Cezanne challenge
Andy Pearlman
>The result was an idiotic message saying that I'm insulting the intelligence
>that inhabits this conference and that I'm bitter. Can anyone here defend the
>works of artists they like? I challenge them to defend the Cezanne's I
>mentioned.
Are you bitter? Are you continuously blathering on about the same old tired
topic? Do you see art critics lurking behind every corner? Do you think the
art world is out to get you?
Perhaps you should think about changing your name to Ob Com or Para Schiz.
Your current nom de guerre reflects a certain lack of understanding of
psychology. And yes, I'm aware of my 'error' in the previous sentence.
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman - artwork at http://tsb.weschke.com/iiw/gallery/pearlman_a.html
apea...@panix.com
"What tip do you have to leave after staying seven years in a restaurant?"
Mark Anderson
Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
>The Modern Academic Art supporters here spout off about how great Cezanne is
>by quotes and the usual praise.
>Tell us what’s great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist "Bathers."
>
>Tell us about the great
>draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery and the
>novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on the conehead on the
>left.
> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
>drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two directions.
>Also don’t fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and color in the
>background.
>Mani DeLi
>…no skill no art
My understanding of Cezanne's approach to painting is connected to the
commonly held assumptions regarding his specific intentions as derived
from his writings. Judgement in art must, at some point account for the
artist's intentions. If the intentions of Cezanne were to create artworks
which answered the demands of Renaissance Neoplatonic Realism, or the
demands of late twentieth century Photo-realism, then Cezanne was either
inept or insane. However, his writings suggest that he, like many
artists of the late 19th century, was attempting to explore a new way of
seeing and painting reality. Like scientists, philosophers, poets, and
psychologists of his era, Cezanne was increasingly aware of the fact that
mere appearances (especially those garnered from an Aristotelian single
point-of-view at a single moment in time) were not entirely adequate for
describing our broader experience of the world around us. He and many of
his contemporaries were experimenting with new ways of seeing that might
account for things like movement through space and time. By combining
multiple impressions gathered from multiple points of view in a painted
mosaic loosely arranged around the representational form, he hoped to
guide the viewer through a series of visual experiences of three
dimensional form (making something solid out of impressionism). His work
is meant to be read as a painted record of a series of related
experiences on a singular form. He intentionally violates continuity of
perspective, alternates thick and thin paint viscosity with warm and cool
color so as to flatten form into pattern. This is what Byzantine images
do for religious reasons. Cezanne does this for intellectual, poetic, and
painterly reasons. He is responding to a different issue than were other
artists who were more faithful to realist requirements for frozen moments
of stop-action realism. Realism, as such, has usually appealed to a
middle-class sensibility which bases it's notion of the Real in a
material and sense-oriented aesthetic vision. There are other priorities
which govern the art of those whose vision of Reality lie elswhere.
What seems to be at issue is the notion that art is elevated activity
which can be measured, like athletic prowess, by skill demonstrated in
technique. If the value of art is found in the demonstration of skill
then people who have greater skill are more valuable than those whose
insights may involve wisdom but not technique. Still, the standard by
which skill is measured may be the found in the nature of the intention
of the artist, or in significant form, or in any of a dozen other standards.
Perhaps you are simply stating a preference for a specific and limited
form of realism.
Sincerely, Mark R. Anderson
Rosa Amarillo
>Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
>>The Modern Academic Art supporters here spout off about how great Cezanne is
>>by quotes and the usual praise.
> Perhaps you are simply stating a preference for a specific and limited
>form of realism.
>Sincerely, Mark R. Anderson
You must be new to the newsgroup or you would know that Mani DeLie is
a broken record that keeps spinning but never gets out of the groove. And
he is as much a relic of this newsgroup as are grooved platters in today's
recording industry. Your quite intelligent and loquacious defense of Cezanne
is totally wasted if your reply is intended to "educate" Mani. It's much like
shouting at the stuck needle on the phonograph to get it out of the groove.
The only way it'll stop it's incessant repititions is to get physical with it
and move the needle or shut off the phonograph. The latter is my preferred
solution. Then destroy the flawed recording so it doesn't annoy in the
future.
--
=================================================
May the Peace Dove's wingbeat gently waft
the sweet smell of spring flowers your way
and blanket your pathway in rose pedals.
~ Rosa Amarillo ~
=================================================
Hey GAllen
>>no skill no art
>
>My understanding of Cezanne's approach to painting is connected to the
Engaging and clear response edited
> Perhaps you are simply stating a preference for a specific and limited
>form of realism.
>
>Sincerely, Mark R. Anderson
As others have said, my first impression upon seeing a reasoned response
to ManiDeli was, "New around here?"
I have decided that participating in this newsgroup is like listening to a
great piece of music in your car. ManiDeli is the truck with a broken
muffler spewing thick, black exhaust and weaving from lane to lane. Just
keep you eye on it to make sure it doesn't run you down, but otherwise,
drive on. As a fan of John Cage, I'm actually trying to appreciate his
noise pollution as a part of the piece...
greg allen
Cage: Art and Music.
Mani Deli
challenge. All contain the usual psycho-babble. I’ll quote some of the more
idiotic bits from these messages and repeat my challenge.
It seems that all defenders of Modern Academic Art are incapable of
discussing the merits of individual paintings. All they are capable of is what
I call "excuse theory." This is the subject learned in our Modern Art
Academies to excuse the lack of skill which saturates Modern Academic Art. Any
criticism of their gods are seen as nothing but repetition.
As to repetition, I’ve read nothing but repetitive praise of the most idiotic
garbage passing itself of as art for the last forty years. I’ve also seen
armies of painters with no skill repeating the same excuses for their utter
failure.
Criticizing the lack of merit in a particular painting is painful repetition
for these people.
Andy Pearlman said:
>Are you bitter? Are you continuously blathering on about the same old tired
>topic? Do you see art critics lurking behind every corner? Do you think the
>art world is out to get you?
>
>Perhaps you should think about changing your name to Ob Com or Para Schiz.
>Your current nom de guerre reflects a certain lack of understanding of
>psychology. And yes, I’m aware of my ‘error’ in the previous sentence.
Does one need to understand psychology in order to excuse Cezanne’s wall eyed
portrait and lousy drawing?
Rosa Amarillo says:
>You must be new to the newsgroup or you would know that Mani DeLie is
>a broken record that keeps spinning but never gets out of the groove. And
>he is as much a relic of this newsgroup as are grooved platters in today’s
>recording industry. Your quite intelligent and loquacious defense of Cezanne
>is totally wasted if your reply is intended to "educate" Mani. It’s much like
>shouting at the stuck needle on the phonograph to get it out of the groove.
>The only way it’ll stop it’s incessant repititions is to get physical with it
>and move the needle or shut off the phonograph. The latter is my preferred
>solution. Then destroy the flawed recording so it doesn’t annoy in the
>future.
Why not answer the challenge Rosa and if your needle is stuck get another
repair man.
And…
>I have decided that participating in this newsgroup is like listening to a
>great piece of music in your car. ManiDeli is the truck with a broken
>muffler spewing thick, black exhaust and weaving from lane to lane. Just
>keep you eye on it to make sure it doesn’t run you down, but otherwise,
>drive on. As a fan of John Cage, I’m actually trying to appreciate his
>noise pollution as a part of the piece…
>greg allen
>Cage: Art and Music.
Cage: noise passed off as art and music. But that’s begging the question Greg
why not tell us what you love about Cezanne’s portraits.
Cezanne Challenge:
>Tell us what’s great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist "Bathers."
>Like why the figures are all cockeyed.
>Tell us about the great
>draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery and the
>novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on the conehead on the
>left.
>
> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
>drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two directions.
>Also don’t fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and color in the
>background.
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art
Mani Deli
Madam M. writes:
>Try reading an article called "Cezanne's Doubt" by Merleau-Ponty. Or are=
>=20
>his ideas too "modern" for you??
>
Madam M.
I look at a painting first; if that leads to an interest I follow it up. It
does happen that I have read a bit about Cezanne by Rewald etc. when I studied
all the impressionists and post Imp.
If Cezanne paints a hand as a random schmier or puts a hat on a flattened head
lathed down on the top in order to fit a hat two sizes too small (Card
Players), I feel I’m looking at the work of retard. I see no reason to read
lengthily excuses for this sort of drivel.
However, for your patronizing perusal I suggest you try considering the
academic portent of Mani’s law:
" IF IT NEEDS A LONG SERMON TO PROCLAIM IT ART ITS PROBABLY BULLSHIT."
William DeRaymond
never taught or refuse to learn. It is a visual one not a verbal one.
Cezanne himself stated that if you would be a painter you should give up the
literary spirit. In any Cezanne, he doesn't try to hide the fact that he's
using a brush. In fact, Each stroke is a key note in the overall
composition and each stroke is important to the piece. Go ahead, take a
real look. He allows you to see the total process of his creativity. For
you to put down his sense of color merely says you don't know what you are
talking about. His harmonies are absolutely beautiful and balanced, but it
requires a certain amount of receptivity to hear the music. His
compositions are likewise supremely balanced, nothing being any more or less
important than anything else. His perspective is based on the truth that
color and form are one, and that is the truth on which he proceeded, so yes
in a sense drawing takes a back seat to the building up of the compositon
through this color perspective, he allows the objects of his compositons to
arise out of his use of the color, so he doesn't draw in the conventional
sense. Everything in his paintings (whether literally accurate or not) work
in terms of painting (...avoiding the literary spirit), ie. the brush, the
motif, the color, the artist's personality and intelligence are all in
harmony.)The detail in his work is all in terms of painting not the literary
detail. This is no small achievement. Do you have a problem seeing this is
true? Cezanne's works are beautifully crafted and skillful works of art.
