Cy Twombly
jAxAs
>>Does anyone out there grasp the obscurity of Cy Twombly?
>>Mike
>
>Hi Mike,
> It is just a bunch of scribbles and chicken scratch. Why do people
>think that is so great? Who knows? :-/
>
>CAT
Well, someone thought enough of his work to spend big
bucks building a museum to house JUST HIS work. It's
called the Cy Twombly wing of the prestigious, world renowned
Menil Museum of Art in Houston, Texas. The Menils previously
donated the Rothko Chapel, adjacent to the museum, to the
Art World. The Cy Twombly wing was only recently dedicated
and you might actually learn a little about his work and his
intellect by reading some of the articles being written in conjunction
with the dedication.
--
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look for the silver lining, *****
***** And keep your ignorance *****
***** A secret ! *****
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
CAT
an...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>Well, someone thought enough of his work to spend big
>bucks building a museum to house JUST HIS work. It's
>called the Cy Twombly wing of the prestigious, world renowned
>Menil Museum of Art in Houston, Texas. The Menils previously
>donated the Rothko Chapel, adjacent to the museum, to the
>Art World. The Cy Twombly wing was only recently dedicated
>and you might actually learn a little about his work and his
>intellect by reading some of the articles being written in conjunction
>with the dedication.
JAxAs,
I have read about his work and have seen it. ( Not the Menil yet)
Personally I think art like that is ugly. That is just my personal
tastes. I am glad folks enjoy it but I would not like something like that
hanging on my wall.
It's all like the Emporer's new clothes as I mentioned in a previous
post.
CAT
sl...@cc.usu.edu
How can a cat, who scratches furniture and floor and post in patterns
so close to Twombly's not like Twombly's work? Has the CAT been declawed?
Regards the statement "that's just my personal tastes" I'd have to say
it is not. I know that sounds foolish for me to assert. What I'm
wondering is what's your background? What's your heritage, culture?
Do they affect how your "tastes" have developed? How have your tastes
grown? And, are tastes enough to determine whether a work is ugly?
Ok, ok, back to Big Cy Country...
As an avid markmaker, I appreciate Twombly's guts.
As a set of marks, I can look at them and trace out a certain history,
a sort of whodunnit, and when. For me the paintings are thus much about
time, and time's passage. The references to ancient tales reinforces that
temporal sense I get from his work... but also forces me to consider
differences among various culture's perceptions of time, of Greek symmetry
pitted against contemporary digital time.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
http://cc.usu.edu/~SL2LF/
Cooties
Does anyone out there grasp the obscurity of Cy Twombly? And to those
who appreciate him, would they have given it a second look if found in
a student's bin? His noteriety aside, what facinates the on-looker? Or
is the on-looker intimidated enough to feign comprehension? If you
aren't familiar with Twombly, what about Larry Poons or Jules Olitski?
Mike
CAT
CAT
>How can a cat, who scratches furniture and floor and post in patterns
>so close to Twombly's not like Twombly's work? Has the CAT been declawed?
I did clip my nails today. My cat has of yet to create any great art on
my furniture. He did reference ancient tales from a temporal sense he
found in his litter box. (Just teasing, I could not resist.)
>Regards the statement "that's just my personal tastes" I'd have to say
>it is not. I know that sounds foolish for me to assert. What I'm
>wondering is what's your background? What's your heritage, culture?
>Do they affect how your "tastes" have developed? How have your tastes
>grown? And, are tastes enough to determine whether a work is ugly?
Background/Culture- American/WASP. I grew up in a happy middle class
home. Just like the Beaver. I enjoyed reading the old master art books
from the library from grade school on up till now. Studied classical art
techniques at school along with commercial art. Going to various museums
and seeing some of my favorite paintings for the first time made quite an
impression. Also fellow artists I have met through the years that I
admire made a difference too.
>And, are tastes enough to determine whether a work is ugly?
Hmmm,... I guess not. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as ugliness
is also. Cy T.'s work in my eyes is ugly. In your's it's beautiful. Every
one has their own personal "tastes" in things. Music, art, fashion, etc.
To me classical art and paintings like Sorolla, Zorn and others from that
era are beautiful. Pleasing to my eyes and "tastes". I love them and
always will. You may go ugh!, those old has beens.
>Ok, ok, back to Big Cy Country...
>As an avid markmaker, I appreciate Twombly's guts.
>As a set of marks, I can look at them and trace out a certain history,
>a sort of whodunnit, and when. For me the paintings are thus much about
>time, and time's passage. The references to ancient tales reinforces that
>temporal sense I get from his work... but also forces me to consider
>differences among various culture's perceptions of time, of Greek
symmetry
>pitted against contemporary digital time.
Good. Keep marking. If I aquire a Twombly, (Yea, like I could afford
it.) I will give it to you.
>Greg Scheckler
>SL...@cc.usu.edu
>http://cc.usu.edu/~SL2LF/
I will visit your homepage after I throw another stone at the hornet's
nest. I hear them buzzing my box right now.
Declawed CAT
ArtCITRINO
Ross Green
>
>
> Does anyone out there grasp the obscurity of Cy Twombly?
Cy Twombly is a wonderfully complex artist. Much of his work is
equal to the finest oriental calligraphy (-by crazy drunken geniuses,
like Chang Hsu).
He manages to combine the appearance of extreme randomness with the
feeling of powerful hidden structures -- all those marks and smears
add up to a fascinating visual language. His use of color and design
is very eccentric and unique, like Cezanne, van Gogh, Turner, or
El Greco.
Twombly is concerned with antiquity and the classics of literature
and art. People who live in a historical vacuum have trouble
appreciating his special genius. His work is a bafflement to smug
narrow-mindedness.
But here's what I don't like about him: Using oil pastels and crayons
over housepaint on cheap canvas is cruel to paintings conservators.
Ross Green
lib...@uvsc.edu
jAxAs
>Um hum; zen as Jim Dines hearts and robes.
>
>Kephart
EUREKA ! Finally ! Someone has mentioned one of my favorite
artists--a true study in obsessiveness. I personally think Jim Dine
is one of the most under-rated of artists, someone who should share
the pedestal with Jasper J.
--
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look for the silver lining, *****
***** And apply it to a pitchfork! *****
***** *****
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Wray Kephart
X Anyone out there grasp the obsurity of zen? I think so.
jAxAs
>Time had some article on Cy Twombly a while back. I cannot see the
>big fuss made over a bunch of scribbles. That or these jagged rusty
>hunks of metal I see in public places that are referred to as sculpture.
(Is she referring to the work of Richard Chamberlain, or sculpture
in general ??)
>Call the scrap metal dealer.
>CAT
CAT-SCAN has been vociferous in her declaration of disdain for art
that doesn't meet her aesthetic criteria. She bases her discourse solely
on the superficial assessment of the visual qualities of the work of
artists like Cy Twombly. Responders to her posts have tried to point
out that a deeper knowledge of the art and the artist might lead CAT to
some enlightened re-assessment. Others feel that knowing more about
the context and conceptual basis for the work is unimportant to one's
appreciation of it.
I don't think it contributes anything to this newsgroup when people
have nothing more to say than to declare their taste/distaste for
particular art and artists. Who cares that someone likes or dislikes
something. That's childish trivia. If you have nothing to contribute
other than expressing your personal preferences, then spare us. And
it's just as pointlessly foolish for us to respond, thinking we can
somehow change CAT's taste in art without even knowing whether she
is art-wise, or just someone with common taste spouting off.
If there is something that irritates you, as CAT is irritated by certain
art work, then tell us WHAT you know about WHY it irritates you--so
much that you feel compelled to tell the world about it. Give us some
indication that you know something about the subject from an
informed objective, not just a subjective, viewpoint and can
discuss intelligently (or otherwise) why you feel the way you do.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look, it's silver hair, *****
***** So don't call it grey! *****
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> This is what I heard someone "in the know" say re: Twombly. On his 18th
> birthday his grandmother said "Cy, darling, aren't you going to open my card
> to you?" Cy said "I think I'll do that later." To which his grandmother
> replied, "No, I think you should do that now." So Cy went upstairs, took the
> card down and opened it. Inside was a check for 1 million. If anyone is under
> the impression Twombly is an artist who really struggled his way up, they are
> completely mistaken.
Well then good. at least we can say that some of the very
rich have been doing something worthwhile with their time!
I believe he also lives in a castle in Italy. so what?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
http://cc.usu.edu/~sl2lf/
jAxAs
> I knew I was going to step on some toes.
And I knew I would step on yours, but that was the point. I wanted to
hear you bellow!!!! Not just make trite comments about your art
dislikes.
> I know it irritates me because I like work that shows skill.
I don't know that I grasp the meaning of that remark. You're
irritated because you can't appreciate un-skilled work??
> I admire fine draftsmanship. I
>don't see any skill in ...........(deleted)
And there are plenty of people who would agree with you. But that is neither
interesting nor newsworthy. What might be interesting is reading an
enlightened analysis of WHY -- or another dissertation on the psychology
of art, or whatever. It's obvious that all you needed was a little prodding.
Glad we haven't scared you off.
JaxaS -- False Starts aren't exclusive to J.J.
jAxAs
>
>jAxAs (an...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
>> (Is she referring to the work of Richard Chamberlain, or sculpture
>> in general ??)
>> ***** + Jackass from Texas + *****
>> ***** Look, it's silver hair, *****
>> ***** So don't call it grey! *****
>Richard Chaimberlain was Dr. Kildare and the Thornbird Priest, you mean
>*John* Chaimberlain.
>
>Margery Cohen
Thank you dear. All this silver hair is natural, and along
with it goes the privilege of forgetfulness. Or confusion.
Some call it senility.
Jaxas -- Silver mane and all.
Joseph F. McElroy
>reinforces that temporal sense I get from his work... but also
>contemporary digital time.
Excellent. I find tremendous meaning in Cy's work. We have room
at the Phila Museum of Art dedicated to an installation of his
work and it is always a stop for me. At first because I hated
it and wanted to understand why someone would do this
scribbling. But then with time I came to see his mark making as
inventive and the imagery as effective. You have to think about
his work because the images are there but they are not a
sign you are familiar with. Once you attach meaning to the signs,
you can build meaning from the artwork. In a sense, his work
illustrates to me certain results of quantum mechanics, it
becomes what it is when you observe it. Thus, you are forced to
look at his work in order to make it meaningful. You can't ignore
it, because if you do then there is nothing there to ignore.
--
Joseph F. McElroy. A resident of Philadelphia, PA. An artist,
software and programming consultant, actor, poet, corporate
president. Graduate of Duke University and the Pennsylvania
Academy of Fine Arts. 33 years old. 6'5" 275 lb. Good looking.
Ross Green
> >Ross Green wrote,
> >Twombly is concerned with antiquity and the classics of literature
> >and art. People who live in a *historical vacuum* have trouble
> >appreciating his special genius. His work is a bafflement to smug
> >narrow-mindedness.
>
> *Just call me Hoover then.
Dear President Hoover (I know you're really Rush Limbaugh):
Dammit, Hoover, damn!... A century after Malevich and you still
haven't a clue! Who made you the spokesperson for knownothingism?
Who's nest on your hit-list? James Joyce? Beckett? Stravinsky?
Balanchine? That weirdo Ludwig Wittgenstein?
> I have always wanted to tweak the art establishment's nose and now I
> can worldwide.
Now you're being honest.
> I will also check some publications at the library or book store.
Thank you. Do the same for all the other modern artists and your
criticisms will carry more weight. Good luck.
-Ross Green
lib...@uvsc.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Painting is made for dentists." -- Francis Picabia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only useless things are indispensable." -- Picabia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CAT
an...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>Glad we haven't scared you off.
>
> JaxaS -- False Starts aren't exclusive
to J.J.
Just cruising in my A-10 ready to strafe the art establishment! Locked
and load ready to rock.
I'll be back later to lob a few more grenades.
> Not just make trite comments about your art
>dislikes.
HA! Speaking of trite
In article <3pt07e$m...@park.uvsc.edu> Ross Green, lib...@uvsc.edu writes:
>Dammit, Hoover, damn!... A century after Malevich and you still
>haven't a clue! Who made you the spokesperson for knownothingism?
>Who's nest on your hit-list? James Joyce? Beckett? Stravinsky?
>Balanchine? That weirdo Ludwig Wittgenstein?
>Dear President Hoover (I know you're really Rush Limbaugh):
Hi Millard Fillmore,
Run out of prozak there jocko?
Sounds like the Emporer's closet of new oufits. I like Stravinsky.
What about John Cage? You like him.
Rothko is in my crosshairs righ now. Black canvases worthy of a house
painter created by a charltan.
>Now you're being honest.
Have been honest all the time.
>Thank you. Do the same for all the other modern artists and your
>criticisms will carry more weight. Good luck.
I remember a lot of them from art history classes plus lot of pschyco
babble art speak by teachers.
enjoying the joust.
take care. I will return later for more fun and games.
