyes
like Oven suggested.
- lauri
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010102065155.23387A-100000@vtn1...
> Yes,
> try "The Transfiguration of the Commonplace" by Arthur Danto.
> He discusses Warhol's "Brillo Boxes."
seow...@my-deja.com
God Bless You my friend,
Seow Puay
>
> OUCH!
>
> --
> Owen F. Ransen
> http://www.ransen.com/
> Home of Gliftic & Repligator Image Generators
>