They are original in style.
You can not understand Cezanne by taking a superior attitude because he
doesn't fit your conceptual framework. You need to develop a little
humility, and approach his work with the idea that he might in fact be
saying something way over your head (which he is my friend), and that you
might actually have something to learn from the Master.
He also said don't be a critic, Paint.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'A painting is a doorway into psychological/spiritual space.
It is an expression of transcendent form, which opens out into
the infinite.' - William
Bruce Attah
> My understanding of Cezanne's approach to painting is connected to the
> from his writings.
Commonly held assumptions. Hmm.
> Judgement in art must, at some point account for the
> artist's intentions.
I agree with that. If we can know what an artist's intentions are, we
should take them into account, because a good match between intention and
achievement is evidence of skill. However, if the intentions are not
laudable as artistic intentions, any success in carrying them out does not
add to the merit of the artistic work. For instance, if a painter
intended to produce a painting that no-one could like, and succeeded in
doing so, this would not make the unlikeable painting into a good
painting.
> If the intentions of Cezanne were to create artworks
> which answered the demands of Renaissance Neoplatonic Realism, or the
> demands of late twentieth century Photo-realism, then Cezanne was either
> inept or insane.
Got it in one.
> However, his writings suggest that he, like many
> artists of the late 19th century, was attempting to explore a new way of
> seeing and painting reality. Like scientists, philosophers, poets, and
> psychologists of his era, Cezanne was increasingly aware of the fact that
> mere appearances (especially those garnered from an Aristotelian single
> point-of-view at a single moment in time) were not entirely adequate for
> describing our broader experience of the world around us. He and many of
> his contemporaries were experimenting with new ways of seeing that might
> account for things like movement through space and time.
Am I to take it that movement through space and time did not occur before
the late 19th century? Am I to understand that Western philosophers and
theologians from the beginning of time until the late 19th century were
satisfied with 'mere appearances' as self-explanatory?
> By combining
> multiple impressions gathered from multiple points of view in a painted
> mosaic loosely arranged around the representational form, he hoped to
> guide the viewer through a series of visual experiences of three
> dimensional form (making something solid out of impressionism).
Cezanne did indeed claim he wanted to 'make something solid out of
impressionism'. As I recall, that statement is followed by the clause
'...like the art in museums'.
Cezanne was not moving forward from impressionism, but backward. At first
he exhibited with the Impressionists, but even critics who approved of the
impressionists found his work risibly bad. If you have seen his 'Modern
Olympia' you must surely understand why. He just couldn't cut it with the
big boys.
One of Cezanne's avowed intentions was to 'paint Poussin from Nature'.What
does that tell you? He was not an impressionist, nor was he a
post-impressionist, but an individual who wanted to go back to a
pre-impressionist approach to painting. He wanted to synthesise the
classicism he admired with the realism of Courbet and Corot. His search
for solidity was not forward-looking but backward-looking. Personally, I
do not think there is anything wrong with looking backwards for influences
and inspiration, but there is something wrong with not being up to the
task, which was Cezanne's problem. He could never paint like Poussin, nor
like Corot or the better impressionists, let alone synthesise these
conflicting approaches.
> His work
> is meant to be read as a painted record of a series of related
> experiences on a singular form.
Is it now? How do I know this from looking at his work? Is it the dodgy
perspective apparent in his still-lifes? If so, why is his painting
interpreted this way and that of novice students in drawing classes
interpreted in terms of lack of competence? I don't know if you paint,
but if you do, you will know that a drawing or painting from nature is
_always_ a 'painted record of a series of related experiences'. The trick
lies in disguising this fact. I suspect that this claim about Cezanne's
intentions is nothing more than a post-facto justification of evident
faults in the work of an artist who has already been acclaimed great for
non-aesthetic reasons.
> He intentionally violates continuity of
> perspective,
There is no evidence anywhere that he was capable of *not* violating
continuity of perspective. Consistently, throughout his career, Cezanne
displayed the gaucheries of one who has never quite understood perspective
or its uses. Never once does he display proper grasp of its workings.
alternates thick and thin paint viscosity with warm and cool
> color so as to flatten form into pattern.
One of the interesting things about favourable criticism of Cezanne's
painting is its contradictoriness. One moment, Cezanne is being praised
for the solidity which his work achieves, and the next for the flatness.
> This is what Byzantine images
> do for religious reasons. Cezanne does this for intellectual, poetic, and
> painterly reasons.
No, he does it because it's the best he can manage.
> He is responding to a different issue than were other
> artists who were more faithful to realist requirements for frozen moments
> of stop-action realism.
Quite possibly, but I see no evidence of it.
> Realism, as such, has usually appealed to a
> middle-class sensibility which bases it's notion of the Real in a
> material and sense-oriented aesthetic vision. There are other priorities
> which govern the art of those whose vision of Reality lie elswhere.
This is not true. In nineteenth-century France, Realism was associated
with political radicalism and anarchism. (In Britain, too, though to a
lesser extent, the more realist painters such as Hogarth, Gainsborough,
Constable and the Pre-Raphaelites were somewhat outside the establishment
mainstream.) The competing ideologies of art at the time were Classicism
and Romanticism, both of which created an idealised, heroic, conception
of the world (or alternative to the world, if you prefer). Cezanne was
torn between the three ideologies, and was never able to synthesise them.
The bulk of his work is realist, but I suspect that this has more to do
with his lack of imagination than a real preference. His landscapes and
still-lifes can be seen as studies for Classicist projects that he was
never going to be able to carry out.
As for 'sense-orientation', there is no lack of sensuality in Realism's rivals.
> What seems to be at issue is the notion that art is elevated activity
> which can be measured, like athletic prowess, by skill demonstrated in
> technique.
Indeed, you are right.
> If the value of art is found in the demonstration of skill
> then people who have greater skill are more valuable than those whose
> insights may involve wisdom but not technique.
Once again, you are quite correct.
> Still, the standard by
> which skill is measured may be the found in the nature of the intention
> of the artist, or in significant form, or in any of a dozen other standards.
Right again!
Skill is fundamental to art, and by using a number of methods of
assessment, it is possible to discover that Cezanne does not have that
skill in large doses. For an amateur, he's not bad, though.
Fritillari
May we all take a look at *your* website to see samples of *your* artwork?
Since you think Cezanne is so talentless, I'm sure you think you must be
better... If we think you're an artistic genius, maybe we'll take your
brash insults as intelligent criticisms... Or is it simply too easy for
you to criticize others without making yourself vulnerable?
Terran
http://www.kaiaghok.com
(and I don't feel *I* am anywhere near as talented as Cezanne, not within
leagues....)
Fritillari
<md...@frontier.canrem.com> writes:
>" IF IT NEEDS A LONG SERMON TO PROCLAIM IT ART ITS PROBABLY BULLSHIT."
Can we say the same about your artistic views, since you need long sermons
to try to validate them?
:)
Fritillari
Mani Deli
>>As to repetition, I’ve read nothing but repetitive praise of the most
idiotic
>>garbage passing itself of as art for the last forty years. I’ve also seen
>>armies of painters with no skill repeating the same excuses for their utter
>>failure.
>Andy Pearlman:
>Funny, this newsgroup has only been around for about 4-5 years now. How
again
>do you get that 40 year figure? Haven't exactly seen too many professional
>art critics wandering around here, either. Remember, you take two of the
>funky little blue pills, not the white ones.
>
Perhaps you are retarded as Cezanne. I doubt that any pill will help you.
Critics have existed about 3000 years before the before the advent of this
newsgroup.
>>Cezanne Challenge:
>>Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist "Bathers."
>
>Let me explain to you why none of us have bothered to answer your challenge:
>Your question is along the lines of asking "Explain to me how, given
Newtonian
>Physics, how one can possibly construct an atomic bomb!!!" Answer: "Duh,
>you *can't* use Newtonian Physics to construct one, it relies on a theory
>made up *after* Newtonian Physics proved limiting."
>
In other words you can't say anything that amounts to more than "Duh." Well at
least your in good company here.
>"What tip do you have to leave after staying seven years in a restaurant?"
Try using the washroom before departing.
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art
Joachim Stein
war-companions. It is quite useless to tell them that they limit
themselves to reflect only one aspect of art, since that is their aim.
And not only that. They have no tollerance for any other way of
producing art or reflecting things, these people would like to forbid
artists to work in their own way. They are not only to stupid to benefit
from what life and art offers them, but they want to destroy what I call
culture.
Joachim Stein
Guy Fiscus
the phenomenon of binocular parallax? I'm can't address your thoughts but
thought that I would ask you if you are interested as I am in something
that is truly unique about these paintings. It can be seen in the
watercolors; rarely in the oils. Also shows up in the drawings. This
aspect is found in the last few years only. Have a really intense day.
Guy
Andy Pearlman
>>In article <040396.215...@frontier.canrem.com> Mani Deli
>>Let me explain to you why none of us have bothered to answer your challenge:
>>Your question is along the lines of asking "Explain to me how, given
>Newtonian
>>Physics, how one can possibly construct an atomic bomb!!!" Answer: "Duh,
>>you *can't* use Newtonian Physics to construct one, it relies on a theory
>>made up *after* Newtonian Physics proved limiting."
>>
>In other words you can't say anything that amounts to more than "Duh." Well at
>least your in good company here.