CAT
Thomas C. Waters
CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net> writes:
> What about John Cage? You like him.
I do. I think his stuff is great!!!!! I remember the first time I
went to see the Merce Cunningham dance Company, Columbus OH, probably
1980 or 81...
The friend I was with couldn't stand the "sound" and would get up every
few minutes and walk out of the theater and then in a few minutes
would come back inside. Fortunately, we were sitting near the back and
he wasn't disturbing anyone.
I wouldn't call his music beautiful... but I sure do think it is
powerful. I can't imagine listening to it alone, but with dance or
connected to an installation I find it wonderful!!!!
BTW, I like stavinski too!!!!! I think stravinski would like cage if
he were alive today.
>Rothko is in my crosshairs righ now. Black canvases worthy of a house
>painter created by a charltan.
Sounds just like Mani Deli.... can't you pick original words to slam
someone... or at least learn how to spell the ones you use?????
Maybe you are Mani using an alias name.....
Since you bring up Cage, and considering all the talk about Rothco,
Twombly, et al....
Seems to me we keep dancing (parading or protesting depending upon your
perspective... maybe even charading...) around a couple of issues. I
wonder if we could quit taking pot shots at dead artists like Rothko
long enough to try and discuss them????? I know, I'm asking for a
lot. I've been around the net long enough to know that getting people
to really think and share discourse is difficult.
First of all, is the issue or representation. Is all art, or all good
art representational... is it possible for art to be about something
other than representation. Does art need to be narrative to be
understood or can it operate on some other levels???
Is art about "objects"??? What happens when the artist begins to
explore the boundaries of that object and the expectations of the
object??? Seems to me that Cage's work isn't about object, his work is
about space/environment/area, Rothco too uses an object and describes
that object, but his work is more about space. Can art be about
experience as opposed to being about object???
What role does an understanding of reality play in the creation and
understanding of art??? Is there anysuch thing as reality??
How does the function of an object (the function of art possibly)
affect an understanding of it??? Why is it so difficult for people to
accept that art can function in a wide variety of ways????
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
Rodger G Coleman
> *Just call me Hoover then.
>
>was concerned with the classics of literature and art? Are his marks like
>heiroglyphics or code to be read? Greg S. mentioned "he references to
>ancient tales etc....". How do you read that in those marks and
>scratches? This is not a smart aleck question BTW.
You're right. This is not a smart-aleck question, it's a dumb one.
This leads me to believe you have never actually seen much of Twombly's
work, or at least not "in person." These references are not "heiroglyphics"
or "code" but plain old english words written on many of his canvases. Perhaps
you should look more closely at someone's work before trashing them in this
forum.
I guess it makes you feel really "smart" and "above it all" to display such
willful ignorance, but it's nothing new. To say that "a child could do it"
might just be a good place to begin appreciating Twombly's art (if, indeed
that is what you are trying to do.) (I have my doubts, though)
> Whenever I make my way to Texas I will check it out. I will also check
>some publications at the library or book store.
That's an excellent idea. Get back to us when you've learned something.
Rodger
Margery Cohen
> (Is she referring to the work of Richard Chamberlain, or sculpture
> in general ??)
> ***** + Jackass from Texas + *****
> ***** Look, it's silver hair, *****
> ***** So don't call it grey! *****
> ***** *****
> ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Richard Chaimberlain was Dr. Kildare and the Thornbird Priest, you mean
*John* Chaimberlain.
Margery Cohen
--
CAT
>have nothing more to say than to declare their taste/distaste for
>particular art and artists. Who cares that someone likes or dislikes
>something. That's childish trivia. If you have nothing to contribute
>other than expressing your personal preferences, then spare us.
Hello JaXaS,
Free country last time I checked. I am not going to pretrend to like
something and make up a lot of art-speak about it just to appear
enlightned. I have had some private responses to my mail box. Some just
nasty flames and some were really nice taking me to task or agreeing with
me.
> And it's just as pointlessly foolish for us to respond, thinking we can
>somehow change CAT's taste in art without even knowing whether she
>is art-wise, or just someone with *common taste* spouting off.
Oh those vulgar commoners! Stick that enlightned nose up. Be careful
next rain storm, you may drown.
>Responders to her posts have tried to point
>out that a deeper knowledge of the art and the artist might lead CAT to
>some enlightened re-assessment.
What are you all smoking? (Just kidding!!!)
So if I decide to call rusty hunks of metal worthy of the scrap heap
great art I am automaticaly enlightened? I am fluent in art-speak and
would fit right into the enlightned reassesment group if I wanted too.
>Ross Green wrote,
>Twombly is concerned with antiquity and the classics of literature
>and art. People who live in a *historical vacuum* have trouble
>appreciating his special genius. His work is a bafflement to smug
>narrow-mindedness.
*Just call me Hoover then.
If it was an untitled work hanging on the wall, how would you know it
was concerned with the classics of literature and art? Are his marks like
heiroglyphics or code to be read? Greg S. mentioned "he references to
ancient tales etc....". How do you read that in those marks and
scratches? This is not a smart aleck question BTW.
>If there is something that irritates you, as CAT is irritated by certain
>art work, then tell us WHAT you know about WHY it irritates you--so
>much that you feel compelled to tell the world about it.......
I knew I was going to step on some toes. I know it irritates me
because I like work that shows skill. I admire fine draftsmanship. I
don't see any skill in piling a bunch of candy on the floor as skill. (60
Minutes story) Or buying a aluminum ladder at Sears putting it in a
gallery and watching folks walk around it mumbling while sipping wine. (A
local gallery show) Or making scribbles on canvas.
I have always wanted to tweak the art establishment's nose and now I
can worldwide. :-O
That 1st ammendment is a good thing, isn"t it? Let's see if you all can
change my tastes in art.
Well, there is a sale on ladders at Sears today. See you at the
hornet's nest.
CAT
BTW, Menil Museum...
>The Cy Twombly wing was only recently dedicated
>and you might actually learn a little about his work and his
>intellect by reading some of the articles being written in conjunction
>with the dedication.
Whenever I make my way to Texas I will check it out. I will also check
CA...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Wray Kephart
X CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net> wrote:
X > >Ross Green wrote,
X > >Twombly is concerned with antiquity and the classics of literature
X > >and art. People who live in a *historical vacuum* have trouble
X > >appreciating his special genius. His work is a bafflement to smug
X > >narrow-mindedness.
X >
X > *Just call me Hoover then.
X Dear President Hoover (I know you're really Rush Limbaugh):
X Dammit, Hoover, damn!... A century after Malevich and you still
X haven't a clue! Who made you the spokesperson for knownothingism?
X Who's nest on your hit-list? James Joyce? Beckett? Stravinsky?
X Balanchine? That weirdo Ludwig Wittgenstein?
Actually Ross, I think he meant the upright as apposed to canister
model.
Kephart
Mattison T. FitzGerald
: Anyone out there grasp the obsurity of zen? I think so.
The shreaded chickens and declawed cats are too blind to see the spaces
inside beyond and in between
remember the world is flat flat falt
Mattison FitzGerald
url:htp://www.cc.swarthmore/~sjohnson/mattison
shreader the header ?
Mattison T. FitzGerald
: >time, and time's passage. The references to ancient tales
Wonder if he is single?
giggles
Now how bout we all shread the critic fron the NY Times who gave Cy such
a poor review ? He seems to be a peoples painter? Not a critics painter.
As I watch the reviews as the work moves west they get better and better
- wonder if that has anything to do with the enlightment of westen
brilliance and thought?
Mattison FitzGerald
emerging artist
ready set shread -
url:http://www.cc.swarthmore/~sjohnson/mattison
CAT
Ooooo, Mr. Pretentious
I have only seen reproductions BTW.
>I guess it makes you feel really "smart" and "above it all" to display
such
>willful ignorance, but it's nothing new. To say that "a child could do
it"...
Same old cliche.
JaxaS wrote.
>I don't know that I grasp the meaning of that remark. You're
>irritated because you can't appreciate un-skilled work??
I am not irritated that I don't like unskilled work. I know that skill
is only one part of a work of art.
Who would want to live in a house or work in a building designed by an
unskilled architect? Not me. Attend a concert by a unskilled pianist? If
I go to the local symphony and sit down at the piano and butcher some
Chopin, the conductor would throw me out and the audience would boo and
demand their money back. (I would not blame them because I am a crappy
piano player.) But I could say that I am playing in an whimsical,
eccentric raw style that mingles a sense of melancholy with an
asynchronous sense of higher consciousness and some enlightened critic
would agree and pick up on my eccentric genius. (Art speak sounds really
good when spoken with a Haaavard accent. Like Wm. F. Buckley sounds. Or
the announcer on "Hearts of Space" on N.P.R.)
We have a local art editor at the paper who rivals the best of the
art-speakers. I have picked up lots of phrases from her columns.
>And there are plenty of people who would agree with you. But that is
neither
>interesting nor newsworthy. What might be interesting is reading an
>enlightened analysis of WHY -- or another dissertation on the psychology
>of art, or whatever.
I wish those folks would step up to the plate.
I will still check out some books from the library. (So much to do and
such little time.) :-/ Been a while since the modern art history
classes.
>It's obvious that all you needed was a little prodding.
Keep it up! :-)
>Glad we haven't scared you off.< =<:-O
>JaxaS -- False Starts aren't exclusive to J.J.< I like your
signatures
OK, here is another potshot. Tell me why this is great art.
Schnabel sticks a bunch of broken porcelin together that a junk dealer
would toss in the dumpster and some quack art editor/speculator writes
something like the previous psychobabble, "eccentric-..... -sense of
higher consciousness" in an art publication.
CAT
Tolstoy said,
Whenever some artist invents a new fad in art, some ass of a critic
will trot out a new system of aesthetics to justify that fad.
CAT
twa...@pitt.edu writes:
>Sounds just like Mani Deli.... can't you pick original words to slam
>someone... or at least learn how to spell the ones you use?????
Hi Tom,
We all have typos, even you. Rothco Rothco, now I got it.
>Maybe you are Mani using an alias name.....
>
>Since you bring up Cage, and considering all the talk about Rothco,
>Twombly, et al....
Nope not CAT is not Mani.
Cage...uhh, I don't know.
Enjoying taking potshots at these sacred cows. Lot's of interesting
posts defending these artists which I enjoy reading.
Later folks,
CAT
CAT
Just finished reading your reply. Thanks, good post and lot's to
ponder. I have only seen Cage on TV once or twice. I really dont know
what to think about him. I just love Stravinsky's Firebird Suite.
>I can't imagine listening to it alone, but with dance or (Cage)
>connected to an installation I find it wonderful!!!!
That would be interesting. I don't think I could listen to him on the
walkman while working out though. ;-)
>Seems to me we keep dancing (parading or protesting....
All three! ;-)
> I wonder if we could quit taking pot shots at dead artists like Rothko
>long enough to try and discuss them?????
Ummm OK, Cannot promise anything though. There is a previous post of mine
with a few shots. So watch out. I mentioned J. Schnabel.
I like seeing folks getting excited about these artists they admire
even if I am at odds with them. You think that an old CAT can learn new
tricks? You know, I am just as likely to crank up Pearl Jam as well as
listen to Beethoven. I wonder why I cannot accept some of this modern art
but listen to different forms of music?
talk to you later,
CAT
Also thanks Greg S., JaxaS, R. Green, Wynnk and the rest for their posts
and mail and putting up with my song and dance.
Ross Green
>
> X CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net> wrote:
>
> *Just call me Hoover then.
> Actually Ross, I think he meant the upright as opposed to canister
> model.
>
> Kephart
Thanks, Kephart, I see your point: The kind of Hoover that sucks.
jAxAs
>What about John Cage? You like him.
>CAT
Yes, I do -- but not because you say I do.
What about Philip Glass? You like him?
(Notice: That's TWO questions.)
JaXaS -- the perfect perfectionist.
Jeff Harrington
: Hi Tom,
: We all have typos, even you. Rothco Rothco, now I got it.
Spelling flames belong in alt.flame.spelling, CAT.
: Cage...uhh, I don't know.
: Enjoying taking potshots at these sacred cows. Lot's of interesting
: posts defending these artists which I enjoy reading.
The one aspect of new art that never ceases to amaze me is how people
will parade their lack of openness to new experience like a fuckin'
badge. And then criticize the people who've had interesting experiences
from this new art, like they were stupid or mis-guided through
critical-overkill.
I don't even know why I like Twombly. I'm sick of having to explain it to
people. Like all good art experiences, it just sticks in your craw.
I don't try and explain it with "calligraphic markings" or other
textual explanations... it's just effective and bold and original. And
it's got more guts than 99.99999% of the art I see made by people with
"technique." To my mind, there has been more bad representational art
made this century than any since the beginning of caveman art.
Technically accomplished representational art truly sucks this century in
general. Most of the excitement I see in new art has nothing to do with
technical accomplishment!
