When is art *right* ?
AAR
In article <3798DF...@att.net>, ~Artist~ <matt...@att.net> writes
>It's crowman and he syas "Get out of my way!" I never said get out.
>Have th courtsey to get the quotes right if you can't get your art right
>at least.
>
>Mattison
Now that is an interesting statement: "if you can't get your art right".
It instantly reminds me of Camus' Jonas in _Exile and the Kingdom: The
Artist at Work_. Have you read it Mattison ? sorry, another ridiculous
question. In it, Jonas finds fame as an artist and is surrounded by his
dealers and so called friends. He has made it ! But his *star* that
originally guided him, disappeared. He withdrew from existence and
eventually had a breakdown - they found a blank canvas with one single
word on it - solitary or solidary - no one could ever quite make it out.
How does an artist ever know if he got it right ? I have yet to meet a
real artist who ever feels that. Every piece of work represents a step
forward - sometimes resolving conflicts and often opening a door for the
next piece of work. Art is a progression - a visual philosophy, I call
it. Like life, how can anyone ever say they got it right ?
--
Alison
Kay
AAR wrote in message ...
:How does an artist ever know if he got it right ? I have yet to meet a
:real artist who ever feels that. Every piece of work represents a step
:forward - sometimes resolving conflicts and often opening a door for the
:next piece of work. Art is a progression - a visual philosophy, I call
:it. Like life, how can anyone ever say they got it right ?
:Alison
So true, Alison. Progression, yes. Without progression is stagnation. But
without work is dishonesty. Like how many times we have heard "If I had my
life to live over again, I'd....." This assumes that we know more in later
years than we did in earlier years. People do a disservice to their art who
don't allow themselves to grow in their art. I'm in awe of what I'll be
doing 10 years from now, but have to continue working in order to achieve.
Saddest would be to make the same art always. No progression. Like a blind
contour drawing. We had a model in college and had to do a 10 minute warm-up
drawing - slow blind contour. It was so hard to go slowly. The professor
could tell who cheated by looking at the paper because the ones who did not
look had drawn unrecognizable *blobs* I hated blind contour! But I, like
everyone else in the class continued doing these *torture* drawings and at
the end of the semester WOW, it looked like the model, without looking.
Progression (and allowing oneself to progress).
Kay
:ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
:http://raimes.demon.co.uk
her...@linknet.com.au
'getting it right'. Because even while I know they are finished I am aware
of their inherent and usually large imperfection.
I think inherent is the correct word because the nature of material reality
is imperfection. If it exists materially it is not perfect --I officially
open that for discussion :-) .
So we receive our inspiration and perhaps that inspiration has a perfection,
but necessarily it cannot be realized, only approached.
I think of Leonardo da vinci painting and repainting his apparently perfect
(to my eyes) work. The more you are able to do, the more you can see and
therefore it never stops. And isn't that part of what is so wondrous about
our work?
Sorry, I've gone into soliloquizing now.
Zom
----------
In article <SeU8HYA+...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
<a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
>
> In article <3798DF...@att.net>, ~Artist~ <matt...@att.net> writes
>>It's crowman and he syas "Get out of my way!" I never said get out.
>>Have th courtsey to get the quotes right if you can't get your art right
>>at least.
>>
>>Mattison
>
> Now that is an interesting statement: "if you can't get your art right".
> It instantly reminds me of Camus' Jonas in _Exile and the Kingdom: The
> Artist at Work_. Have you read it Mattison ? sorry, another ridiculous
> question. In it, Jonas finds fame as an artist and is surrounded by his
> dealers and so called friends. He has made it ! But his *star* that
> originally guided him, disappeared. He withdrew from existence and
> eventually had a breakdown - they found a blank canvas with one single
> word on it - solitary or solidary - no one could ever quite make it out.
>
> How does an artist ever know if he got it right ? I have yet to meet a
> real artist who ever feels that. Every piece of work represents a step
> forward - sometimes resolving conflicts and often opening a door for the
> next piece of work. Art is a progression - a visual philosophy, I call
> it. Like life, how can anyone ever say they got it right ?
>
mark webber
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, AAR wrote:
(snip)
> Nice opening.
>
> I suspect we are about to embark on a discussion on objectivism and
> realism. The idea that we can produce a perfect representation of an
> object is of course, a futile one.
Or it could easily have nothing to do with representation and everything
to do with design/form. Mondrian made some paintings that were so well
balanced that it seemed if any line were a milimeter thicker, if any hue
took up any more space the work would slide off the wall.
A painter like Dekooning, who's work can appear so randomly composed, can
still evoke perfection of form to me.
And plenty of representational painters - Giorgione, Chardin, Ingres,
Corot, Derain, Balthus come to mind - ignor representaion just enough to
creat a unity of shapes and colors that seem equally perfect.