No, your question is a nonsense question. You're arguing the lack of quality
draftsmanship of Cezanne makes it not art. But draftsmanship has little or
nothing to do with the piece, because it uses a different theory about what is
art because the old theory, 'Realism' proved limiting. Because you are using
the out-dated theory to argue your case, you really aren't getting anywhere.
In order for you to get somewhere, you would have to show that this theory
still applied to pieces that clearly are art in the eyes of art critics,
artists, and the general public, yet show no signs of draftsmanship or realism.
Van Gogh's Starry Night as an example.
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman - artwork at http://tsb.weschke.com/iiw/gallery/pearlman_a.html
apea...@panix.com
Mani Deli
>>The Modern Academic Art supporters here spout off about how great Cezanne is
>>by quotes and the usual praise.
>>Tell us what’s great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist "Bathers."
>>
>>Tell us about the great
>>draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery and the
>>novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on the conehead on
the
>>left.
>> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
>>drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two directions.
>>Also don’t fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and color in the
>>background.
Mark R. Anderson writes:
>My understanding of Cezanne's approach to painting is connected to the
>commonly held assumptions regarding his specific intentions as derived
>from his writings.
Paintings not writing or intentionsis what we are judging here.
>Judgement in art must, at some point account for the
>artist's intentions. If the intentions of Cezanne were to create artworks
>which answered the demands of Renaissance Neoplatonic Realism, or the
>demands of late twentieth century Photo-realism, then Cezanne was either
>inept or insane.
Regadless of his intentions. He was inept.
However, his writings suggest that he, like many
>artists of the late 19th century, was attempting to explore a new way of
>seeing and painting reality.
As to his writings he reveals himself to be somewhat of a retard.
Like scientists, philosophers, poets, and
>psychologists of his era, Cezanne was increasingly aware of the fact that
>mere appearances (especially those garnered from an Aristotelian single
point-of-view at a single moment in time) were not entirely> adequate for
>describing our broader experience of the world around us. He and many of
>his contemporaries were experimenting with new ways of seeing that might
>account for things like movement through space and time.
There are new ways of painting not seeing. We all see approximatly the same
thing. Its what we do with this that counts. There is no more space/time in
Cezanne than in a dirty paint rag.
By combining
>multiple impressions gathered from multiple points of view in a painted
>mosaic loosely arranged around the representational form, he hoped to
>guide the viewer through a series of visual experiences of three
>dimensional form (making something solid out of impressionism).
There are no multiple impressions or anything unconventional in Cezanne"s
portraits or his still lifes.
His work
>is meant to be read as a painted record of a series of related
>experiences on a singular form. He intentionally violates continuity of
>perspective, alternates thick and thin paint viscosity with warm and cool
>color so as to flatten form into pattern. This is what Byzantine images
>do for religious reasons.
Neither you I or Cezanne knows how his paintings should be read. He flattens
stuff because he can't handle space.
>Cezanne does this for intellectual, poetic, and
>painterly reasons.
Never the less his paintings never rise above the mediocre and stay mostly in
the real of the abominable. Do you realize that lousey poets with little
intellect also exist.
He is responding to a different issue than were other
>artists who were more faithful to realist requirements for frozen moments
>of stop-action realism. Realism, as such, has usually appealed to a
>middle-class sensibility which bases it's notion of the Real in a
>material and sense-oriented aesthetic vision. There are other priorities
>which govern the art of those whose vision of Reality lie elswhere.
>
Cezanne is as conventional as any academic who lacks skill.
>..If the value of art is found in the demonstration of skill
>then people who have greater skill are more valuable than those whose
>insights may involve wisdom but not technique.
Logic?
> Perhaps you are simply stating a preference for a specific and limited
>form of realism.
>
That is what Cezanne was trying.
Dimitry S Herman
> >Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
> >>The Modern Academic Art supporters here spout off about how great Cezan=
ne is=20
>=20
> >>by quotes and the usual praise.=20
> >>Tell us what=92s great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist "Ba=
thers."=20
> =20
> >>
> >>Tell us about the great=20
> >>draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery an=
d the=20
>=20
> >>novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on the conehead =
on=20
> the=20
> >>left.
> >> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the=20
> >>drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two direction=
s. =20
> >>Also don=92t fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and color in the=
=20
> >>background.=20
>=20
> Mark R. Anderson writes:
> >My understanding of Cezanne's approach to painting is connected to the=
=20
> >commonly held assumptions regarding his specific intentions as derived=
=20
> >from his writings.
>=20
> Paintings not writing or intentionsis what we are judging here.
>=20
> >Judgement in art must, at some point account for the=20
> >artist's intentions. If the intentions of Cezanne were to create artwork=
s=20
> >which answered the demands of Renaissance Neoplatonic Realism, or the=20
> >demands of late twentieth century Photo-realism, then Cezanne was either=
=20
> >inept or insane.
>=20
> Regadless of his intentions. He was inept.
>=20
> However, his writings suggest that he, like many=20
> >artists of the late 19th century, was attempting to explore a new way of=
=20
> >seeing and painting reality.=20
>=20
> As to his writings he reveals himself to be somewhat of a retard.
>=20
> Like scientists, philosophers, poets, and=20
> >psychologists of his era, Cezanne was increasingly aware of the fact tha=
t=20
> >mere appearances (especially those garnered from an Aristotelian single=
=20
> point-of-view at a single moment in time) were not entirely> adequate for=
=20
> >describing our broader experience of the world around us. He and many o=
f=20
> >his contemporaries were experimenting with new ways of seeing that might=
=20
> >account for things like movement through space and time.=20
>=20
> There are new ways of painting not seeing. We all see approximatly the sa=
me=20
> thing. Its what we do with this that counts. There is no more space/time =
in=20
> Cezanne than in a dirty paint rag.
>=20
> By combining=20
> >multiple impressions gathered from multiple points of view in a painted=
=20
> >mosaic loosely arranged around the representational form, he hoped to=20
> >guide the viewer through a series of visual experiences of three=20
> >dimensional form (making something solid out of impressionism).=20
>=20
> There are no multiple impressions or anything unconventional in Cezanne"s=
=20
> portraits or his still lifes.
>=20
> His work=20
> >is meant to be read as a painted record of a series of related=20
> >experiences on a singular form. He intentionally violates continuity of=
=20
> >perspective, alternates thick and thin paint viscosity with warm and coo=
l=20
> >color so as to flatten form into pattern. This is what Byzantine images=
=20
> >do for religious reasons.
>=20
> Neither you I or Cezanne knows how his paintings should be read. He flatt=
ens=20
> stuff because he can't handle space.=20
>=20
> >Cezanne does this for intellectual, poetic, and=20
> >painterly reasons.=20
>=20
> Never the less his paintings never rise above the mediocre and stay mostl=
y in=20
> the real of the abominable. Do you realize that lousey poets with little=
=20
> intellect also exist.
>=20
> He is responding to a different issue than were other=20
> >artists who were more faithful to realist requirements for frozen moment=
s=20
> >of stop-action realism. Realism, as such, has usually appealed to a=20
> >middle-class sensibility which bases it's notion of the Real in a=20
> >material and sense-oriented aesthetic vision. There are other priorities=
=20
> >which govern the art of those whose vision of Reality lie elswhere.
> >
> Cezanne is as conventional as any academic who lacks skill.
>=20
> >..If the value of art is found in the demonstration of skill=20
> >then people who have greater skill are more valuable than those whose=20
> >insights may involve wisdom but not technique.=20
>=20
> Logic?
>=20
> > Perhaps you are simply stating a preference for a specific and limited=
=20
> >form of realism.
> >
> That is what Cezanne was trying.
>=20
> Mani DeLi
> ..no skill no art
>=20
>=20
>=20
When I first found this newsgroup, I was excited to find a forum to=20
discuss art that I thought was previously unavailable. But what I have=20
come to a see is that everyone who contributes to the discussion in this=20
newsgroup is more interested in showing off the knowledge they have (or=20
allege to have) rather than actually making any type of intelligent=20
statement.
As the discussions in the group have been focused on the subject of skill=
=20
in art, I find it apporpriate to note that while skill is an important, a=
=20
vital part of art, it is vital only insofar as it allows the artist=20
complete freedom and facility to express themselves. In the same way, we=
=20
find musicians who are fully at ease with their instruments to be=20
excellent at prepared or impromptu performance. But when the artist's=20
statement is just about skill, as impressive as the skill make be, the=20
statement is shallow, it is vain. Any slick work of art that only=20
expresses skill says to the viewer one thing: that the artist thinks he is=
=20
one hot shit. How deep!
So by analogy, I relate to the newsgroup contributors who are only=20
interested in quiblling (you know who you are) that your contributions=20
are likewise shallow and vain, and say nothing about you except that you th=
ink you are=20
all experts, whether as historians or as artists. If a challenge is to=20
be made, then I challenge you: say something intelligent and=20
substantive for once.=20
In closing, I ask all the readers of this message to think about=20
the wonderful asset the Internet, and how progressive one's works could=20
be via such communication. It allows people from all over the world to=20
communicate as never before. And yet, the level of conversation is so=20
mediocre. How ironic: when the level for masterycan can be so high,
we regress to such mediocrity.
Do any of you think that in the Renaissance, if Durer=20
could speak to Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, or Raphael, do you think that they=
=20
would talk about who is a great artist and who is not. Rubbish. They=20
would discuss the problems each faced in their works, and they would=20
understand one another because the problems in art are and have been=20
universal. =20
And the problems in art are what demostrates the artist's struggle, his=20
intelligence, and his creativity.