: Later folks,
: CAT
CAT, don't bother, if this is the extent of your contribution to this
newsgroup.
--
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
--
(*) Most Beautiful Site on the Net: Net in Arcadia http://www.parnasse.com/(*)
(*) Elsie Russell's Pics! Jeff Harrington's Music ->>>> Art + The Bizarre (*)
(*) Jeff's Musical WWW Site->>>> http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm (*)
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV - All Days But Thursdays(ABC) on CBS Since 1984 (*)
Jeff Harrington
: I like seeing folks getting excited about these artists they admire
: even if I am at odds with them. You think that an old CAT can learn new
: tricks? You know, I am just as likely to crank up Pearl Jam as well as
: listen to Beethoven. I wonder why I cannot accept some of this modern art
: but listen to different forms of music?
You're not listening to serious modern music, either for that matter. It
would have been more impressive to mention that you can listen to Kurtag
or Boulez or Lutoslawski *and* Beethoven. I'm something of a PJ fan,
myself, but it's not the cultural equivalent of Twombly, or Rothko or
Schnabel, the visual artists you've recently dissed.
Dissing modern artists and then saying you like pop music is saying squat...
Thomas C. Waters
idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff Harrington) writes:
> CAT (cat...@nc5.infi.net) wrote:
> : Hi Tom,
> : We all have typos, even you. Rothco Rothco, now I got it.
>
> Spelling flames belong in alt.flame.spelling, CAT.
Don't give CAT a hard time, I flamed her spelling first... she was
merely replying in-kind.
Jeff, when did you become net.police????
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
Patrick C Leger
> posts defending these artists which I enjoy reading.
Let's see...You complain about works that show no craftsmanship, yet
you're just taking pot shots to get a reaction. I think the works in
question have more content than your sniping...
> Later folks,
> CAT
Chris
--
Chris Leger (bl...@cmu.edu)
Carnegie Mellon University
Field Robotics Center
Patrick C Leger
> I like seeing folks getting excited about these artists they admire
> even if I am at odds with them. You think that an old CAT can learn new
> tricks? You know, I am just as likely to crank up Pearl Jam as well as
> listen to Beethoven.
Pearl Jam? Music? Oh, please.
jAxAs
>Dissing modern artists and then saying you like pop music is saying squat...
Good observation, but we wouldn't command you to stand ... just put the
seat down when you're through !
Jaxas -- animule of a different color.
Jeff Harrington
: In article <D9344...@dorsai.org>
: idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff Harrington) writes:
Listen, Tom :) Don't post this kind of comment - email it. I had no
idea this was a second order spelling flame...
Thanks for the diss...
sheesh... some people....
Mani Deli
> If it was an untitled work hanging on the wall, how would you know it
>was concerned with the classics of literature and art? Are his marks like
>heiroglyphics or code to be read? Greg S. mentioned "he references to
>ancient tales etc....". How do you read that in those marks and
>scratches? This is not a smart aleck question BTW.
Rgco...@athena.mit.edu to All
Rg> You're right. This is not a smart-aleck question, it's a dumb one.
But you didn't answer the question. Typical academic ploy. This noodle-head
can only say "dumb" because the question offends him.
So tell us what's dumb about it?
Rg> This leads me to believe you have never actually seen much of
Rg> Twombly's work, or at least not "in person." These references are not
Rg> "heiroglyphics" or "code" but plain old english words written on many
Rg> of his canvases. Perhaps you should look more closely at someone's work
Rg> before trashing them in this forum.
Excuses excuses. Suppose you only see reproductions of an artist's rather than
the original work does that prevent you from making a judgement? (another Dumb
question) You can surmise much from a reproduction. By looking at a
reproduction one can tell if an artists produce chicken scratches and then
writes some sort of crap on his canvases. If that's what I saw in reproduction
I sure wouldn't go out of my way and waste time trying to see originals.
I've seen Rothko and his idiot brethren ad-nauseam in the bare-assed original.
If I had only seen them in reproduction I would not have bothered. A
reproduction is a visual review. If a reproduction indicates crap one needn't
waste the effort to seek out the original.
I'm sure that most of the Academic Modern Art fans here wouldn't go to a
Norman Rockwell show and I wouldn't imagine that forcing them to face the
original would greatly alter their opinions. Nor do I think this is an
indication of ignorance or a lack of knowledge.
If one followed this advice one would have to visit 50 shows a month because
you don't like the reproductions you see in the art magazine. Indeed you might
just miss the great revelation of the original.
Few people have seen an original Leonardo, Michelangelo or a Vermeer and are
only familiar with the reproductions. They can base their major judgment
solely on the printed copy. The fact is that anyone can do the same for an
idiot as well as a genius.
Rg> I guess it makes you feel really "smart" and "above it all" to display
Rg> such willful ignorance, but it's nothing new.
Are we confronted with another patronizing Blow-bag educator here?
Rg> To say that "a child
Rg> could do it" might just be a good place to begin appreciating Twombly's
Rg> art (if, indeed that is what you are trying to do.) (I have my doubts,
Rg> though)
No, it is a good place to forget about Twombly.
If a piece of so-called-art gives you the impression that it was done by a
child it is probably due to its failure rather then yours.
Its nothing new because it been done for the last fifty years. Besides, I find
most childish art stupid, boring and somewhat childish. If its good by
kindergarten graduate standards it doesn't necessarily deserve a Museum.
One shouldn't have to try to appreciate an art work. If it fails to gain your
appreciation It's probably not your problem.
Mani DeLi
Cooties
idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff Harrington) wrote:
>CAT, don't bother, if this is the extent of your contribution to this
>newsgroup.
>
If, after quoting an entire letter, this was the most the most you
could muster in reply, WHY bother?
Mike
Jeff Harrington
: In article <D9344...@dorsai.org>,
: idea...@news.dorsai.org (Jeff Harrington) wrote:
Huh? I wrote a lot more than that! You're misquoting...
Sheesh... bad day?
Thomas C. Waters
he adds his empty rhetoric/opinions here:
In article <60.55.494...@canrem.com>
mani...@canrem.com (Mani Deli) writes:
> Rg> This leads me to believe you have never actually seen much of
> Rg> Twombly's work, or at least not "in person." These references are not
> Rg> "heiroglyphics" or "code" but plain old english words written on many
> Rg> of his canvases. Perhaps you should look more closely at someone's work
> Rg> before trashing them in this forum.
(Mani's reply)
> Excuses excuses. Suppose you only see reproductions of an artist's rather than
> the original work does that prevent you from making a judgement? (another Dumb
> question) You can surmise much from a reproduction. By looking at a
> reproduction one can tell if an artists produce chicken scratches and then
> writes some sort of crap on his canvases. If that's what I saw in reproduction
> I sure wouldn't go out of my way and waste time trying to see originals.
>
> I've seen Rothko and his idiot brethren ad-nauseam in the bare-assed original.
> If I had only seen them in reproduction I would not have bothered. A
> reproduction is a visual review. If a reproduction indicates crap one needn't
> waste the effort to seek out the original.
>
> I'm sure that most of the Academic Modern Art fans here wouldn't go to a
> Norman Rockwell show and I wouldn't imagine that forcing them to face the
> original would greatly alter their opinions. Nor do I think this is an
> indication of ignorance or a lack of knowledge.
Maybe that's because the Rockwell stuff most of us know best was
produced FOR reproduction, and in that sense, it was seen ibn the
format the artist desired.
This points out one of the big reasons Mani, that you fail to
understand artists such as Rothko, Twombly, et al. It isn't meant to
be like other work... it demands investigation in differing ways...
I don't know why I waste the time... you don't want to see things any
differently than you do... I have more luck talking to a brick wall.
While Rocjkwell may have had a technical competence, his work fails in
that it illustrates a narrow, and most-often false view of the world
he was supposedly portraying. The people, families, etc. in his
images are these fake idealized lies that represent so few people, so
little of the world in which we live. They show skill in the creation
of them, but hold little for most people to identify with. And, they
are really easy to forget... really easy to look at and capture the
"intent" in a few minutes and then move on, forget about them.
I won't speak for Rothko or any other artist... but it seems to me that
the folks you are busy slamming like Rothko, created work that douesn't
allow the viewer to forget it, to ignor it so quickly or easily.
Rockwell's work provides a facade that doesn't speak to feelings or
ideas.. his work presents a mask hiding everythiung real. Where as a
Rothko, Twombly, et al require us to really look at them, spend time
with then, explore the surface texture and the way areas in a work
relate to each other and to you the viewer.
My Grandpa used to telll the story of when Rockwell painted him
carrying a buch of apples. He tells of how he was spotted, directed,
and how the resulting Mag cover wasn't much like the original scene.
I think one of the biggest reasons I don't really care for Rockwell is
that I don't care for lies... I don't care for fiction masquerading as
reality.
Sorry, I got going there and wrapped two issues up together:
much contemporary art, unlike some art of the past, demands that we
experience the real work to gain an understanding of it... that seeing
art/experiencing art IS experiential.
that some representational/illustrative work doesn't provide anything
for a lot of people to relate to.
>
> If one followed this advice one would have to visit 50 shows a month because
> you don't like the reproductions you see in the art magazine. Indeed you might
> just miss the great revelation of the original.
Exactly!!!!! Why not see 50 shows a month, and turn off that Boob tube
TV.... Why not make seeing art a regular activity???
BTW, I wouldn't personally want to try to take in 50 shows a month. It
would be stimulus overload. I'd prefer to see 10 or 15, and really see
them, enjoy then and deal with them than try to take in too much. So
much of our culture is about get-as-much-in-as-possible. I think it is
one reason why our culture is failing people so.
But that, is the subject of a different post.
>
> Few people have seen an original Leonardo, Michelangelo or a Vermeer and are
> only familiar with the reproductions. They can base their major judgment
> solely on the printed copy.
And what a shame this is!!!! We lose so much when we settle for a
mediocre reproduction. Wouldn't it be great if people made an effort
to go to a museum to see original art... drive to DC or NY or Chicago
or whereever the heck a certian work resides (Europe too). People
drive all the way to Florida to ride some rides at Disneyworld... why
not drive to DC to see work at the Smithsonian. I didn't really care
for Winslow Holmes or Wistler(sp) until I saw some originals. Same
thing for Monet and other impressionists. I thought , what's the big
deal... until I saw the real thing.
Think about the sculpture "David" NO reproduction can provide the same
experience of the work as one has when you see the real thing.
The reproductions of the old Masters do not provide people with an
experience of the orig. work, the repros proviide the viewewr with an
experience of the reproduction so that the view (at least some viewers)
don't think they need to see the original. What a shame!!!
(Mani speaking about Twombly)
> If a piece of so-called-art gives you the impression that it was done by a
> child it is probably due to its failure rather then yours.
I have never seen twombly's work as child like... I think Mani is
thowing aroiund that BS empty rhetoric again... it is so easy to
discount something with a phrase... easier than talking about the real
work.
> Its nothing new because it been done for the last fifty years. Besides, I find
> most childish art stupid, boring and somewhat childish. If its good by
> kindergarten graduate standards it doesn't necessarily deserve a Museum.
IMHO, one of the biggest failures of some work pre 1940 is that it is
so devoid of feeling and creative passion. Children are by nature
creative... until we beat it out of them and tewll them how wrong it is
to be creative....
Maybe that's what Mani has a problem with.. he can't be creative so he
deems everyone who is as stupid and boring....
>
> One shouldn't have to try to appreciate an art work. If it fails to gain your
> appreciation It's probably not your problem.
Oh Mani... you are too funny!!!!!
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
Jeff Harrington
: In article <D9344...@dorsai.org> Jeff Harrington,
: idea...@news.dorsai.org writes:
: >CAT, don't bother, if this is the extent of your contribution to this
: >newsgroup.
: What the matter? Can't take the heat? Sacred cows getting shot at!
Oh no... it's just again, my amazement with people parading their lack of
openess to new artistic experience like a badge! It'd be different if
you had something to say about how his calligraphic tendencies are
redundant and his colors are whatever... but no... we're not give the
opportunity to appreciate the depth of your appreciation! I've got no
sacred cows... maybe my spouse, but her name is Elsie, so it's a given! :)
: In article <3pvaiu$q...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> jAxAs,
: an...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:
: >Yes, I do -- but not because you say I do.
: You had better like him or I will sick Jeff Harrington on you with his
: four letter words!
I do not use 4 letter words! I use words like "fuckin'" which are
actually 6 letter words plus an apostrophe and I use it to add emphasis.
Hell, I'm from Brooklyn; I'm fuckin' tonin' down my speech!
Later, CAT, keep up the good <yawn> work!
Rodger G Coleman
>Ooooo, Mr. Pretentious
Yeah, sure, whatever.....
> I have only seen reproductions BTW.
No kidding.
> I am not irritated that I don't like unskilled work. I know that skill
>is only one part of a work of art.