So it needn't be about journalism. A poem can be perfect.
Mark
AAR
her...@linknet.com.au writes
>I have felt many times that paintings are *done*. But it isn't the same as
>'getting it right'. Because even while I know they are finished I am aware
>of their inherent and usually large imperfection.
Absolutely, Zom - and it gets worse the older the work becomes and the
more time you have to reflect on it.
>
>I think inherent is the correct word because the nature of material reality
>is imperfection. If it exists materially it is not perfect --I officially
>open that for discussion :-) .
Nice opening.
I suspect we are about to embark on a discussion on objectivism and
realism. The idea that we can produce a perfect representation of an
object is of course, a futile one. Perfectionism is based on a human
desire to reach a maximum standard of achievement - some artists spend
their entire lives trying to *get it right* - a state of human
condition, of excellence, that was certainly promoted by both Nietzsche
and Aristotle in regard to art and which even today many people believe
to be the true essence of art. We stand in awe of those who seek
perfection - of the so called *genius*.
Realism seeks to idealise, to make a beautiful object which *reflects
reality*. A nonsense of course - art cannot mirror nature. Julian
Young's essay on _Nietzsche's Philosophy of Art_ (Camb Univ Press 1992)
discusses the artist's perceptions of reality and representation in
terms of still life paintings, where this idealisation occurs under
artificial conditions. "Everything essential and significant is gathered
together and placed in the brightest light, but everything accidental
and foreign is eliminated." (p16). How can this be *real* then if we
eliminate and censor reality in order to produce *realism* - when the
artist seeks to portray only that which he perceives as *beautiful* ?
>
>So we receive our inspiration and perhaps that inspiration has a perfection,
>but necessarily it cannot be realized, only approached.
>
Approaching perfection is an interesting way to consider it - if we are
to assume that *getting it right* means striving for perfection, I can't
see a problem with that - only with the belief that you can actually
achieve it.
>I think of Leonardo da vinci painting and repainting his apparently perfect
>(to my eyes) work. The more you are able to do, the more you can see and
>therefore it never stops. And isn't that part of what is so wondrous about
>our work?
Leonardo's entire existence was committed to exploring the visible
world, but he sought to do it with more intensity and accuracy than ever
before where his eyes were the only tools he trusted - and yet he never
fully trusted those. How many people do you know today who commit
themselves today with such intensity ? The sort of focus this requires
is almost unheard of now - genius' are acclaimed at twelve years old for
goodness sake - the likes of Saatchi controls our perception of *great*
art. We do consider Leonardo to be a perfectionist yet I am sure he
would have denied this - he did not believe in perfection - he believed
exactly as you have just said, the more you see the more you realise how
much more there is to see. That *is* wondrous.
>Sorry, I've gone into soliloquizing now.
>
>Zom
That makes two of us - must be dualiloquizing then !
Cheers !
her...@linknet.com.au
Mark came closer to what I was meaning by *perfect*. (It's interesting how
we use words assuming that others will understand the same meaning - I am
speaking of myself.)
snippet from Mark
> And plenty of representational painters - Giorgione, Chardin, Ingres,
> Corot, Derain, Balthus come to mind - ignor representaion just enough to
> creat a unity of shapes and colors that seem equally perfect.
Perhaps by perfection I was referring to some ideal state. And this *ideal*
or archetype cannot exist in material reality. Rather it is the *idea* that
comes before the reality.
Therefore, my definition of perfection in a painting would be how closely I
approach the essence of this idea/ideal.
----------
In article <rzz0mIAH...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
<a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> Realism seeks to idealise, to make a beautiful object which *reflects
> reality*. A nonsense of course - art cannot mirror nature.
Perhaps it is not nature as reality, but that *ideal* or archetype. I
believe art was made to mirror this.
> Leonardo's entire existence was committed to exploring the visible
> world, but he sought to do it with more intensity and accuracy than ever
> before where his eyes were the only tools he trusted - and yet he never
> fully trusted those. How many people do you know today who commit
> themselves today with such intensity ? The sort of focus this requires
> is almost unheard of now - genius' are acclaimed at twelve years old for
> goodness sake - the likes of Saatchi controls our perception of *great*
> art. We do consider Leonardo to be a perfectionist yet I am sure he
> would have denied this - he did not believe in perfection - he believed
> exactly as you have just said, the more you see the more you realise how
> much more there is to see. That *is* wondrous.
I completely agree.
Zom
AAR
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>Or it could easily have nothing to do with representation and everything
>to do with design/form. Mondrian made some paintings that were so well
>balanced that it seemed if any line were a milimeter thicker, if any hue
>took up any more space the work would slide off the wall.