So to any of the readers who are interested in having an honest=20
discussion about art, about the problems in art, about interpretation of=20
master works based on analysis, and not just mental masturbation, I ask=20
you to write in. It would be exciting to discuss these issues with other=
=20
artists, not just pseudo-artistes that lurk these grounds.=20
Bruce Attah
posted articles that essentially parrot the received wisdom about Cezanne,
others of you have posted flames. None of you have risen, however, to the
challenge which he has set, which, if Cezanne is the great artist you say
he is, should be very easy to do.
All you have to do, to prove and justify your genuine admiration for
Cezanne as a painter, is to show us doubters the particular features in
his work that are so admirable. Give us pointers to the evidence of
Cezanne's particular strengths as a painter. Choose one of his supposed
masterpieces, such as a Grande Baigneuses or a self-portrait, and go
through its aspects one by one:
the colour
the light
the use of space
the drawing
the handling of paint
the expressiveness of the figures or of the portrait face
Show us those touches that you think are particularly felicitous, and
those which give the greatest delight.
If there is anything particularly original in the work, let us know what
it is. Let us see how the work you are describing differs from what went
before. (Cite particular examples---for instance, how do his large figure
compositions improve on Poussin?)
What are Cezanne's faults and limitations? Are these present in the work
described? Point them out, at the same time as pointing out how he
transcends them in order to produce art that you consider great. If there
is nothing at all that displeases you in the work in question, say so.
That way, if we doubters find something that seems to us like a fault, we
will be able to draw your attention to it so that you can explain to us
how it is in fact an essential part of the harmonious whole.
Take into account the objections that have been raised concerning this
artist, _specific_ objections regarding drawing, colour, composition and
originality. Answer these objections _specifically_.
Such a defence should be easy to construct for any truly great painting.
So, none of this should be difficult if you are genuine fans of Cezanne's
work. If you cannot do this, I must doubt your sincerity. I trust that
you would not want it to be thought of you that you were just sheepishly
following handed-down verities about an artist whose work you did not
personally like?
Anthony Wright
> =
> Can anyone here defend the
> works of artists they like? I challenge them to defend the Cezanne=92s I
> mentioned.
Why should I (or anyone) have to defend a painting? We're talking about sub=
jective criteria. =
> Tell us what=92s great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist "Bath=
ers."
Sentence please?
=
> Tell us about the great
> draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery and =
the
> novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on the conehead on=
the
> left.
> =
> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
> drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two directions.=
> Also don=92t fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and color in the
> background.
> =
> Perhaps poesie-struck Scheckler or our house optometrist Ross Green (he =
can
> diagnose color-blindness from mere Internet messages) would deem to lower=
> themselves to praise a painting and discuss its detail.
> =
> Perhaps Archbishop Eicher might even take time off from delivering extrem=
e
> unction to defend his gods.
> =
> Or am I expecting too much?
Do you approach every aspect of life with such cynicism or is just our good=
fortune? =
> Mani DeLi
> =85no skill no art
Thanks for including your traits in your signature. I bet if you tried hard=
enough, you might =
acquire some skill and maybe someday produce some art. I won't be holding m=
y breath, though.
Anthony Wright
http://www.metronet.com/~twright/sculptur.htm
take a look sometime
William DeRaymond
>
> Mani Deli wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone here defend the
> > mentioned.
>
> Why should I (or anyone) have to defend a painting? We're talking about subjective criteria.
I would just like to respond to this subjective statement with an
observation of mine... that is that the function of the artist is to make an
object of the subject --objectify the subjective. Just because something is
subjective doesn't mean it can't be understood or appreciated, like Cezanne
for example, his paintings are as much a subjective expression as they are
paintings of objects and studies of visual reality. (thus if one understands
the absolute nature of the medium or artform, one can know what Cezanne was
saying with his very real understanding of the same, it's not speculative
and can't be written off as simply 'subjective') This is actually in the
realm of aesthetics....
Michael Betancourt
post-impressionists, such as Cezanne:
Are any of you artists?
--
Michael Betancourt
E-mail: mw...@mosquito.com
Michael Betancourt
> Art requires no defense. Cezanne requires no defense, he's dead.
> How about we talk about some contemporary artists?
Well said; has anyone considered the old addage about established art?
(that the old paintings in museums aren't on trial, the viewers are?)
Mani Deli
>"war companions"..."Destroy culture"
This paranoid twit should get a job as a preacher.
MD
William DeRaymond
> When I first found this newsgroup, I was excited to find a forum to
As a participant to the discussion I take exception to your negative
judgement of me. My purpose is to share the knowledge I have with others.
You don't have to agree with me. In any case it would be good of you to be
specific about the instances of showing off and what you feel isn't
intelligent rather than make blanket generalizations.
> As the discussions in the group have been focused on the subject of skill
> in art, I find it apporpriate to note that while skill is an important, a
> vital part of art, it is vital only insofar as it allows the artist
> complete freedom and facility to express themselves. In the same way, we
> find musicians who are fully at ease with their instruments to be
> excellent at prepared or impromptu performance. But when the artist's
> statement is just about skill, as impressive as the skill make be, the
> statement is shallow, it is vain. Any slick work of art that only
> expresses skill says to the viewer one thing: that the artist thinks he is
> one hot shit. How deep!
Again, while one could agree with you from one perspective, the perspective
that says art and skill are different, my experience tells me that in true
art, art and skill are the same thing, but it might not fit commomly held
conceptions of what either art or skill is. Personally I love the skill that
is art. So define skill and define art. What is an artist? Can art be
slick? Or can that which is slick by its very definition not be art. If
art is not slick what is it? Why isn't it slick? Sincere? Probably many
sincere people have created many slick things. But woe unto the insincere,
slick or otherwise.
>
> So by analogy, I relate to the newsgroup contributors who are only
> interested in quiblling (you know who you are) that your contributions
> are likewise shallow and vain, and say nothing about you except that you think you are
> all experts, whether as historians or as artists. If a challenge is to
> be made, then I challenge you: say something intelligent and
> substantive for once.
I find this statement very strange. In that again it is very vague. Call
me a dullard, but I think it would be better to directly confront those who
you feel are guilty and do so with specific arguments and or comments as to
why. It is certainly understandable to feel as you do, I have had the same
feelings and thoughts. At the same time I get that the folks I tend to
disagree with, have reasons for their viewpoints, and while I feel the
strength of my understanding and mastery and will use that to try to sway
their thinking or enlighten anyone who cares, I have a kind of strange
respect for the divergent views, as wrong as I may think them to be. And of
course, if I venture myself, which I do every time I post something or
respond to a post, all manner of negative or positive judgement might come
my way. It seems to me a very intimate affair.
>
> In closing, I ask all the readers of this message to think about
> the wonderful asset the Internet, and how progressive one's works could
> be via such communication.
Could you explain this further?
> It allows people from all over the world to
> communicate as never before. And yet, the level of conversation is so
> mediocre. How ironic: when the level for masterycan can be so high,
> we regress to such mediocrity.
>
> Do any of you think that in the Renaissance, if Durer
> could speak to Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, or Raphael, do you think that they
> would talk about who is a great artist and who is not. Rubbish.
I don't know... maybe you take too lightly this issue of greatness. As far
as I am concerned it is very important and revolves around a love of history
and thus humanity. By the way I think Michaelangelo was superior by far to
Da Vinci and that Cezanne's portraits are light years ahead of the Mona
Lisa. The first time I saw Cezanne's portrait of Victor Chocquet I had that
very thought!
> They
> would discuss the problems each faced in their works, and they would
> understand one another because the problems in art are and have been
> universal.
So what do you see those problems to be? You are not talking of the
artist's struggle to master technique are you?
> And the problems in art are what demostrates the artist's struggle, his
> intelligence, and his creativity.
I find my greatest problems have been to get people to support me as an
artist. In other words love my work enough so they will buy it. The
artwork itself is mostly an ecstatic venture.
>
> So to any of the readers who are interested in having an honest
> discussion about art, about the problems in art, about interpretation of
> master works based on analysis, and not just mental masturbation, I ask
> you to write in. It would be exciting to discuss these issues with other
> artists, not just pseudo-artistes that lurk these grounds.
I think it would be better to intelligently discuss your viewpoints rather
than take what appears to me to be a rather condescending and parental
viewpoint. Prove yourself by intelligent discussion. What is this mental
masturbation? If I disagree with you am I doing mental masturbation?
Analysis? Go ahead analyze something that has meaning to you that you want
to share? That you think the analysis of which will shed light on our
understanding. I might be thrilled or not.
Small insect on the edge
several decades? What's the point, beyond a personal expansion and
understanding of art...why must we rise to someone else's bait? There are
aspects of Cezanne's works that I appreciate, even like, and others I don't:
if I wanted to be academic about it I'd be teaching instead of painting.
Don't/shouldn't we have something better to do with our time than idly
theorizing and trying to prove to each other how terribly erudite we are, what
terribly "cultured" people we artists are? I'm sorry, I have work to
do...maybe I'll read the flames later when I have time.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> I asked:
>>> Can anyone here defend the
>>> works of artists they like? I challenge them to defend the Cezanne’s I
>>> mentioned.
i'm not going to play that game with you, nyaa! nyaaa!
>>Scheckler offers the usual cop-out. AS EXPECTED.
>>Art requires no defense. Cezanne requires no defense, he's dead.
>>How about we talk about some contemporary artists?
>
> Twombly?
we did that awhile ago and i talked all about quantum physics as
related to time and his paintings and my actual interpretations
and appreciation for his work, others's interpretations and opinions
were all over the newsgroup too, and more or less you said:
"no no no no no no no no, twombly sucks,
no no no no no no, twombly sucks, and that's it."