> Who would want to live in a house or work in a building designed by an
>unskilled architect? Not me. Attend a concert by a unskilled pianist? If
>I go to the local symphony and sit down at the piano and butcher some
>Chopin, the conductor would throw me out and the audience would boo and
>demand their money back. (I would not blame them because I am a crappy
>piano player.) But I could say that I am playing in an whimsical,
>eccentric raw style that mingles a sense of melancholy with an
>asynchronous sense of higher consciousness and some enlightened critic
>would agree and pick up on my eccentric genius. (Art speak sounds really
>good when spoken with a Haaavard accent. Like Wm. F. Buckley sounds. Or
>the announcer on "Hearts of Space" on N.P.R.)
This is idiotic. In no way is Twombly "unskilled." I doubt that
your butchering of Chopin or whatever 19th century fluffball would be taken
seriously, no matter how much imitation "art-speak" you surrounded it with.
It really was so much better in the good old 18th and 19th centuries when
music was pretty melodies and painters painted pretty pictures of landscapes
and heroic events from history, eh?
I guess the one good thing about your own time is Pearl Jam, eh? (slang
for semen, BTW) Get out your powdered wig and rock on, dude!
Rodger
Rodger G Coleman
> > If it was an untitled work hanging on the wall, how would you know it
> >was concerned with the classics of literature and art? Are his marks like
> >heiroglyphics or code to be read? Greg S. mentioned "he references to
> >ancient tales etc....". How do you read that in those marks and
> >scratches? This is not a smart aleck question BTW.
>
>Rgco...@athena.mit.edu to All
> Rg> You're right. This is not a smart-aleck question, it's a dumb one.
>
>But you didn't answer the question. Typical academic ploy. This noodle-head
>can only say "dumb" because the question offends him.
Well, I think I answered the question, and you even quote my answer below.
I don't know what kind of "ploy" this is, but it seems to serve your interests.
> So tell us what's dumb about it?
See below :
>> Rg> This leads me to believe you have never actually seen much of
> Rg> Twombly's work, or at least not "in person." These references are not
> Rg> "heiroglyphics" or "code" but plain old english words written on many
> Rg> of his canvases. Perhaps you should look more closely at someone's work
> Rg> before trashing them in this forum.
>
>Excuses excuses. Suppose you only see reproductions of an artist's rather than
>the original work does that prevent you from making a judgement? (another Dumb
>question) You can surmise much from a reproduction. By looking at a
>reproduction one can tell if an artists produce chicken scratches and then
>writes some sort of crap on his canvases. If that's what I saw in reproduction
>I sure wouldn't go out of my way and waste time trying to see originals.
Why, of course not. If you know it all, what is left to learn? Why make
yourself uncomfortably challenged? There's plenty of pretty pictures out
there to make you feel good.
>I'm sure that most of the Academic Modern Art fans here wouldn't go to a
>Norman Rockwell show and I wouldn't imagine that forcing them to face the
>original would greatly alter their opinions. Nor do I think this is an
>indication of ignorance or a lack of knowledge.
Norman Rockwell?!?!? Jeezus, no wonder.
> Rg> I guess it makes you feel really "smart" and "above it all" to display
> Rg> such willful ignorance, but it's nothing new.
>
>Are we confronted with another patronizing Blow-bag educator here?
This is pretty funny! I'm actually being accused of being not only an academic,
but of being an "educator" (not to mention "Blow-bag - har-de-har)...Does
this mean that only academics and educators can "appreciate" Twombly? Hardly.
Maybe I should take this opportunity to say that I am NOT an artist (although
I do dabble, and I'm, of course, interested in art) but I AM musician. I play
in a band that plays "free-jazz" in a punkish vein. I am sure you would hate
our music as much as you seem to hate all things modern. I relate to Twombly
in a musical way - in a way that most "academics" and critics might regard
as "incorrect" or irrelevant. As a practitioner of "free jazz" I appreciate
the freedom of his mark-making, the "dissonance" of his colors and scribbles,
the transcendence of standard forms and formulae and, above all, I value the
effect his work has on me. I find his work inspirational on both a visceral
and cerebral level. Isn't that enough? Am I allowed this appreciation
without being called an (shudder) educator? (perhaps if you didn't disdain
education so much, you might have learned something the years)
> Rg> To say that "a child
> Rg> could do it" might just be a good place to begin appreciating Twombly's
> Rg> art (if, indeed that is what you are trying to do.) (I have my doubts,
> Rg> though)
>
>No, it is a good place to forget about Twombly.
>If a piece of so-called-art gives you the impression that it was done by a
>child it is probably due to its failure rather then yours.
>Its nothing new because it been done for the last fifty years. Besides, I find
>most childish art stupid, boring and somewhat childish. If its good by
>kindergarten graduate standards it doesn't necessarily deserve a Museum.
This same kind of reductionist, simple minded rejection is levelled against
modern jazz as well. I suggested that it makes a good starting place because
while it's easy to say, "anyone could do it" it turns out to be much more
difficult than you might think. I would suggest trying it yourself. Make a
bunch of scribbles on paper or blow some noise through a saxophone and see
what kind of results you get. While it may be true that "anyone could
do it" the question is why don't they? Because the critria for assessment
is more elusive than "I recognize the pretty flowers, therefore it's a good
painting," Or, "I recognize 'Autumn Leaves' and it's such a pretty little tune,
so therefore this is great art." In my experience, the criteria for aesthetic
judgement of art in this century (and, by the way, it's almost over, pal)
goes much deeper than re-creation of long established forms. In fact, I would
say that it borders on the spiritual, at least in the case of Twombly, Rothko,
De Kooning etc. as well as John Coltrane, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman etc.
>One shouldn't have to try to appreciate an art work.
So, you're really just too lazy, is that it?
>If it fails to gain your
>appreciation It's probably not your problem.
Look, I really hope your get great enjoyment out of your Norman Rockwell
picture books, but it has been my experience that the greatest art is
difficult at first, but rewards dilligent effort. But, hey, this is
America where philistinism is a virtue. Amazing that so much great art
has been created in such a cultural void.
Regards,
Rodger
ArtCITRINO
it validated.
Also in America we have you and we have me and we have Twombly!
I have seen Twombly in the flesh (his work) and it is breathtaking. I
swoon. Anyone can do it? NOT. My 3 year old grandaughter is a wonderfully
precocious artist but she cannot nor can Twombly do her.
There is a level that one must stretch to reach. Some do not ever stretch.
It is interesting to me to read that someone relates his music to
another's visual art. I am a painter who relates to music in that way.
Ciao, Rodger
Rachel Citrino
Wray Kephart
X OK, here is another potshot. Tell me why this is great art.
X Schnabel sticks a bunch of broken porcelin together that a junk dealer
X would toss in the dumpster and some quack art editor/speculator writes
X something like the previous psychobabble, "eccentric-..... -sense of
X higher consciousness" in an art publication.
Like many other fields <literature; scientific> his work is similarly
subject to peer review by others; and will bear up or fade with time.
<The fact that you cant grasp the work in process and intent does not
qualify *you* as a peer however>.
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X Enjoying taking potshots at these sacred cows. Lot's of interesting
X posts defending these artists which I enjoy reading.
Well, if you think your walking on sacred ground with a scorched earth
agenda, I think your bics out of fuel, and you left your matches at home.
Kephart
CAT
idea...@news.dorsai.org writes:
>CAT, don't bother, if this is the extent of your contribution to this
>newsgroup.
What the matter? Can't take the heat? Sacred cows getting shot at!
In article <3pvaiu$q...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> jAxAs,
an...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>Yes, I do -- but not because you say I do.
You had better like him or I will sick Jeff Harrington on you with his
four letter words!
>What about Philip Glass? You like him?
>(Notice: That's TWO questions.)
You should consider my typos art. I say it's art and it is. Typos for
typos sake!
Time to start a new thread;,= (Note typos)
CAT
twa...@pitt.edu writes:
>
>Don't give CAT a hard time, I flamed her spelling first... she was
>merely replying in-kind.
I forgot to mention way back after JaxaS first reply that I am male.
In article <D9394...@dorsai.org> Jeff Harrington,
idea...@news.dorsai.org writes:
>You're not listening to serious modern music, either for that matter. ..
Nonsense.
I don't take pop music seriously. It is just fun to dance and workout
to. And crank up in the car!
>Pearl Jam? Music? Oh, please.
Watch out the next rain storm or you will drown with that nose stuck
up there!
And stop rolling those eyes! You will tear that optic nerve. ;-)
>Let's see...You complain about works that show no craftsmanship, yet
>you're just taking pot shots to get a reaction.
Performance art! Right here right now!
jAxAs, an...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>Good observation, but we wouldn't command you to stand ... just put the
>seat down when you're through !
Got a bunch of comedians here! =>:-)
In article <D93z3...@crash.cts.com> Wray Kephart, kep...@crash.cts.com
writes:
>
>Well, if you think your walking on sacred ground with a scorched earth
>agenda, I think your bics out of fuel, and you left your matches at home.
>
>Kephart
I like that! Good show.
CAT (packin' a .45)
CAT
writes:
>
>Like many other fields <literature; scientific> his work is similarly
>subject to peer review by others; and will bear up or fade with time.
><The fact that you cant grasp the work in process and intent does not
>qualify *you* as a peer however>.
>
>Kephart
Hello Wray,
What would qualify a person as a peer?
<The fact that you cant grasp the work in process and intent does not
>qualify *you* as a peer however>
Everyone cops out with simialr answers like that.
thanks,
CAT
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net writes:
> > If it was an untitled work hanging on the wall, how would you know it
> >was concerned with the classics of literature and art? Are his marks like
> >heiroglyphics or code to be read? Greg S. mentioned "he references to
> >ancient tales etc....". How do you read that in those marks and
> >scratches? This is not a smart aleck question BTW.
my response: disregarding the frequent writing on the canvasses
there really is a lot of code to be read in those marks
you can clearly see Twombly's humanity in his marks... the
typical range of motion, arcs caused by activation of particular
joints, etc. Some have been created by great pressure and a stiff
elbow, others have the suppleness of a flexible supinating wrist,
etc. In Twombly's work those clues have become subject matter
and theme (whereas in a Duerer print you could still figure out
such things, as precisely how he moved his hand, whether he was sitting
when he was etching, etc., but he hasn't made that into a thematic
focus)
the marks in a Twombly can thus be described as non-childlike,
as physically impossible for a child to make...
> [clip]
> I'm sure that most of the Academic Modern Art fans here wouldn't go to a
> Norman Rockwell show and I wouldn't imagine that forcing them to face the
> original would greatly alter their opinions. Nor do I think this is an
> indication of ignorance or a lack of knowledge.
You could read the marks in a Rockwell and learn that he generally
relied on a mahlstick as a tool, was usually sitting. Despite that
he tries to symbolize the human condition, his technique stiffens
and restricts the human body. His human condition then, is that of
the american puritan, the ideal unphysical, disembodied.
but back to Twombly...
[clip]
> Rg> To say that "a child
> Rg> could do it" might just be a good place to begin appreciating Twombly's
> Rg> art (if, indeed that is what you are trying to do.) (I have my doubts,
> Rg> though)
>
> No, it is a good place to forget about Twombly.
> If a piece of so-called-art gives you the impression that it was done by a
> child it is probably due to its failure rather then yours.
> Its nothing new because it been done for the last fifty years. Besides, I find
> most childish art stupid, boring and somewhat childish. If its good by
> kindergarten graduate standards it doesn't necessarily deserve a Museum
a forthright analysis of twombly's marks, contrasted against children's
marks, would prove that twombly's are anything but young.
they do not look child-like.
i'd recommend Rhoda Kellogg's "The Art of Children" as a good book
to get familiar with children's tendencies in artmaking. She has some
interesting notions regarding certain universal tendencies among
children artists in many nations, quite fascinating stuff really...
comes from the Rudolf Arnheim school (just so you know some of the
pitfalls of her argumentation/methodology ahead of time)...
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
http://cc.usu.edu/~sl2lf/
Mani Deli
Tw> I wonder if we could quit taking pot shots at dead artists like Rothko
Tw> long enough to try and discuss them?????
We have been discussing Rothko and Co. for weeks. What's this dead artist
stuff? Are you a religious Rothkoid. Why should we quit? Give us a rational
reason?
Am I supposed to exhibit some sort of reverence for his corpse or his output
because he is dead? I couldn't care less whether the guy is dead or alive.
What does it have to do with criticizing his work?
Tw> First of all, is the issue or representation. Is all art, or all good
Tw> art representational... is it possible for art to be about something
Tw> other than representation.
Art can be about anything, representational or abstract. I.E. Islamic art is
sometimes great non-representational art. However I do expect art to be about
something. Rothko & Co. is about almost nothing. I think there is such a
vacuous amount of nothing here that he might have been more expressive had he
left the paint in the can.
Hey a new "ism." Paintcanism!
If you think Rothko is about something why not tell us what that is.
Does art need to be narrative to be
Tw> understood or can it operate on some other levels???
What other levels? As to narrative, I think there is even narrative in
Abstract Expressionism, its about DIRTY CANVAS.
Tw> Is art about "objects"??? What happens when the artist begins to
Tw> explore the boundaries of that object and the expectations of the
Tw> object???
The "boundaries of that object and the expectations of the object." Pure
ARTSPEAK.
If a student at the Abstract Academy is looking for these sorts of
transcendental answers its no wonder he's destined for failure. I'm sure
however that our explorer Twater has been off on this safari seeking "the
boundaries and expectation of the object" for quite a while. Perhaps Twater
can inform us about some of his marvelous discoveries on these matters.
Seems to me that Cage's work isn't about object, his work
Tw> is about space/environment/area, Rothko too uses an object and
Tw> describes that object, but his work is more about space. Can art be
Tw> about experience as opposed to being about object???
More Artspeak.
There isn't a cubic inch of space in Rothko. His crap is as flat as a
bedsheet. Even the great Clement Greenberg admitted a this. Tell us about the
"experience" you perceive from the Rothko "Object" and especially his so
called "four and a half dimensional space."
Tw> What role does an understanding of reality play in the creation and
Tw> understanding of art??? Is there anysuch thing as reality??
Tw> How does the function of an object (the function of art possibly)
Tw> affect an understanding of it??? Why is it so difficult for people
Tw> to accept that art can function in a wide variety of ways????
Of course when you ask these sort of nonsense doubletalk questions you can
only expect an endless Artspeak answer. Its also the twaddle you can talk
about with Post Modernists. The naive student thinks all this is profound.
His next job is to learn what I call "Excuse theory." I won't go into detail
about this now except to mention that it is the talk you learn to excuse
incompetence.
Is Twater a question mark compulsive?
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Thomas C. Waters
CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net> writes:
> >Don't give CAT a hard time, I flamed her spelling first... she was
> >merely replying in-kind.
>
> I forgot to mention way back after JaxaS first reply that I am male.
Yea?????
In the time I've been on the net, I've become really interested in the
assumptions we make and the attributions we put on other people based
only upon what they write and how they write it.
I don't remember if I saw some one else refer to you as a "she" or if I
just figured that from the name "CAT"....
I'm not a writer, but I guess a writer knows how to give a "voice " to
the written word....
BTW, I think we need to change the subject line... unless we are gonna
go back and really discuss Twombly's work....
Thomas C. Waters
"The views expressed here are mine, take what you like and leave the
rest."
"I always assume someone is queer unless they tell me otherwise.
Straight society has been doing this in reverse forever, and I'm tired
of it."
******************************************************************
* Send any direct replies to: twa...@pitt.edu
*
******************************************************************
CAT
>This is idiotic. In no way is Twombly "unskilled." I doubt that
>your butchering of Chopin or whatever 19th century fluffball would be
taken
>seriously, no matter how much imitation "art-speak" you surrounded it
with.
For your information BUSTER, I can butcher Bach as well as Arnold
Schonnberg! I hope it would not be taken seriously. That artspeak is real.
>I guess the one good thing about your own time is Pearl Jam, eh? (slang
>for semen, BTW)
Lots more than that Roscoe. I did not say they were the only one.
>This same kind of reductionist, simple minded rejection is levelled
against
>modern jazz as well.
More deja vu there sharpshooter. Just like you said about Pearl Jam.
Get out your powdered wig and rock on, dude!
(A bit biased there because my brother is with the band.) I like Glenn
Miller and Yanni too. Toss in some Steely Dan. Eeeevil musicians because
because they are skillful and play music that appeals to millions of
people. Scott Joplin is evil too.
>Get out your powdered wig and rock on, dude!<
Party on Wayne! Excellent Garth!
>Make a bunch of scribbles on paper or blow some noise through a
saxophone and see
>what kind of results you get.
Would your band mates let you play with them if you were not a skillful
sax player? (or whatever instrument you play)
You scribble. I scribble. The Almighty Twombly scribbles. We could never
scribble as the other does.
Greg S. wrote
>You could read the marks in a Rockwell and learn that he generally
>relied on a mahlstick as a tool,....
I wonder if Elsie Russell (Jeff Harrington's wife) uses a mahlstick?
Her paintings are beautiful BTW.
>"Grrrr. whoooof. Rawr yap bark. Pitchur grrr what pitchur?"
>"meow."
LOL! :-)
This cat is a Tiger.
T. Waters wrote,
Exactly!!!!! Why not see 50 shows a month, etc......
I wish. Send me $ for plane tickets! I miss going to the Smithsonian.
And Chicago. (Da-Bears!)
>I didn't really care
>for Winslow Holmes or Wistler(sp?)< Winslow Homer and Whistler (Not
nit picking just saw the ? mark) My books say Rothko too. :-) Don't
call the net police.
CAT
Wray Kephart
X In article <D93yw...@crash.cts.com> Wray Kephart, kep...@crash.cts.com
X writes:
X >
X >Like many other fields <literature; scientific> his work is similarly
X >subject to peer review by others; and will bear up or fade with time.
X ><The fact that you cant grasp the work in process and intent does not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
X What would qualify a person as a peer?
Stated above peer = Of equal rank in own right.
X Everyone cops out with simialr answers like that.
A universal truth described as *not significant*. That wasnt an
answer; it was a justifiable clarification of fact, opinion without
homogenous knowledge carries no weight.
So; how about that Pearl Jam some group eh? How about that composer
whos music sounds as if it was written by a NY taxi driver; and what
is your opinion of the weather today?
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X In article <60.55.494...@canrem.com> mani...@canrem.com (Mani Deli)
X writes:
X >One shouldn't have to try to appreciate an art work.
Thats good; next youl be saying "ART should be for the MASSES; it morally
wrong that its so elitist"
<always has been always will; its for those who can afford to pay for it>
X So, you're really just too lazy, is that it?
Hed rather be sitting at the local duck pond watching picnic activites.
He secretly wishes he was Ed Rusha during his TANK or BANK series.
X >If it fails to gain your
X >appreciation It's probably not your problem.
X Look, I really hope your get great enjoyment out of your Norman Rockwell
X picture books, but it has been my experience that the greatest art is
X difficult at first, but rewards dilligent effort. But, hey, this is
X America where philistinism is a virtue. Amazing that so much great art
X has been created in such a cultural void.
There are some amazing people out there that just dont get any serious
notice--<Gary Panter? Id have another audience member if I could
get him to look your direction>.
Kephart
Thomas C. Waters
like you around to remind me that a mind truly iss a terrible thing to
waste...
As per your usual, you spend a whole post slamming what are legitimate
questions I raise, you call them artspeak, and you offer NOTHING new.
As funny as you are, you are a bit amusing... actually quite boring,
kinda like bad piano banging...
In article <60.88.494...@canrem.com>
mani...@canrem.com (Mani Deli) writes:
> Of course when you ask these sort of nonsense doubletalk questions you can
> only expect an endless Artspeak answer. Its also the twaddle you can talk
> about with Post Modernists. The naive student thinks all this is profound.
> His next job is to learn what I call "Excuse theory." I won't go into detail
> about this now except to mention that it is the talk you learn to excuse
> incompetence.
Too bad for you Mani that you discount thought and philosophical
questions as mere artspeak, no wonder your life is so shallow and you
so bitter.
BTW, the questions I pose have little to do specifically with art, but
rather with philosophy in general, theology too. I have a feeling you
know little about these subjects.
But more importantly, I think the work of artists such as Rothko et al
"work" and succeed on levels other than intellectual levels. That's
just my opinion and I realize yours is different. I'm glad though that
my perceptions of the work is what is... I'm glad I enjoy the work that
I do.
> Is Twater a question mark compulsive?
Another attempted personal attack by idiot Mani. You are such a hoot!!!
Such a boob!!!
Thanks again for the good laugh your idiocy provides!!!
Mani Deli
> CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net writes:
> > If it was an untitled work hanging on the wall, how would you know it
> >was concerned with the classics of literature and art? Are his marks like
> >heiroglyphics or code to be read? Greg S. mentioned "he references to
> >ancient tales etc....". How do you read that in those marks and
> >scratches? This is not a smart aleck question BTW.
>
>Rgco...@athena.mit.edu to All
> Rg> You're right. This is not a smart-aleck question, it's a dumb one.
>
>But you didn't answer the question. Typical academic ploy. This noodle-head
>can only say "dumb" because the question offends him.
Rg> Well, I think I answered the question, and you even quote my answer
Rg> below. I don't know what kind of "ploy" this is, but it seems to serve
Rg> your interests.
> So tell us what's dumb about it?
Rg> See below :
I SAW BELOW WHY NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION ?
By looking at a reproduction one can tell if an artist produces chicken
scratches and then writes some sort of crap on his canvases. If that's what I
saw in reproduction I sure wouldn't go out of my way and waste time trying to
see originals.
Rg> Why, of course not. If you know it all, what is left to learn? Why
Rg> make yourself uncomfortably challenged? There's plenty of pretty
Rg> pictures out there to make you feel good.
Am I to presume that you prefer ugly pictures that make you feel lousy?
>I'm sure that most of the Academic Modern Art fans here wouldn't go to a
>Norman Rockwell show and I wouldn't imagine that forcing them to face the
>original would greatly alter their opinions. Nor do I think this is an
>indication of ignorance or a lack of knowledge.
Rg> Norman Rockwell?!?!? Jeezus, no wonder.
No wonder what? "If you know it all, what is left to learn? Why make
yourself uncomfortably challenged? There's plenty of ugly
pictures out there to make you feel lousy."
See. I can misquote you and it counts for as little as you said. Your writing
has no information content.
> Rg> I guess it makes you feel really "smart" and "above it all" to display
> Rg> such willful ignorance, but it's nothing new.
>
More vacuous gas.
>Are we confronted with another patronizing Blow-bag educator here?
Rg> This is pretty funny! I'm actually being accused of being not only an
Rg> academic, but of being an "educator" (not to mention "Blow-bag -
Rg> har-de-har)...Does this mean that only academics and educators can
Rg> "appreciate" Twombly? Hardly. Maybe I should take this opportunity to
Rg> say that I am NOT an artist (although I do dabble, and I'm, of course,
Rg> interested in art) but I AM musician. I play in a band that plays
Rg> "free-jazz" in a punkish vein. I am sure you would hate our music as
Rg> much as you seem to hate all things modern. I relate to Twombly in a
Rg> musical way - in a way that most "academics" and critics might regard
Rg> as "incorrect" or irrelevant. As a practitioner of "free jazz" I
Rg> appreciate the freedom of his mark-making, the "dissonance" of his
Rg> colors and scribbles, the transcendence of standard forms and formulae
Rg> and, above all, I value the effect his work has on me. I find his work
Rg> inspirational on both a visceral and cerebral level. Isn't that
Rg> enough? Am I allowed this appreciation without being called an
Rg> (shudder) educator? (perhaps if you didn't disdain education so much,
Rg> you might have learned something the years)
I didn't call you anything I asked a question. I'm not interested in music.
I'm sure the work you like makes you squrm with delight but that's not the
point.
> Rg> To say that "a child
> Rg> could do it" might just be a good place to begin appreciating Twombly's
> Rg> art
>No, it is a good place to forget about Twombly.
If a piece of so-called-art gives you the impression that it was done by a
child it is probably due to its failure rather then yours. Besides, I find
most childish art stupid, boring and somewhat childish. If its good by
kindergarten graduate standards it doesn't necessarily deserve a Museum.
Rg>... it's easy to say, "anyone could do it" it turns
Rg> out to be much more difficult than you might think.
...then you think. That is the same sort of stuff is all that those who have
no foundation in skill say because even childish stuff is difficult for them.
I would suggest
Rg> trying it yourself. Make a bunch of scribbles on paper or blow some
Rg> noise through a saxophone and see what kind of results you get. While
Rg> it may be true that "anyone could do it" the question is why don't
Rg> they?
They do.
There are millions of unskilled disgruntled artists doing the "same thing" and
wondering why no one appreciates them. Go to an art school and look at the
students work. Perhaps most of those millions would be better off competing
with you by blowing a horn.
Rg> ... In fact, I would say that it borders on the spiritual, at least
Rg> in the case of Twombly, Rothko, De Kooning etc. as well as John
Rg> Coltrane, Sun Ra, Ornette Coleman etc.
I'm not spiritual I'm a realist.
One shouldn't have to try to appreciate an art work.
Rg> So, you're really just too lazy, is that it?
If it fails to gain your appreciation its the artists problem not yours.
Rg> Look, I really hope your get great enjoyment out of your Norman
Rg> Rockwell picture books, but it has been my experience that the
Rg> greatest art is difficult at first, but rewards dilligent effort.
Well perhaps even Rockwell is too difficult for you and you can only handle
all that spiritual MINIMAL stuff.
Rg>..this is America where philistinism is a virtue. Amazing that so
Rg> much great art has been created in such a cultural void.
Well gee, don't you think I agree with you?