>>> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
>>> drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two directions.
>>> Also don’t fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and color in the
>>> background.
>>
>>Art does not ask why, art does not care why.
>
> We are talking about paintings not art.
aye, there's the rub. you don't think paintings are art.
because they are not art, no painting embodies any skill at all,
because, after all, as the deli-meister so often says, no skill no art.
whatta bore.
>> Perhaps poesie-struck Scheckler or our house optometrist Ross Green (he
> can
>>> diagnose color-blindness from mere Internet messages) would deem to lower
>>> themselves to praise a painting and discuss its detail.
>>
>>Neither one of us is stupid enough to fall for that old trick...
>>
>>> Perhaps Archbishop Eicher might even take time off from delivering extreme
>>> unction to defend his gods.
>>>
>>> Or am I expecting too much?
>>
>>Quite frankly, the expectation is hollow and empty.
>>
> The usual cop-out. AS EXPECTED.
oh, darn, I copped-out, i'm so awfully upset at myself.
if i thought you were a really stunning dominatrix than i
might play the negation game more frequently, but all you
do is bellow 'no!' a lot and that's not enough.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
sl...@cc.usu.edu
la-la-la la la la lightbulb!
In article <050396.221...@frontier.canrem.com>, Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> writes:
> The humble William DeRaymond/Artist: writes
>>Bottom line is any painting Cezanne did is based on a language you were
>>never taught or refuse to learn.
>
> I understand the gist of Artspeak quite well.
>
> It is a visual one not a verbal one.
why separate thought into little categories like that?
>>Cezanne himself stated that if you would be a painter you should give up the
>>literary spirit.
that's the part about cezanne that i don't jive with very well.
(b/c i'm such a literary-verbal painter in so many ways)
it's also the part about cezanne that rebels against the poussin's
and others around that time whose brand of painting was very
narrative, very rooted in whatever myth or story was being depicted.
i like that cezanne busted the idea of narrative painting wide open,
though, which opened a great many doors for many artists.
[clip]
>>You can not understand Cezanne by taking a superior attitude because he
>>doesn't fit your conceptual framework.
>
> Indeed. So when Cezanne knocks off a portrait that resembles a schmiery
> pinhead that only looks like it was flattened by a steam-roller we should
> refit it into another conceptual framework before admiring it.
is changing the way one thinks about something the same as
changing one's mind? weird question... i wanted to say
something about how it's possible to think something in a variety
of ways, switching a lot, without losing any identity in the process.
it's also possible (the postmodernists will hate me for saying this)
to look at things without any conceptual framework at all.
>>>'A painting is a doorway into psychological/spiritual space.
>>It is an expression of transcendent form, which opens out into
>>the infinite.' - William
>
> The doorway to the mystical miasma I presume.
the presumption stopped you cold. too bad, your loss.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Bruce Attah
> In article <070396.230...@frontier.canrem.com> Mani Deli
<md...@frontier.canrem.com> writes:
> >What theory?
>
> Various. One is called Modernism.
Modernism is not a theory. It is an attitude. There is no coherent set
of ideas that defines the word other than the opinion that new=good &
old=bad.
Bruce Attah
> (b/c i'm such a literary-verbal painter in so many ways)
We've noticed.
Some points of correction:
> it's also the part about cezanne that rebels against the poussin's
> and others around that time whose brand of painting was very
> narrative, very rooted in whatever myth or story was being depicted.
1. Cezanne did not rebel against Poussin, but admired him greatly.
2. Poussin did not live 'around that time'. He died over 1 1/2 centuries
before Cezanne was born.
> i like that cezanne busted the idea of narrative painting wide open,
> though, which opened a great many doors for many artists.
3. Painting before Cezanne was not always narrative. The painter Cezanne
most disliked, Ingres, was not a narrative painter, and Cezanne did not
dislike Ingres for his subject matter.
Mani Deli
>>>Art requires no defense. Cezanne requires no defense, he's dead.
>>>How about we talk about some contemporary artists?
>>
>> Twombly?
>
>we did that awhile ago and i talked all about quantum physics as
>related to time and his paintings and my actual interpretations
>and appreciation for his work, others's interpretations and opinions
>were all over the newsgroup too,
There is as much quantum physics in Twombly as in used toilet paper.
> and more or less you said:
>"no no no no no no no no, twombly sucks,
>no no no no no no, twombly sucks, and that's it."
No I didn't. So I'll repeat what I said for your benifit.
As seen by strict Modern Academic Art standards Twombly is by
far my favorite of the latest Modern Academic artists. This guy
has got something.
A Modern Academic artist must have a style strictly associated
with his name. That style must look like an original put-on. It
must be minimal and at the same time be different enough to
irritate anyone who is not an acolyte of the Modern Academic Art
religion to say, in one way or another, "what is this piece of
crap? Twombly is ultra-provocative at this.
The vast majority of modern academics must share their niche with other
occupants. Twombly has a single occupancy niche. Even the
greatest holy like Picasso or Matisse share there niche with a
load of minor occupants. Indeed minor occupants occupy the
cheaper areas but they live in the same apartment complex. Take
the "field" painters for example. Rheinhardt, Still's, and Rothko
all have to share their niche space with a slew of minor
imitators. (see the artzy fartzy magazines)
However no one who produces the same crap as Twombly has any
chance of winning in the great modern art lottery. Anyone who sees an
imitation of his work immediately classifies it as an imitation.
I can name only three artists who have this quality, Mondrian
Pollock and Twombly.
Of these I vastly prefer Twombly because he has a secret technique
which makes him a little harder to imitate. Twombly's secret
lies in his knowledge of graffiti. He schmiers colors underneath
his chicken scratches and assorted grade school scrawl. This is
seen by Modern Academic Art practitioners as a brilliant
technical innovation. The result is that Twombly gets wealthy while others
stay poor. Bravo Twombly.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Bruce Attah
<mw...@mosquito.com> wrote:
> Here is a simple question for all who dislike the work of
> post-impressionists, such as Cezanne:
>
> Are any of you artists?
>
> --
> Michael Betancourt
> E-mail: mw...@mosquito.com
I paint, I studied fine art at university before going on to take degrees
in other subjects. I dislike Cezanne, but that does not mean I dislike
all the post-impressionists. (Cezanne was not really a
post-impressionist, anyway: he participated in the first Impressionist
exhibition.)
TDemayjr
Why does every painter have to be good draftsperson? Sorry, maybe my
tastes are not as refined (read: narrow focused) as yours, but I don't see
the connection between good draftsmanship and good painting...
Please enlighten me! I'm so very naive, it would appear!
William DeRaymond
I thought I'd respond to this. Painting and drawing are intimately
connected. My own feeling is if you would love to paint you would love to
draw.
When I began to practice art, drawing came first to prepare me for painting.
So that I would have the skill and means to express myself as I wished. I
fell in love with drawing, and it taught me a lot about seeing. Without
going to much further, the problem here as I see it is that there seems to
be differing viewpoints as to what 'good' drawing is. Cezanne's drawings
and sketches, to me, are exquisite, not just good but great! So what if
they do not fit the criteria of commercial art! We are talking of a
different realm here. If you don't think his drawing skillful, you are not
seeing the skill, because they do not fit your conceptual pidgeonholing of
what good draughtsmanship should look like. In his drawings, the medium is
expressed, his motif, and his personality(thought, feeling and intuition),
all in exquisite balance, just like in his paintings.
You can do great things by being direct and sincere, whatever the
medium, and whatever degree of 'skill' you possess. But the truth is, if
you continue to paint or draw, you will naturally improve your ability to be
accurate. For me, it is the spontaneous 'dance' that look for, and that is
most important.
Cezanne's drawings and sketches are great AND skillful.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
David N. Zelmon
<md...@frontier.canrem.com>
Mani
In the few weeks I have been checking this group you have dismissed as
artists:
Cezanne
Picasso
Twombly
Rothco
Mondrian
And probably many others I missed you having put down as no skill no art.
So who do you respect as an artist... and why?
Michael Gerard Maranda
>No I didn't. So I'll repeat what I said for your benifit.
> As seen by strict Modern Academic Art standards Twombly is by
> far my favorite of the latest Modern Academic artists. This guy
> has got something.
>
mani;
I know I am going to regret this, but have oyu by chance seen Twombly's
'Goethe in Italy' series in person?
just curious.
mm
--
"Every age gets the renaissance it deserves." (Aby Warburg)
Michael Maranda *** mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
vance
On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Bruce Attah wrote:
> > >What theory?
> >
> > Various. One is called Modernism.
>
> Modernism is not a theory. It is an attitude. There is no coherent set
> of ideas that defines the word other than the opinion that new=good &
> old=bad.
By 1950, there appears to have been a tacit agreement among leading
painters. This agreement might be outlined in seven points, related to
the rendition of pictorial space:
1. The major thrust of the current search was to concentrate on
a flatter picture plane. Any attempt to create illusionistic depth was
not acceptable. If depth was sought it would be limited to the
psychological sensation of depth rather than any controlled, geometric
illusion. Shallow space, as suggested by figure-ground reversals, was
sometimes acceptable because figure-ground reversals were considered
"integrated" as opposed to simple separations of figure and ground.
Sandler holds that "the 'box' associated with Renaissance painting was to
be flattened and thus rendered modern, but the picture plane was also to
be made cubic".
2. Volume or bulk was not applicable to the persistent advance
toward a flatter picture plane, at least not the illusionistic volume
which is achieved through the shading of darks and lights.
3. The painting should be an object, not the illusion of an
object. Painting would "be the image," not contain the image.
4. The unity of the painting should not be penetrated by
intermittent negative shapes or holes. The entire painting should
ideally be composed of positive shapes, though the ambiguous space
created by figure-ground reversals, as in the work of Franz Kline was
acceptable. In this latter mode each area in the painting functioned as
a positive shape for some major portion of the viewing time.
5. Linear perspective was too easy, too obvious, too
illusionistic, and in no way relevant to any of the stated goals.
6. Shading was not relevant to current pursuits. It was as
obvious as linear perspective and it blunted both contrast in value and
color. Shading was too consciously preconceived and controlled for
current interests and it was too illusionistic; it created the appearance
of sculptural bulk.
7. Process was more important than product. This Zen influence
was important and did not allow for preconceived solutions. The solution
was to be found in the process of painting. An often repeated comment
that was indicative of the sentiment held by painters of this time stated
that, "If you know the process you can't screw up." Sandler insists that
"The gesture painters refused to preconceive particular meanings,
regarding the process of painting as an intense, unpremeditated search
for the images of their creative experiences".
-vance
Fritillari
>> color-blindness from mere Internet messages)...
>Thanks for the compliment, Mani. I'm just trying to figure out how
>you and Bruce come up with some of your bizarre opinions. Being
>fully or partly color-blind wouldn't necessarily stop someone from
>being an excellent artist, or from appreciating art - it could even be
>an advantage in some situations (cf. the Claude Lorrain glass, which
>mutes colors and therefore helps determine values of lightness and
>darkness). Even so, how many color-blind individuals set themselves
>up as color theorists?
Good point :)
Thought you all might like to know that there have been studies done on
artists who have gone color-blind. My husband recently picked up a new
book (my apologies, but the title & author escapes me for the moment) by
the author of "The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat" which has a
wonderful chapter on an artist who went color-blind. He kept painting, but
started out in black & white, working with plays of light and shadow, and
at the time the book was written, was experimenting with adding one color
to his paintings...
My apologies again for mentally misplacing the title, but if you run
across it, it's a very interesting read...
Terran
TDemayjr
I think artists like Kirchner, Cezanne, and Bacon show great energy and
expression in their drawing, which will not hold up to many people's ideas
(at least many people in these newsgroups) of what 'traditional drawing
skills' are about.
I too, love to paint, but I don't necessarily love to draw. I don't think
the two are not so closely intertwined for everyone as you assert. I enjoy
drawing, but it is to me, a way of getting something down quickly that I
will later go back and examine in more depth on the canvas. Painting, to
me, is more energetic and loose - drawing seems so much more
constrained...The two are vastly different, in my mind.
But, by all means, you have the right to your view, as well (and I'm not
going to around flaming everyone who doesn't agree with my opinion just to
be thought of as intelligent somehow).
best,
tom
Bruce Attah
> It's really strange that so far 'The Mani & Bruce Campaign Against
> Degenerate Art' has avoided some very obvious targets: van Gogh,
> Gauguin, Degas (later work), Seurat, Honore Daumier, Modigliani,
> Whistler, Gustav Klimt, Edvard Munch, Bonnard, Vuillard, Egon
> Schiele, Max Beckmann, Balthus, Miro, Braque, Schwitters, Max
> Ernst, George Grosz, Giorgio Morandi...J.M.W. Turner...El Greco
> ...Lucas Cranach...and many more...
>
> Maybe these omissions aren't all that surprising, given that Bruce
> and Mani know so little about art history - or maybe they don't
> want to spread their hatred too thin.
>
> By the way, this thread really hasn't much to do with art; actually
> we're arguing about the gross distortion of language, logic, and
> history (=reality). (And these distortions do have much in common
> with the totalitarian/fascist mind-set - many r.a.f. members have
> pointed this out in the past.)
>
> On the other hand...you folks who keep saying that this debate is
> all about 'egos' should really try to be a little less simpleminded.
I thought it would be obvious, but this post and some others have revealed
that it is not. I have not campaigned against the artists you list
because I do not think most of them particularly bad (and I think some of
them particularly good).
Some have assumed, for instance, that I do not like the paintings of Van
Gogh or Francis Bacon. Not true. Both have, in my opinion, produced many
excellent paintings. Ross Green here mentions Schiele and Beckman, both
of whom I have explicitly stated here quite recently that I admire. And
you should have seen the grin on my face as I went round the Ernst
exhibiton a couple of years ago.
I object to Cezanne's painting because I think *Cezanne's* painting is
bad, not because I dislike the entire output of the modern era. Had I
wished to attack the broad swathe of modern art, I would have done so.
After all, I showed no reluctance in condemning Abstract Expressionism and
Conceptualism wholesale. Why would I not do the same for the entire
twentieth century?
I suspect that there are very few in this group who do not believe that
some art is very good and other art not so good. It just happens that in
my case, I believe that for various reasons certain art that is not so
good has acquired a false reputation for being very good (and certain
other art has been unjustly subjected to excessive disparagement or
neglect). I would like to do my bit towards restoring the balance, if I
possibly can.
As for the accusation of totalitarianism/fascism, I would like you to
explain your reasons, so that I can show properly that it is nonsense.
One of the reasons I do not like Abstract Expressionism or Conceptualism
is that I believe these approaches to art lead artists into a condition of
voicelessness. I do not ask that the products of these approaches be
banned or hidden or destroyed. Rather, I ask that we compare these
approaches with the products of other approaches which seem (to me) to
give artists greater freedom and more of a voice. I believe that if
people begin to make this sort of comparison, they will choose more
exciting approaches to art that give more freedom to artists (though
taking some freedom away from critics). Does this sound like a
totalitarian approach to anyone here?
Bruce Attah
> dze...@nyc.pipeline.com (David N. Zelmon) wrote:
>
> > Mani
>
> > In the few weeks I have been checking this group you have
> > dismissed as artists:
> > Cezanne
> > Picasso
> > Twombly
> [clip]
>
> It's really strange that so far 'The Mani & Bruce Campaign Against
> Degenerate Art' has avoided some very obvious targets: van Gogh,
> Gauguin, Degas (later work), Seurat, Honore Daumier, Modigliani,
> Whistler, Gustav Klimt, Edvard Munch, Bonnard, Vuillard, Egon
> Schiele, Max Beckmann, Balthus, Miro, Braque, Schwitters, Max
> Ernst, George Grosz, Giorgio Morandi...J.M.W. Turner...El Greco
> ...Lucas Cranach...and many more...
>
> Maybe these omissions aren't all that surprising, given that Bruce
> and Mani know so little about art history - or maybe they don't
> want to spread their hatred too thin.
>
> By the way, this thread really hasn't much to do with art; actually
> we're arguing about the gross distortion of language, logic, and
> history (=reality). (And these distortions do have much in common
> with the totalitarian/fascist mind-set - many r.a.f. members have
> pointed this out in the past.)
>
> On the other hand...you folks who keep saying that this debate is
> all about 'egos' should really try to be a little less simpleminded.
I have just replied to this post, but I am replying again because I feel
my earlier response should have been much less polite than it was.
Ross Green, I want to say that I think this post of yours is extremely stupid.
The very strong implication in your list of "obvious targets" is that all
artist who have in common that they are approved by modernists must be
equally good or equally bad. This is your first piece of stupidity.
Your lumping together all these very different artists also suggests that
you are not properly cognizant of the distinctions between them---a very
strong indication that you have no artistic taste, but are a follower of
fashion.
Your second big act of stupidity is you allegation that Mani and I know
nothing of art history. You yourself have displayed no greater knowledge
of art history in this newsgroup than I, so you are opening yourself to
the same accusation.
Your third piece of stupidity is in your assertion that this thread
"really hasn't much to do with art", but is about "the gross distortion of
language, logic, and history". You know full well that this thread has
(necessarily) been about both. If you do not, you are an idiot, and if
you do, you are being devious and unjust.
Your fourth and greatest piece of stupidity (in this post, but almost
surely not in your life) is your totally unwarranted accusation of
totalitarianism and fascism (reinforced by your use of the phrase
'Degenerate Art'). I could describe this as invidious and sleazy, but
that would be almost too kind. When people disagree with me, I try to
argue with them. When people disagree with you, you attempt to smear them
with the taint of evil. Which of these behaviours smacks to you more of
totalitarianism?
Finally, you conclude by calling some others here "simpleminded". It
would surely be better to be simpleminded than to descend into the
complicated well of stinking of nonsense that appears to have trapped you.
Lorri Barman
TD> Why does every painter have to be good draftsperson? Sorry, maybe my
TD> tastes are not as refined (read: narrow focused) as yours, but I don't
TD> see the connection between good draftsmanship and good painting...
You are correct. Design sense and color play a crucial role.
Early in his career, Van Gogh couldn't draw. It was only through
dedicated perserverance that he taught himself whatever drafting
skills he possessed. His paintings were never known for their
draftsmanship. Many of his distorations were not deliberate.
However, through his expressive use of color, masterful brushwork,
and design skills, he was able to create the many masterpieces he
did.
Through his own admission, Frank Stella cannot draw. Color and
design quality are his strengths.
There are many more quality artists who cannot draw.
... "Scotty, beam me up another Blue Wave message."
* Origin: The Transporter Room: 16 lines 27gig! 33 CD's 704/567-9513 (1:379/1)
Wes
reengineering on art appreciation?