Mani Deli
Tw> Idiot Mani can't find answers to the questions he has been asked...
Tw> but he adds his empty rhetoric/opinions here:
Twitter, you couldn't answer your own questions because they are written in
Artspeak. When you ask a sensible question I'll try to answer.
Tw> This points out one of the big reasons Mani, that you fail to
Tw> understand artists such as Rothko, Twombly, et al. It isn't meant to
Tw> be like other work... it demands investigation in differing ways...
I do fail to "understand" Rothko & Co. but so do you.
You may like Rothko but you don't understand him any more then I do. Rothko's
work may indeed not have been intended to be like other work but its like
bedsheets and assorted floor covering, which you don't understand either.
Tw>... Rothko, created work that
Tw> douesn't allow the viewer to forget it, to ignor it so quickly or
Tw> easily.
Yes, I find him as memorable as last years fart.
Tw> Rockwell's work provides a facade that doesn't speak to feelings or
Tw> ideas.. his work presents a mask hiding everythiung real.
I suppose Rothko is full of feeling and ideas and he reveals reality, no a
DEEPER reality. The fourth dimension. Rothko is so different. It is even
rumored that he had three balls.
Where as a
Tw> Rothko, Twombly, et al require us to really look at them, spend time
Tw> with then, explore the surface texture and the way areas in a work
Tw> relate to each other and to you the viewer.
Really look at them as opposed to not really look at them. Spend time. I'm
sure you and Eicher would like to go out on a double dates with these guys but
it doesn't improve their work. Rothko's texture is colored cement. I don't
think his areas work they seem to be on strike. I've clearly explained how
they relate to me. How do they relate to you.
Tw> My Grandpa used to telll the story of when Rockwell painted him
Tw> carrying a buch of apples. He tells of how he was spotted, directed,
Tw> and how the resulting Mag cover wasn't much like the original scene.
Neither was the "Last Supper" like Leonardo's models. So?
Tw> I think one of the biggest reasons I don't really care for Rockwell is
Tw> that I don't care for lies... I don't care for fiction masquerading as
Tw> reality.
I suppose Rothko and Co. have something to do with the truth.
Tw> much contemporary art, unlike some art of the past, demands that we
Tw> experience the real work to gain an understanding of it... that seeing
Tw> art/experiencing art IS experiential.
Artspeak. What is this supposed to mean?
Tw> that some representational/illustrative work doesn't provide anything
Tw> for a lot of people to relate to.
... while it provides a lot of others.
Tw> Think about the sculpture "David" NO reproduction can provide the same
Tw> experience of the work as one has when you see the real thing.
Well it happens that the David in the Loggia in Florence is not the original
but an excellent reproduction. If people weren't told this they would take it
for the original. Its no tragic.
The original artist is just as responsible for the reproduction as for the
original. This, because technically speaking art is information. The artist
created the original information for the reproduction. How well the
reproduction carries this information is a matter of degree.
Tw> The reproductions of the old Masters do not provide people with an
Tw> experience of the orig. work, the repros provide the viewewr with an
Tw> experience of the reproduction so that the view (at least some
Tw> viewers) don't think they need to see the original. What a shame!!!
What nonsense. Anyone would prefer to see the original and where they can't a
repro is the next best thing. In fact some great art exists only in repro
copies. These are of interest precisely because the original artist speaks
thru the repro. I certainly can get a very good idea of Rockwell's skill and
Rothko's lack of it from a repro.
Tw> (Mani speaking about Twombly)
> If a piece of so-called-art gives you the impression that it was done by a
> child it is probably due to its failure rather then yours.
Tw> I have never seen twombly's work as child like... I think Mani is
Tw> thowing aroiund that BS empty rhetoric again... it is so easy to
Tw> discount something with a phrase... easier than talking about the real
Tw> work.
Like you and Rockwell? I've said far more than a phrase! I suppose You can
"talk about the real work" as opposed to me. I only talk about fake work.
Tw> IMHO, one of the biggest failures of some work pre 1940 is that it is
Tw> so devoid of feeling and creative passion.
... and Rothko and Co. brims with feeling and passion?
I find most childish art stupid, boring and somewhat childish. If its good by
kindergarten graduate standards it doesn't necessarily deserve a Museum.
Children are by nature
Tw> creative... until we beat it out of them and tewll them how wrong it
Tw> is to be creative....
We don't beat it out of them. We have people like you who don't teach them
much of anything and instead talk about feeling, passion, emotion and being
creative. If you don't learn anything you can't be creative.
Tw> Maybe that's what Mani has a problem with.. he can't be creative so he
Tw> deems everyone who is as stupid and boring....
Really? Everyone? I have some doubts about your reading comprehension.
One shouldn't have to try to appreciate an art work. If it fails to gain your
appreciation It's probably not your problem.
Tw> Oh Mani... you are too funny!!!!!
I have a faint suspicion that you don't find it funny at all.
Mani Deli
Sl> my response: disregarding the frequent writing on the canvasses
Sl> there really is a lot of code to be read in those marks
Sl> you can clearly see Twombly's humanity in his marks... the
Sl> typical range of motion, arcs caused by activation of particular
Sl> joints, etc. Some have been created by great pressure and a stiff
Sl> elbow, others have the suppleness of a flexible supinating wrist,
Sl> etc. In Twombly's work those clues have become subject matter
Sl> and theme (whereas in a Duerer print you could still figure out
Sl> such things, as precisely how he moved his hand, whether he was
Sl> sitting when he was etching, etc., but he hasn't made that into a
Sl> thematic focus)
Sorry bud. There's a bit too much clarity here to qualify as top quality
Artspeak. Try shaking up the rhetoric a bit more.
You make it too obvious to the reader that Twombly's work is a virtual Rosette
stone. As you say " created by great pressure and a stiff elbow, others have
the suppleness of a flexible supinating wrist." (fair but lets add some
zing)...and still others have the eloquent touch which only he could achieve
after he took his thumb out of his ass. A creative move evoking supple tension
along one of his dimensions and with a certain compression anticipating a
convolved torsion which is the sensitive prerogative of only certain rarified
artistic pathogenic criminally-insane-nose-picker-types.
Sl> the marks in a Twombly can thus be described as non-childlike,
Sl> as physically impossible for a child to make...
Brilliant logical conclusion.
Sl> You could read the marks in a Rockwell and learn that he generally
Sl> relied on a mahlstick as a tool, was usually sitting. Despite that
Sl> he tries to symbolize the human condition, his technique stiffens
Sl> and restricts the human body. His human condition then, is that of
Sl> the american puritan, the ideal unphysical, disembodied.
"mahlstick as a tool, was usually sitting" ...well boogy boogy, let us all be
appalled by such artistic evil. No MOMA for him!
Sl> but back to Twombly...
Sl> a forthright analysis of twombly's marks, contrasted against
Sl> children's marks, would prove that twombly's are anything but young.
Sl> they do not look child-like.
Indeed how could I fail to not forthrightly analyze. My mistake.
Senility perhaps?
Thomas C. Waters
CAT <cat...@nc5.infi.net> writes:
> T. Waters wrote,
> Exactly!!!!! Why not see 50 shows a month, etc......
>
> I wish. Send me $ for plane tickets! I miss going to the Smithsonian.
> And Chicago. (Da-Bears!)
Now CAT, if you were painting purty enough pitchers you wouldn't need
me to send you plane fair. Where the heck you live that there are't 50
art shows a month. I thought ALL arists lived in NYC, or LA...
BTW, that "50" number... came straight out of idiot Mani's post. It is
well an exageration.. like most of idiot Mani's BS. I'd like to get
to... 10 to 15 shows a month. I usually make about 6-12.... and when
I'm lucky enough to be in a bigger city like NYC or chiccago, I get to
as many as possible.
I won't call the net.police either.
:-)
CAT
twa...@pitt.edu writes:
>BTW, that "50" number... came straight out of Mani's post.
Yea, I know.
>I won't call the net.police either.
Whew!
>
>"The views expressed here are mine, take what you like and leave the
>rest."
>"I always assume someone is queer unless they tell me otherwise.
>Straight society has been doing this in reverse forever, and I'm tired
>of it."
Cute sig. I am hetro
In article <D9909...@crash.cts.com> Wray Kephart, kep...@crash.cts.com
writes:
>A universal truth described as *not significant*. That wasnt an
>answer; it was a justifiable clarification of fact, opinion without
>homogenous knowledge carries no weight.
Pure artspeak.
>So; how about that Pearl Jam some group eh? How about that composer
>whos music sounds as if it was written by a NY taxi driver; and what
>is your opinion of the weather today?
What about them? You predjudiced against Taxi drivers?
Wray Kephart
X Idiot Mani can't find answers to the questions he has been asked... but
X he adds his empty rhetoric/opinions here:
X While Rocjkwell may have had a technical competence, his work fails in
X that it illustrates a narrow, and most-often false view of the world
X he was supposedly portraying. The people, families, etc. in his
X images are these fake idealized lies that represent so few people, so
X little of the world in which we live. They show skill in the creation
X of them, but hold little for most people to identify with.
His work succeeds as an illustration of American life in the 40s as
idealized as it is; but its not fine art and is unfair to catagorize
him as such. The fact that Mani thinks *it is* but cant demonstrate
why leaves me to wonder why hed continue to pursue a lost argument.
X My Grandpa used to telll the story of when Rockwell painted him
X carrying a buch of apples. He tells of how he was spotted, directed,
X and how the resulting Mag cover wasn't much like the original scene.
X I think one of the biggest reasons I don't really care for Rockwell is
X that I don't care for lies... I don't care for fiction masquerading as
X reality.
Mebe you dont like the subject hed picked; Id like to him do some
illustrations of the final storming of the Waco TX Davidian compound.
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X In article <D9909...@crash.cts.com> Wray Kephart, kep...@crash.cts.com
X writes:
X >A universal truth described as *not significant*. That wasnt an
X >answer; it was a justifiable clarification of fact, opinion without
X >homogenous knowledge carries no weight.
X Pure artspeak.
English language; takes an education to get the hang of it; as it
trys to communicate subtle thought processes and sounds a lot like
German if your from New Guinea.
X >So; how about that Pearl Jam some group eh? How about that composer
X >whos music sounds as if it was written by a NY taxi driver; and what
X >is your opinion of the weather today?
X What about them? You predjudiced against Taxi drivers?
It depends if they deliberately take the long way in inclimate weather
in order to finish an aria.
Kephart
Joseph F. McElroy
>CAT, don't bother, if this is the extent of your contribution to
>this newsgroup.
I don't care if someone writes gibberish. You do not have to the
right to censor them. Why don't YOU take your arrogance somewhere
else.
--
Joseph F. McElroy. A resident of Philadelphia, PA. An artist,
software and programming consultant, actor, poet, corporate
president. Graduate of Duke University and the Pennsylvania
Academy of Fine Arts. 33 years old. 6'5" 275 lb. Good looking.
CAT
writes:
>
>Mebe you dont like the subject hed picked; Id like to him do some
>illustrations of the final storming of the Waco TX Davidian compound.
>
>Kephart
That would be interesting but he may have a difficult time doing it.
;-)
CAT
jAxAs
>>Mebe you dont like the subject hed picked; Id like to him do some
>>illustrations of the final storming of the Waco TX Davidian compound.
> That would be interesting but he may have a difficult time doing it.
But if he were able to, it would be with a touch of wry humor. Besides
being the consumate illustrator, he was loved because of his ability to
touch people's hearts with his quiet humor and sensitive handling of
difficult themes. You would have had to live the era to understand his
messages. I did live the era and the magazines which he illustrated the
covers of were weekly entrants into my home. Those magazines were
the TV of that era. Radio provided the sound and fired the imagination,
but magazines and movietone newsreels at the Saturday matinees
provided the reality of a world at war. Rockwell's covers always eased
the pain so many of us felt daily while living with the reality of a global
war the likes of which most people cannot today comprehend if you
aren't old enough to have memory of it.
Jaxas -- Silver maned and every hair a Memorial.
Ross Green
>
> In an article, Wray Kephart made fun of that idiot Norman Rockwell:
>
> >>Mebe you dont like the subject hed picked; Id like to him do some
> >>illustrations of the final storming of the Waco TX Davidian
> >>compound.
Cat replied with his dullest wit:
> > That would be interesting but he may have a difficult time doing
> > it.
(Now you, jAxAs are saying):
> But if he were able to, it would be with a touch of wry humor [clip-
ping all your warm praise that follows]
I don't know what to say about that one!
[I had a friend who was an expert watercolorist; she went to one of
Rockwell's shows, and her comment was something like "surprisingly
nice stuff". --But what does his work have to do with fine art? that's
my question.]
Mani Deli
One shouldn't have to try to appreciate an art work.
-=> Quoting Kephar
Ke> Thats good; next youl be saying "ART should be for the MASSES; it morally
wrong that its so elitist"
Art is for anyone who happens to be interest.