Wes
Mani Deli
Ross Green wrote:
>>> It's really strange that so far 'The Mani & Bruce Campaign
>>> Against Degenerate Art' has avoided some very obvious targets:
>>> van Gogh, Gauguin, Degas (later work), Seurat, Honore
>>> Daumier, Modigliani, Whistler, Gustav Klimt, Edvard Munch,
>>> Bonnard, Vuillard, Egon Schiele, Max Beckmann, Balthus,
>>> Miro, Braque, Schwitters, Max Ernst, George Grosz, Giorgio
>>> Morandi...J.M.W. Turner...El Greco...Lucas Cranach...and
>>> many more...
>
>> and skill that you like nobody. He then proceeds to make a list
>> to his liking which he presents as above and infers that I like none
>> of these artists. [clip]
>
>
>Which do you like? (And why?)
>
I"ve spoken about some of these artists before so you can look up the messages
if you so desire.
I write about subjects which interest me. I don't choose to comment on all the
artists I like. I will mention Daumier however as I was a collector of his
prints. I sold most of my collection as I now prefer Robert Crumb.
>Most of the artists mentioned above use distortion. It seems that
>any distortion (especially of the human figure) in the style of an
>artist is enough to have them placed on your Hate List.
..Then why do I like Dali to mentiion one artist? For your infomation most
fine artists use distortion and that doesn't mean they draw feet like Matisse.
>But I can't recall ever hearing you or Bruce rant against van Gogh,
>or any of the other artists I've listed.
In the spirit of the above comment I ask, why do you beat your mother Ross?
>What do you think of van Gogh's draftsmanship? (And I'd be
>especially interested in hearing your opinions on the following
>artists: Daumier, Modigliani, and Schiele.)
>
I think they were artists.
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art.
freezelandfreida
not 1/2 bad at it, however, I use color to shape objects and add dimension to my
paintings. I find drawing to be frustrating, however, using color to shape an object is
really simple. Surprising really, considering I know almost nothing about color.
In article <4i8446$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, tdem...@aol.com says...
Bruce Attah
Lorri....@f1.n379.z1.fidonet.org (Lorri Barman) wrote:
> -=> Quoting TDemayjr to All <=-
>
>
> TD> Why does every painter have to be good draftsperson? Sorry, maybe my
> TD> tastes are not as refined (read: narrow focused) as yours, but I don't
> TD> see the connection between good draftsmanship and good painting...
>
> You are correct. Design sense and color play a crucial role.
> Early in his career, Van Gogh couldn't draw. It was only through
> dedicated perserverance that he taught himself whatever drafting
> skills he possessed. His paintings were never known for their
> draftsmanship. Many of his distorations were not deliberate.
> However, through his expressive use of color, masterful brushwork,
> and design skills, he was able to create the many masterpieces he
> did.
>
It is possible to get away with having only moderate drawing ability if
there is much else to commend your pictures (and draw attention away from
faults), and so Van Gogh does, but Matisse and Cezanne do not. The
problems with those latter individuals' work are not limited to drawing
alone.
> Through his own admission, Frank Stella cannot draw.
True.
> Color and
> design quality are his strengths.
False. Sure, his paintings have become more colourful over the years, as
well as busier, but it is one thing to use bright colours, and another
thing entirely to use colours well. As for design, there is almost none
present whatsoever. Stella's early works amount to "taking a line for a
walk" around a prison courtyard, and those of his middle period are no
more than vast magnifications of quite conventional decorative motifs
(with silly colour added, plus layering tricks that look crude compared to
those in Byzantine or Middle Eastern design). His latest work hardly
looks designed at all. These vast latifundia which he probably calls
paintings look like collages taken from miscellaneous sources, including
computer-generated graphs, composed by flinging the elements in front of a
whirling fan. Once again, the motifs are vastly magnified. Like the late
Kieth Haring, Frank Stella seems to think that thoughtful people will be
misled by huge size into thinking his work any more than trivial. Even
for those who are briefly fooled, the illusion cannot last.
>
> There are many more quality artists who cannot draw.
I have my doubts. For one thing, anyone seriously interested in visual
beauty would be inclined to learn drawing in order to explore beauty's
form.
Bruce Attah
Which artists are "mostly dead"? Most are either quite dead or currently
living.
Mani Deli
>reengineering on art appreciation?
>Wes
>
I call it blow-bag deflating.
Kevin Krueger
<Bruce.Attah-18...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> One of the reasons I do not like Abstract Expressionism or Conceptualism
> is that I believe these approaches to art lead artists into a condition of
> voicelessness. I do not ask that the products of these approaches be
> banned or hidden or destroyed. Rather, I ask that we compare these
> approaches with the products of other approaches which seem (to me) to
> give artists greater freedom and more of a voice. I believe that if
> people begin to make this sort of comparison, they will choose more
> exciting approaches to art that give more freedom to artists (though
> taking some freedom away from critics). Does this sound like a
> totalitarian approach to anyone here?
Thanks Bruce for explaining yourself regarding your opinion about Abstract
Expressionism. However, would you mind expanding your thoughts on
voicelessness and lack of freedom of expression with regards to Abstract
Expressionism or Conceptualism.
I believe that expressionism (abstract and otherwise) offers up
opportunities for the creation or hearing of new voices. The strength of
the voice or the clarity of it seems to me to be very subjective and the
judgment of its product would also be subjective.
So without digressing to personal attacks and lengthy quotes from books,
let's begin a discussion to make this sort of comparison or at least
exaplain how you would begin to make one.
-Kevin
Mdeli
>-Kevin
The problem with AE :
- it requires little skill and is mass
produced
-If any AE masterpiece had the signature
erased and were signed Joe Schmo it would be
considered worthless garbage.
-the public depends on critics to
destinguish the so-called masterpiece from
the mere imitation.
-no real criteria exist for assigning merit
-vastly superior abstract work (in terms of
attractiveness) can be found in the
decorative arts from Tibeten sand painting
to oriental rug patterns (all of which are
flat images)
-the abstract element in AE is neither new
or in anyway unique.
-vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead
mysticly oriented people to imagine that
these works have transindental significance
-in a sense AE can not be rationally
criticized and all negative criticisms are
ultimatly answered with criptic appeals for
the understanding of the non-existant
Language of Modern Art.
-AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual
kitsch industry can talk about and sell to
people with "Emperiors New Clothes"
syndrome. These people in turn can claim
deep but inexplicable understanding and feel
that they are more sensitive and superior
than ordinary inferior folk.
-if it didn't look like a put-on no one
would be interested or have anything much to
talk about.
-AE and lots more should be renamed DON"T
LAUGH ART.
-the fact that AE makes people feel good
while it is in fashion is of no consequence.
Remember, hated Salon painting made people
feel good throughout the 19th century.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
(pardon the spelling my word processor is
down)
exile
>There are very imperfect artists and there are also
>charlatans. As to Cezanne, I pointed out bad drawing. I
>feel that bad drawing negates the beauty of any work.
If it's part of an artists style and personal aesthetic
and... it's appropriate to the statement they're making
then I'd say it's perfectly acceptable.
I don't see how you can accuse Cezanne of drawing
badly though. First you'll have to define good
drawing. Then... we can work on defining beauty.
{exile}
Mdeli
>That you would be so arrogant as to *condemn* Abstract Expressionism
>and Conceptualism wholesale shows the superficiality of your views.
>(And your use of the word "condemning" points once again to your crude
>intolerance, etc.)
I also would condemn bedsheets and towel designs if
some idiot assessed them to be on a level with great
art.
>There is no such thing as a 'perfect' artist. Like all human beings,
>artists have character flaws and make mistakes. It is of course
>possible to find some awkwardness in Cezanne's drawing and
>composition; this in no way lessens the beauty of his work, or
>negates his enormous contributions to the history of art.
There are very imperfect artists and there are also
charlatans. As to Cezanne, I pointed out bad drawing. I
feel that bad drawing negates the beauty of any work.
Attah replied
>> I do not ask that the products of these approaches be banned
>> or hidden or destroyed.
>Your constant ranting against Cezanne, Rothko, etc., amounts to
>the same thing (metaphorically).
No one accused you of ranting or destroying anything
when you spoke against Rockwell.
Mani Deli
...no skill no art.
Mdeli
ARTSPEAKENSTEIN wrote:
>Mani has openly admitted his disinterest in classical art, and he
>obviously knows little about modern art (-I myself had to teach him
>to spell the names correctly.) You never talk about specifics, so one
>can only assume you don't know them. (Admittedly, it's quite smart
>of you to avoid the particulars, and keep to the general muddle of
>your theories.)
More Bunk from Green:
You say "Mani has openly admitted his disinterest in
classical art." By the same logic I could say you are
disinterested in art. Your latest messages are getting
more and more accusingly idiotic. CALLING US FASCISTS
REALLY REVEALS YOUR LOWLIFE MENTALITY.
>> Your third piece of stupidity is in your assertion that this thread
>> "really hasn't much to do with art", but is about "the gross
>> distortion of language, logic, and history".
>This discussion has very little to do with art, that's obvious. The
>Deli/Attah faction insists that the entire debate must take place in
>a historical vacuum. Mani's invectives and your fallacious language
>games preclude any serious discussion of art.
Paranoia?
Attah said:
>> Your fourth and greatest piece of stupidity (in this post, but
>> almost surely not in your life) is your totally unwarranted
>> accusation of totalitarianism and fascism (reinforced by your use
>> of the phrase 'Degenerate Art'). I could describe this as invidious
>> and sleazy, but that would be almost too kind. When people
>> disagree with me, I try to argue with them. When people disagree
>> with you, you attempt to smear them with the taint of evil. Which
>> of these behaviours smacks to you more of totalitarianism?