Some coherent statements follow
Ke> <always has been always will; its for those who can afford to pay for
Ke>it. So, you're really just too lazy, is that it?
Ke> Hed rather be sitting at the local duck pond watching picnic
Ke> activites. He secretly wishes he was Ed Rusha during his TANK or BANK
Ke> series.
?
Ke> X Look, I really hope your get great enjoyment out of your Norman
Ke> Rockwell X picture books, but it has been my experience that the
Ke> greatest art is X difficult at first, but rewards dilligent effort.
Ke> But, hey, this is X America where philistinism is a virtue. Amazing
Ke> that so much great art X has been created in such a cultural void.
There's nothing like Norman Rockwell irritate the Modern Academic cerebral
hemorrhoid. Thats why I mentioned him. I could have mentioned ten other really
fine artists but they wouldn't make these guys scream with pain.
Advice. When in the museum after an Artspeak lecture mention Norman Rockwell
and the whole place will momentarily wake up from its slumbers.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> -=> Quoting Scheckler
> Sl> my response: disregarding the frequent writing on the canvasses
> Sl> there really is a lot of code to be read in those marks
> Sl> you can clearly see Twombly's humanity in his marks... the
> Sl> typical range of motion, arcs caused by activation of particular
> Sl> joints, etc.
Some have been created by great pressure and a stiff
> Artspeak. Try shaking up the rhetoric a bit more.
Uhhhhhhh... welll? You mean I been trying to practice artspeak?
I guess i'll just take that as a sideways compliment and leave it at that...
> You make it too obvious to the reader that Twombly's work is a virtual Rosette
> stone. As you say " created by great pressure and a stiff elbow, others have
> the suppleness of a flexible supinating wrist." (fair but lets add some
> zing)...and still others have the eloquent touch which only he could achieve
> after he took his thumb out of his ass.
hee hee ;) fine so what if he's been poking around a bit?
Sanwiches from the ol' ManyDeli are like bread with a shmear
of spices and none more. title it "nutri-beef" for the sake
of false advertizing, at least.
How `bout uppin the ante here, eh? add some spring water,
to the deal, or Mountain Dew just fer you,
or lettuce, or avogadro -- you know, avogadro on rye
so long as your going to try foolin us all into believing you
why not hide behind the mantle of clarity for once?
>A creative move evoking supple tension
> along one of his dimensions and with a certain compression anticipating a
> convolved torsion which is the sensitive prerogative of only certain rarified
> artistic pathogenic criminally-insane-nose-picker-types.
same old same old. try some new tactic next time.
you know your first posts that I read were lots of fun
but now I see them as all formulaic. boring hoo-hah
>
> Sl> the marks in a Twombly can thus be described as non-childlike,
> Sl> as physically impossible for a child to make...
>
> Brilliant logical conclusion.
your sarcasm seethes with envy :)
>
> Sl> You could read the marks in a Rockwell and learn that he generally
> Sl> relied on a mahlstick as a tool, was usually sitting. Despite that
> Sl> he tries to symbolize the human condition, his technique stiffens
> Sl> and restricts the human body. His human condition then, is that of
> Sl> the american puritan, the ideal unphysical, disembodied.
>
> "mahlstick as a tool, was usually sitting" ...well boogy boogy, let us all be
> appalled by such artistic evil. No MOMA for him!
there's a distinct link between his techniques and the content of
his work. In Rockwell's case the techniques stiffened him up
so the symbolic content stiffens up -- just like the collars on
the clothes he wore, just like the pretty images he made so stiff
it's funny to me to see that stiffness replaced by a mahlstick-symbol
-tool during his painting processes. he oughta just use his thumb instead,
or he, well...
("all that is, symbolizes" oswald spengler)
Greg Scheckler http://cc.usu.edu/~sl2lf/
Ross Green
>
> Jeff Harrington wrote:
>
> >CAT, don't bother, if this is the extent of your contribution to
> >this newsgroup.
>
> I don't care if someone writes gibberish. You do not have to the
> right to censor them. Why don't YOU take your arrogance somewhere
> else.
"One that lies three thirds and uses a known truth
to pass a thousand nothings with, should be once heard
and thrice beaten."
-William Shakespeare
PS- I so admired your words on painter Twombly >quantum
mechanics... etc. I could not have said it better myself!
-Will
Jeff Harrington
: -William Shakespeare
:)
And now a followup to this re-posting of my horribly horrendous and
viciously destructive and emotionally debilitating attack on somebody I
perceived as doing a flame thing on a spelling error but was later
corrected and now gladly recognize CAT as the premier artistic
commentatortot par non excellente exceptus Mani...!
Take that... Joseph, you lurker maximus arrogantus!
--
Jeff Harrington
idea...@dorsai.dorsai.org
--
(*) Most Beautiful Site on the Net: Net in Arcadia http://www.parnasse.com/(*)
(*) Elsie Russell's Pics! Jeff Harrington's Music ->>>> Art + The Bizarre (*)
(*) Jeff's Musical WWW Site->>>> http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm (*)
(*) IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV - All Days But Thursdays(ABC) on CBS Since 1984 (*)
Wray Kephart
X In article <D9Apn...@crash.cts.com> Wray Kephart, kep...@crash.cts.com
X writes:
X >
X >Mebe you dont like the subject hed picked; Id like to him do some
X >illustrations of the final storming of the Waco TX Davidian compound.
X >
X >Kephart
X That would be interesting but he may have a difficult time doing it.
Let me guess, no one survived death; even those with grand reputation?
Elvis owns that tomb rental; Rockwells negotiated a 200 year lease;
broken only in the event either one moves the stone first.
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X In article <3qbkj4$1...@lucy.infi.net>, cat...@nc5.infi.net says...
X >>Mebe you dont like the subject hed picked; Id like to him do some
X >>illustrations of the final storming of the Waco TX Davidian compound.
X > That would be interesting but he may have a difficult time doing it.
X But if he were able to, it would be with a touch of wry humor. Besides
X being the consumate illustrator, he was loved because of his ability to
X touch people's hearts with his quiet humor and sensitive handling of
X difficult themes.
Well bobbing for apples is difficult sometimes when cued; or if one of
the finless species; but he does it well, that idealized pictorializing of
the 40s and 50s.
X You would have had to live the era to understand his
X messages. I did live the era and the magazines which he illustrated the
X covers of were weekly entrants into my home. Those magazines were
X the TV of that era. Radio provided the sound and fired the imagination,
X but magazines and movietone newsreels at the Saturday matinees
X provided the reality of a world at war. Rockwell's covers always eased
X the pain so many of us felt daily while living with the reality of a global
X war the likes of which most people cannot today comprehend if you
X aren't old enough to have memory of it.
I didndt have to live in that era to appreciate what hes done; just like
I can appreciate what is not portrayed evidenced by his subjects. War?
Doubt? Depth? Death? Just not the mans thing.
Kephart
Wray Kephart
X One shouldn't have to try to appreciate an art work.
X -=> Quoting Kephart
X Ke> Thats good; next youl be saying "ART should be for the MASSES; it morally
X wrong that its so elitist"
X Art is for anyone who happens to be interest.
.......ed? Id say that those not interested would politely follow your
lead and ignore everything they didnt understand.
X Some coherent statements follow
I hope you included the incoherent ones.
X Ke> <always has been always will; its for those who can afford to pay for
X Ke>it. So, you're really just too lazy, is that it?
X Ke> Hed rather be sitting at the local duck pond watching picnic
X Ke> activites. He secretly wishes he was Ed Rusha during his TANK or BANK
X Ke> series.
X There's nothing like Norman Rockwell irritate the Modern Academic cerebral
X hemorrhoid. Thats why I mentioned him. I could have mentioned ten other really
X fine artists but they wouldn't make these guys scream with pain.
Who screamed and am I a possible witness to testify?
X Advice. When in the museum after an Artspeak lecture mention Norman Rockwell
X and the whole place will momentarily wake up from its slumbers.
I dont think theres any doubt about Rockwells slot in history; next time
I see a worldwide traveling retrospective thats not confined to trailer
park pavillions I'll be sure and speak up.
Kephart
Wray Kephart
in response to Ross Green:
X There are millions of unskilled disgruntled artists doing the "same thing" and
X wondering why no one appreciates them. Go to an art school and look at the
X students work. Perhaps most of those millions would be better off competing
X with you by blowing a horn.
Why do you continue to assert that a "student" possesses any relevant
status other than that of someone in process of learning? Why do you assume
there are millions of unskilled disgruntled artists out there duplicating
each other? <your writing a scholarly book; write it in your first language
and pay someone to translate it before giving it to an editor>.
Arlo Smith
Color, proportion, and form.
CAT
>"One that lies three thirds and uses a known truth
>to pass a thousand nothings with, should be once heard
>and thrice beaten."
I suggest that you invest in some padded trousers. ;-P
Pope Herrington the Arrogant,
>And now a followup to this re-posting of my horribly horrendous and
>viciously destructive and emotionally debilitating attack on somebody I
>perceived as doing a flame thing on a spelling error but was later
>corrected and now gladly recognize CAT as the premier artistic
>commentatortot par non excellente exceptus Mani...!
>
>Take that... Joseph, you lurker maximus arrogantus!
Thankyou, as I wipe the tears from my eyes. I know ArtSpeak and I am
not afraid to use it!
CAT
Ross Green
In article > Ross Green writes:
>>"One that lies three thirds and uses a known truth
>>to pass a thousand nothings with, should be once heard
>>and thrice beaten."
I didn't write those words, you puppy-headed cat! - They're by
William Shakespeare! (-Although we write on the same level, his
style is more antiquated, mine more modern. Pay attention, you
foolish idle boy.)
> I suggest that you invest in some padded trousers.
I suggest that you visit a joke doctor: "Your brain is as dry as the
remainder biscuit after a voyage."
And while you're there, get some extra extra extra thick nappies.
rg
Mani Deli
-=> Quoting Bl947Allorfree.net to All <=-
Bl> Color, proportion, and form.
Color? Like in a Munsell chart and an old door and thirty coats of paint on the
walls of a wrecked building only less.
Proportion? Like between the picture wire and the stretchers.
Form? Hey Rothko's form isn't as 3d as a small pimple. I guess your referring
to the 4th dimension like in the emperor's new clothes.
I like his brushwork. Think of all that effort in order to blend those
harmonious colors between drinks. And then there is his stupendous originality.
No one before him thought of producing such original and
interesting subject matter; man he was the first. In the art historical sense
his influence is prevelent in a whole line of bedsheets which would have been
scarcely possible without his masterful inspiration.
Rothko's work is above all truthful and sincere. Note that I'm not saying about
what.
Blaine
anyone who is "neutral" on Rothko.... People either find his paintings
"moving and introspective" or they find them to be "a hoax"...
I do not need to be told what to think.... and as far as art goes,
Rothko is an artist I understand... he gives the viewer a a general idea
and let's them run with it... his use of large color fields allows the
viewer to "become one with the painting"... the viewer is allowed to
let their mind "go".... and draw their own conclusion...
---
Blaine Hamann
dar...@winternet.com
Minneapolis, MN
---
JanneSiren
eye-opener. Particular with his extensive understanding of Greenberg.
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
J. Martin Hill
Institute of Fine Arts, NYC
Ross Green
>
> And plenty of smilies too. We know you love them. They enhance
> punctuation. Just the way you like it. :-*
>
> ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) >:-P
Oh, please! No more smileys!!!!
Why not just stick toothpicks in my eyes, you kreepy little kitty.
By the way, here's an artist you'll really like: Agnes Martin.
-rg
chistopher willard
: I find this whole debate about Rothko ridiculous.... I have never met
: "moving and introspective" or they find them to be "a hoax"...
I have had students in classes for the past couple of years writing
visual analyses of a Rothko in the MOMA. Their opinions, likes and
dislikes of his work range over the whole scale, many are completely
'neutral' to use your word about his painting. I must say too, none of
the students (first or third year) ever used the terms 'moving,
introspective or hoax.'
: ---
CAT
>I didn't write those words, you puppy-headed cat! - They're by
>William Shakespeare! (-Although we write on the same level, his
>style is more antiquated, mine more modern. Pay attention, you
>foolish idle boy.)
I know you did not write those fluff boy.
>I suggest that you visit a joke doctor: "Your brain is as dry as the
>remainder biscuit after a voyage."
Rothko's work is like your IQ. Next to nothingness.
>And while you're there, get some extra extra extra thick nappies.
And plenty of smilies too. We know you love them. They enhance
Blaine
> I have had students in classes for the past couple of years writing
>visual analyses of a Rothko in the MOMA. Their opinions, likes and
>dislikes of his work range over the whole scale, many are completely
>'neutral' to use your word about his painting. I must say too, none of
>the students (first or third year) ever used the terms 'moving,
>introspective or hoax.'
>
The comments you hear from someone doing an academic analysis will
probably be different than those from a casual gallery visitor.
My statement came from comments I've overheard.
Wray Kephart
X If Mani prefers Rockwell to Rothko, his forthcoming book should be a real
X eye-opener. Particular with his extensive understanding of Greenberg.
X NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Killjoy; he might not include Rockwell in his thesis, which is the subject
he should confine it to. If published Im uncertain which section you might
find it; "works of self published malcontents" "elbow jabbing humor" or
"history <cooking>". If it has pictures it might be confused with art;
and found among the comics.
Kephart
CAT
>
>Oh, please! No more smileys!!!!
OK
>Why not just stick toothpicks in my eyes, you kreepy little kitty.
:-O EEK! ACK!! (Opps a smiley)
Here, have a croissant.
CAT
cooties
>In article > Ross Green writes:
>
>>>"One that lies three thirds and uses a known truth
>>>to pass a thousand nothings with, should be once heard
>>>and thrice beaten."
>
>William Shakespeare! (-Although we write on the same level, his
>style is more antiquated, mine more modern. Pay attention, you
>foolish idle boy.)
Now, I may be sadly, but you seem to be attacking CAT personally. Look
at the top of my message. Do you see what it says?
It says "Ross Green wrote:". It says that because it is automatically
added by most news readers, and many mail programs. Your writing may be
more modern, but your knowledge of news apps is not.
>
> > I suggest that you invest in some padded trousers.
>
>I suggest that you visit a joke doctor: "Your brain is as dry as the
>remainder biscuit after a voyage."
>
>And while you're there, get some extra extra extra thick nappies.
>
>
>rg
>
If your going to critique someone's humour, have the decency of quoting
the entire text to which the joke referred. Taking anything out of
context can make a person look foolish.
"Puppy-headed cat"?
And "foolish boy" is a broad assumption.
(Ross: The sentence above this one is a play on words)
Mike
Mani Deli
Da> I find this whole debate about Rothko ridiculous....
Artist's logic. He says the above and goes on to give us his shtick.
I have never
Da> met anyone who is "neutral" on Rothko.... People either find his
Da> paintings "moving and introspective" or they find them to be "a
Da> hoax"...
Da> I do not need to be told what to think.... and as far as art goes,
Da> Rothko is an artist I understand...
Well then think about what you haven't been told and tell us what it is you
understand. Or is it what follows?
Da> he gives the viewer a a general
Da> idea and let's them run with it... his use of large color fields
Da> allows the viewer to "become one with the painting"... the viewer is
Da> allowed to let their mind "go".... and draw their own conclusion...
Da>
I see. "A a general idea" and I can "run" not walk with it. Very clear.
"his use of large color fields allows the viewer to "become one with the
painting."" You should look a Norman Rockwell and perhaps you could then
"become one and three quarters with the painting." That is if you are still
"allowed to."
Da> "the viewer is "ALLOWED" to let his mind go.
Of course the viewer who looks at Rockwell is NOT ALLOWED to let his mind go.
If you would expand your material by two hours you would have real modern art
seminar. That is if you allow yourself.
Ross Green
>
> Taking anything out of context can make a person look foolish.
Next time follow your own advice.
-rg
CAT
coo...@netaccess.on.ca writes:
>And "foolish boy" is a broad assumption.
>(Ross: The sentence above this one is a play on words)
>
>
>Mike
Ross and I kind of enjoy throwing spitballs at each other. Here have a
croissant. The coffee is over there if T. Waters has not drank it all. My
pal Mani stepped out and will be back shortly.
CAT
Blaine Hamann
> -=> Quoting b. Hayman
> Da> I find this whole debate about Rothko ridiculous....
>
>Artist's logic. He says the above and goes on to give us his shtick.
>
OUCH!! but you are right.... sigh.....
>
>painting."" You should look a Norman Rockwell and perhaps you could then
>"become one and three quarters with the painting." That is if you are >Of course the viewer who looks at Rockwell is NOT ALLOWED to let his mind go.
>
Norman Rockwell??? Why would I waste time looking at 50 year old
magazine covers? :)
cooties
Blaine <dar...@winternet.com> wrote:
>I find this whole debate about Rothko ridiculous.... I have never
So why does that make this debate rediculous? People like the Chicago
Bulls, or they don't. Arguing about the merits if the team is no less
valid, or fun.
BTW, I'm neutral on Rothko. So now you have met someone.
Mike
geoffrey
coo...@netaccess.on.ca writes:
>So why does that make this debate rediculous? People like the Chicago
>Bulls, or they don't. Arguing about the merits if the team is no less
>valid, or fun.
>
>BTW, I'm neutral on Rothko.
how can anyone equate rothko with the chicago bulls? i suppose that one
could make a case for professional basketball being a small offshoot of
performance art, but that's quite a stretch. i also do not think that
anyone can be ***truly*** neutral when it comes to the work of mark
rothko ã either you regard it as transcendent, or couch decoration with
alot of hype behind it to inflate the prices for market. one easy method
to determine which category within you would fall, is to spend a solemn
hour or so within the Rothko chapel in Houston. if after leaving there
you have not discovered a new unexplainable/undiscussable _understanding_
of rothko's work, then you probably regard the paintings as couch
decorationäbut fear admitting so because of potential ridicule from
snooty artsy fartsy folk who do not understand the underlying strength to
rothko's work anymore than you do, but feel that they are supposed to
like his work no matter what, and therefore parrot everything that they
have ever (over)heard on the subjectãregardless of their honest opinions.
BTW, why don't you visit the Twombly museum while you are done there
(it's just across the street).
cooties
>In article <3ripma$dgo...@netaccess.on.ca> cooties,
>coo...@netaccess.on.ca writes:
>>So why does that make this debate rediculous? People like the Chicago
>>Bulls, or they don't. Arguing about the merits if the team is no less
>>valid, or fun.
>>
>>BTW, I'm neutral on Rothko.
>
>how can anyone equate rothko with the chicago bulls? i suppose that one
>could make a case for professional basketball being a small offshoot of
>performance art, but that's quite a stretch.
Quoting the entire text would have been helpful. You've taken what I had said
out of context, so of course it makes no sense. The original post to which I
replied commented that debating merits was rediculous. I equated the debate of
a pro-sports team with the debate about art- why is it possible to debate the
Bulls over Magic, but not Rothko over any other artist?
As far as fear of offending artsy-farties: Abstract art is crap. Period.
I've yet to see a single defense of Twombly or Rothko or any other abstract
artist that didn't depend on "understanding". When I ask what there is to
understand, I get laughed at for my ignorance.
It is futile to ask anyone who so adently defends abstract to actually explain
what makes it good. (Please don;t lapse into the "who defines good?" debate)
Someone likes it, someone must think it's good. Someone must be able to tell
me what creates such a rapid band of followers for a brand of painting which
reminds one of scribbles so proudly posted on home refrigerators.
Jim Felder
>
>I've yet to see a single defense of Twombly or Rothko or any other abstract
>artist that didn't depend on "understanding". When I ask what there is to
>understand, I get laughed at for my ignorance.
>
>It is futile to ask anyone who so adently defends abstract to actually explain
>what makes it good. (Please don;t lapse into the "who defines good?" debate)
>Someone likes it, someone must think it's good. Someone must be able to tell
>me what creates such a rapid band of followers for a brand of painting which
>reminds one of scribbles so proudly posted on home refrigerators.
>
And I was having such a bad day til I read this.
Can I make a suggestion as to why? The force behind much of art, as everything
else, is is simply boredom. There is an obvious relationship between boredom and
fashion. You know, the kind of boredom that makes people go out and look for
something no one else is doing or wearing. They do or wear it until enough other
people are doing or wearing it that it can be said to be have entered the popular
culture. Then they trash it and find something that others haven't found, the next
thing over the event horizon, and the cycle begins again. Without being aware of
it, they are inventing the popular culture they despise, and the masses get these
cool hand-me-downs (so it's a win/win thing). And they get to have a small, tight
group that's always doing something cool. The bored require an EXPLANATION for
everything, the masses don't even ask. The bored move on, with the masses picking
up behind them, in an endless search for titillation that gives the impression to
the fashionable of the world that they are actually going somewhere with all this,
the sensation of purpose while adrift.
Artists, to name one group, don't have a problem with pointing out how silly this
all is when they are talking about children's toys or jeans. They will admit that
when harvest gold appliances were introduced, people thought they were as exciting
as the stuff in architectural digest seems today. But they have a hard time
admitting that there is no special art lobe in the brain that protects our tastes
in art from the effects of boredom that shape so much of our affluent, distracted,
instantly-gratified lives. You know why kids like the shit on the radio today?
Because you don't.
The distaste of the bored for the things they discard is intense: popular = bad.
Rarified = good. Oftentimes, these tenets are coincidntally true, but not always,
and the inability to judge a work of art, a food, a wine, a building, a political
ideal or whatever on its merit, as opposed to how many people are or are not bored
by it is the most hideous insult to intelligence.
Here is the future of this thread (heh, heh, heh):
1. Someone, fixated on details, will cut copy until it looks like I wish appliances
were still harvest gold.
2. Someone else, who can't deal with concepts, will reply that the problem with
essays like this is that they lack specifics.
3. About two more people will agree.
Mani Deli
Co> As far as fear of offending artsy-farties: Abstract art is crap.
Co> Period.
Well I wouldn't go that far. There is all sorts of fine abstraction i.e. much
Islamic art, calligraphy, pattern making of many cultures, Deco and art nouveau
detail, much Egyptian Art. There is so much more than the abstraction of Modern
Academic crap.
Co> I've yet to see a single defense of Twombly or Rothko or any other
Co> abstract artist that didn't depend on "understanding". When I ask what
Co> there is to understand, I get laughed at for my ignorance.
Well don't expect an answer. Understanding implies that you can explain what
you understand. Begging the question an Artspeak ploy That is all you can
expect here. Moderns will fault you for not understanding something about the
convoluted prattle which they call the "Language of Modern Art" and prod you
for not having learned it. At best you will get a lot of cryptic babblings
about the forth dimension, tension and compression, color fields, minimalism,
sincerity and self expression and a bit of psychobabble about how unhappy you
are and that your work must be terrible.
Co> It is futile to ask anyone who so adently defends abstract to actually
Co> explain what makes it good. (Please don;t lapse into the "who defines
Co> good?" debate) Someone likes it, someone must think it's good. Someone
Co> must be able to tell me what creates such a rapid band of followers
Co> for a brand of painting which reminds one of scribbles so proudly
Co> posted on home refrigerators.
Modern Abstract Art is in fashion. We will see how long the fashion lasts. Its
beginning to slip now. Unfortunately the critically accepted Modern Realists
(schmier realists) are in my opinion even worse than the abstractionists.
(Larry Rivers, Stella, Hockney, Katz, etc. and the classical moderns like
Picasso, Matisse, Leger etc. They tried but can't. The Modern Academics are
wiser they hardly try, they rely on talk. Talk about "practically nothing"
painting is always more effective than an attempt to defend abominable
draftsmanship and schmier realism.
Our friend Twater has changed tactics and is no longer calling me a boob idiot.
He now says in two pages that my writing is incomprehensible, not worth
answering and just a lot of Sound Bites.
Here's a definition for Twater which refers to the above.
-ecentro-phelia: or the love of anything-goes-art. The believe that anything
calling itself art no matter how stupid is worthy of lengthily discussion and
critical consideration as possibly being great art (Mondrian to Klein to wrap-
the-Reichstag Christo). This because it is considered by our holiest critics to
be a first and personal expression of a particular eccentricity. (which it
usually isn't).
Wray Kephart
X As far as fear of offending artsy-farties: Abstract art is crap. Period.
Define abstract then then tell me how it relates to fecal matter. Who
would possibly take offense at such a statement? What is as artsy-
fartie--relates to gases produced by an artistic colon...
X I've yet to see a single defense of Twombly or Rothko or any other abstract
X artist that didn't depend on "understanding". When I ask what there is to
X understand, I get laughed at for my ignorance.
<if your going to go so far as to describe the degree of your ignorance>
Tell me; what exactly is your interpretation of your existance/what is
your understanding of the universe and mans role within it?
Hey Ive a mathematical formula I can attach to every image I make;
do you understand non-linear systems of calculous?
X It is futile to ask anyone who so adently defends abstract to actually explain
X what makes it good. (Please don;t lapse into the "who defines good?" debate)
X Someone likes it, someone must think it's good. Someone must be able to tell
X me what creates such a rapid band of followers for a brand of painting which
X reminds one of scribbles so proudly posted on home refrigerators.
Ah you have all the answers; so why cant I find you on sci.semiconductors
or rec.frid.magnets/fingerprints when I need you.
Kephart
Charles E. Morris
Greetings all,
Something that I haven't seen evidenced in this thread is what is meant
by abstract - which is more, Rothko painting his fields of color onto a
two dimensional surface, or Phillip Pearlstein painting something
photo-realistic on a two dimensional surface -
which is more abstract - ? -
-C
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tat Tvam Asi
-----------------------------------------------------------------