>As usual with you and Mani, you childishly pounced on *part* of
>what I wrote, without bothering about the context or general import.
>I used the phrase "totalitarian/fascist mind-set" - obviously I was
>referring to psychology, not politics. And I was well aware that
>those words are semantically 'loaded' and should therefore have been
>avoided; nevertheless it's ridiculous for you to assert that your
>constant, hate-filled posts against Rothko, Cezanne, etc., should
>be treated with respect.
"hate filled?" This guy is a paranoid.
Anybody who thinks that Mondrian is autistic and
Matisse is the worlds worst draftsman can't be all bad.
>I could profile the authoritarian personality - *arbitrariness* is one
>strong characteristic (cf. your views on Cezanne and van Gogh) - but
>this isn't the time or place for that.
The usual Dr. Green Psychobabble.
>So tell me: *Why isn't van Gogh on your list of hated artists?*
I’m keeping it a secret because I enjoy bugging
paranoids.
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art.
Bruce Attah
kev...@comm.mot.com (Kevin Krueger) wrote:
>Thanks Bruce for explaining yourself regarding your opinion about Abstract
>Expressionism. However, would you mind expanding your thoughts on
>voicelessness and lack of freedom of expression with regards to Abstract
>Expressionism or Conceptualism.
>
>I believe that expressionism (abstract and otherwise) offers up
>opportunities for the creation or hearing of new voices. The strength of
>the voice or the clarity of it seems to me to be very subjective and the
>judgment of its product would also be subjective.
>
>So without digressing to personal attacks and lengthy quotes from books,
>let's begin a discussion to make this sort of comparison or at least
>exaplain how you would begin to make one.
>
>-Kevin
The language of painting is very powerful. All people of all cultures are
capable of learning to read paintings, provided only that they have
adequate eyesight. The language of painting comprises a vocabulary of
visual symbols, forms and attitudes that translate directly into ideas and
emotions (rather than indirectly via words, as writing does). Such visual
language can be used to express piety or blashpemy, veneration or
contempt, eagerness or diffidence, chastity or lust. Indeed, it has
expressed all these things so effectively over the past several centuries
that artists of medieval times have been able to transmit their ideas,
feelings and values to us today.
Conceptualism says "painting is passe, let's go and find something else!"
This is a mistake. If I may borrow a phrase used by a senior British
politician in a different context, abandoning the language of painting in
favour of ad-hoc methods is like selling one's washing machine and taking
one's clothes to the launderette. It is impractical and absurd. The
analogy I have used is too kind, even. Abandoning painting in favour of
conceptualism is like cutting out one's tongue in order to communicate by
gestures and grunts.
The cause of conceptualism's mistake is that it compares itself only with
the mute painting of "Late Modernism", rather than with the hugely and
variously articulate corpus of the past millenium. Therefore it thinks
itself an effective system of communication, and it thinks the ideas it
expresses are important and new. Historical shortsightedness can be a
terrible thing.
On the matter of expressionism. Expressionism is a bit of a joke,
really. An expressionist painting, with its caricatured figures and
swirling, purulent facture, wants you to imagine that it expresses more
deeply than other sorts of painting the emotions of the artist. In this
respect, the painting lies. That expressionist manner is a manner and
nothing more. With big, stiff brushes and copious amounts of paint,
anyone can achieve the look of expressionism, and if expressionism is what
the market demands, expressionism is what artists will produce --
gratefully, too, in some cases, as the style can serve wonderfully to hide
incompetence or laziness.
If you explore pre-modern painting you will certainly discover many works
that are far more powerfully affecting than many that are painted
"expressionistically". In any case, it is worth asking why those emotions
supposedly carried by the expressinonist style (angst, nervous excitement)
are to be preferred over other emotions. I have a strong suspicion that
when the age of expressionism is gone, people will look back on it with
the same puzzled dismay that is the modern response to Victorian
sentimentalism. The emotional affectation of expressionism is, in my
view, no less silly and no more adult than that different affectation that
dominated painting a century ago.
This is not to say that there are no good expressionist paintings--merely
that the 'ism', like all 'isms' in art is little else but a simple trick,
uncritically adopted by the lazy, and uncritically enjoyed by far too
many.
IBShar
of photogs on 1 floppy. Jock Sturges, Mark Sink, about 25 fine art
photogs, or you
can view on-line. Worth checking out. It's
http://www.commerce.com/thesight/
Mdeli
>hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli)
>>There are very imperfect artists and there are also
>>charlatans. As to Cezanne, I pointed out bad drawing. I
>>feel that bad drawing negates the beauty of any work.
> If it's part of an artists style and personal aesthetic
> and... it's appropriate to the statement they're making
> then I'd say it's perfectly acceptable.
> I don't see how you can accuse Cezanne of drawing
> badly though. First you'll have to define good
> drawing. Then... we can work on defining beauty.
> {exile}
Look at the paintings I mention and tell us why the
drawing is good.
I quote 3 messages to my challenge. Note that as
expected none answers the challenge. All contain the
usual psycho-babble and "it all theory". I'll quote
some of the more idiotic bits from these messages and
repeat my challenge.
It seems that all defenders of Modern Academic Art are
incapable of discussing the merits of individual
paintings. All they are capable of is what I call
"excuse theory." This is the subject learned in our
Modern Art Academies to excuse the lack of skill which
saturates Modern Academic Art. Any criticism of their
gods are seen as nothing but repetition.
As to repetition, I've read nothing but repetitive
praise of the most idiotic garbage passing itself of as
art for the last forty years. I've also seen armies of
painters with no skill repeating the same excuses for
their utter incompetence.
Criticizing the lack of merit in a particular painting
is painful repetition for these people.
Andy Pearlman said:
>Are you bitter? Are you continuously blathering on about the same old tired
>topic? Do you see art critics lurking behind every corner? Do you think the
>art world is out to get you?
>
>Perhaps you should think about changing your name to Ob Com or Para Schiz.
>Your current nom de guerre reflects a certain lack of understanding of
>psychology. And yes, I'm aware of my 'error' in the previous sentence.
Apparently one needs to understand psychology in order
to excuse Cezanne's wall eyed portrait and lousy
drawing.
Rosa Amarillo says:
>You must be new to the newsgroup or you would know that Mani DeLie is
>a broken record that keeps spinning but never gets out of the groove. And
>he is as much a relic of this newsgroup as are grooved platters in today's
>recording industry. Your quite intelligent and loquacious defense of Cezanne
>is totally wasted if your reply is intended to "educate" Mani. It's much like
>shouting at the stuck needle on the phonograph to get it out of the groove.
>The only way it'll stop it's incessant repititions is to get physical with it
>and move the needle or shut off the phonograph. The latter is my preferred
>solution. Then destroy the flawed recording so it doesn't annoy in the
>future.
Why not answer the challenge Rosa and if your needle
is stuck get another repair man.
And...
>I have decided that participating in this newsgroup is like listening to a
>great piece of music in your car. ManiDeli is the truck with a broken
>muffler spewing thick, black exhaust and weaving from lane to lane. Just
>keep you eye on it to make sure it doesn't run you down, but otherwise,
>drive on. As a fan of John Cage, I'm actually trying to appreciate his
>noise pollution as a part of the piece...
>greg allen
>Cage: Art and Music.
Cage: noise passed off as art and music. But that's
begging the question Greg why not tell us what you love
about Cezanne's portraits.
Cezanne Challenge:
>Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist "Bathers."
>Like why the figures are all cockeyed.
>Tell us about the great
>draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery and the
>novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on the conehead on the
>left.
>
> In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
>drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two directions.
>Also don't fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and color in the
>background.
Mdeli
The problem with Abstract expressionism and lots of
other stuff.
-AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
-If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased and
were signed Joe Schmo it would be considered worthless
garbage.
-the public depends on critics to distinguish the
so-called masterpiece from the mere imitation.
-no real criteria exist for assigning merit
-the abstract element in AE is neither new or in
anyway unique.Vastly superior abstract work (in terms
of skill and attractiveness) can be found in the
decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel
designs. (all of which are flat images and were flat
images long before AE made its debut.)
-Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically
oriented people to imagine that these works have
transcendental significance.
-in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all
negative criticisms are ultimately answered with
cryptic appeals for the understanding of the
non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
-AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry
can talk about and sell to people with "Emperor’s New
Clothes" syndrome. These people in turn can claim deep
but inexplicable understanding and feel that they are
more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
folk. This fulfills there need to feel exceptional.
-In the context of today’s fashions if it didn't look
like a put-on no one would be interested or have
anything much to talk about.
-AE and lots more should be renamed DON"T LAUGH ART.
-The excuse that AE makes people feel good while it is
in fashion is of no consequence. Remember, hated Salon
painting made people feel good throughout the 19th
century. Today it is considered so bad that hardly
anyone is able to see it and judge for himself.
JT
These comments sound like the grumblings of a very disappointed and
rejected Abstract Expressionist artist. Because he/she's artwork has not
been accepted by the places that they dream of, they must lash out at
that that has been accepted, understood, enjoyed and collected. Sigh.
Don't bother replying, unless you don't care if I respond back, for this
is the last time that I am going to waste even half a second of my own
time reading these thoughtless messages posted in this newsgroup. How
disappointing.
Kajojacobs
Was that the tinkle of a silver bell I heard? Did we just lose another
angel?
~Karen Jacobs~
R Blanchard
I hope not. We need all the angels we can get. Especially ones that can
think now and again. Wonder what was disappointing. Can't be the cheery
folks that post here, with good wishes and success for all, regardless
of their chosen genre!
:o}
--
Rick Blanchard