>
>A painter like Dekooning, who's work can appear so randomly composed, can
>still evoke perfection of form to me.
>
>And plenty of representational painters - Giorgione, Chardin, Ingres,
>Corot, Derain, Balthus come to mind - ignor representaion just enough to
>creat a unity of shapes and colors that seem equally perfect.
>
>So it needn't be about journalism. A poem can be perfect.
>
>Mark
>
Hi Mark: I feel like I want to dive back into the Baudrillard's
Transaesthetics and the Sublime thread again and try and clarify what we
perceive as perfection - what we look for - and I mean *we* in the
widest sense. How do you measure *perfection* - what is perfect to you
may not be to someone else, so how can it then be *perfect* ? Perfection
is subjective, which is shown by the artists' decision to exclude in
order to portray it. Does that make any sense ?
There was an interesting programme on TV in the UK last night about art
and dyslexia. It seems that dyslexic people perceive in a different way
- they *read* through images and have a more natural tendency to design
and form. Fascinating - many of the best artists I have met are
dyslexic. I wonder then if our perceptions are conditioned by the
language we learn ?
Thanks for all the information on Italy. I think we are going in October
so may have some more questions to ask you !
Cheers !
Alison
AAR
her...@linknet.com.au writes
>Perhaps by perfection I was referring to some ideal state. And this *ideal*
>or archetype cannot exist in material reality. Rather it is the *idea* that
>comes before the reality.
>
>Therefore, my definition of perfection in a painting would be how closely I
>approach the essence of this idea/ideal.
Yes, Zom - perfection, as I have tried to illustrate, cannot exist but
in this ideal state. Striving for perfection is man's way of achieving a
higher plane that bridges the gap between man and the *divine*. This is
where my fascination with the sublime experience comes in. Man's desire
to experience a state of transcendence reflects this - out of body
experiences; meditation; feelings of awe when confronted with *nature* -
all states of mind that make man feel closer to the *divine*.
>Perhaps it is not nature as reality, but that *ideal* or archetype. I
>believe art was made to mirror this.
How does one mirror an ideal though ? especially one that we both agree
cannot be materialised ?
Cheers !
mark webber
> Therefore, my definition of perfection in a painting would be how closely I
> approach the essence of this idea/ideal.
That sounds awfully useful to me!
Mark
mark webber
> Hi Mark: I feel like I want to dive back into the Baudrillard's
> Transaesthetics and the Sublime thread again and try and clarify what we
> perceive as perfection - what we look for - and I mean *we* in the
> widest sense. How do you measure *perfection* - what is perfect to you
> may not be to someone else, so how can it then be *perfect* ?
Who that "someone else" is matters a lot. I've said this in a variety of
ways but I don't care much what most people think about art, because most
people haven't thought enough about it. "Someone else" who has looked at a
lot of paintings usually agrees.
This goes back to my "What's wrong with Elitism?" thread, but again I ask
why is it so odd to think of connoiseurship being a respectable thing when
it comes to art?
> Perfection
> is subjective, which is shown by the artists' decision to exclude in
> order to portray it. Does that make any sense ?
Yes of course it does, but what would an objective perfection be? A
Platonic ideal, fine.
I have no trouble with the idea of subjectivity in the arts. In fact, that
is their essential component: sensibility.
>
> There was an interesting programme on TV in the UK last night about art
> and dyslexia. It seems that dyslexic people perceive in a different way
> - they *read* through images and have a more natural tendency to design
> and form. Fascinating - many of the best artists I have met are
> dyslexic. I wonder then if our perceptions are conditioned by the
> language we learn ?
Interesting question. I think they are separate things... but certainly
inform each other.
>
> Thanks for all the information on Italy. I think we are going in October
> so may have some more questions to ask you !
>
Well, have a great time. You should be able to get about 1900 lira to the
dollar - I don't know how that translates to pounds, but I've never seen
such a terrific rate of exchange.
Mark
Marilyn Welch
On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, mark webber wrote:
>
> This goes back to my "What's wrong with Elitism?" thread, but again I ask
> why is it so odd to think of connoiseurship being a respectable thing when
> it comes to art?
>
>>
get my non-philosophically-trained mind into aesthetics so
I thought I would play the devil's advocate as 'everyman.'
"What do you mean connoiseurship? I've got eyes to see, so
that's all I need to judge so-called art. I don't need to
know how to read wine labels, vintage history, botany of
grapes, I got eyes. If I go into a museum on a Sunday
with my kids, because it's raining outside, I look at
stuff, and I expect to be pleased with what I see.
If I like it, I hold up my two-year old and tell him,
see, this is Art. If I don't like it, especially all that
new stuff that I don't understand, I don't point it out
to my kids. Visual Art should be for everybody and it should be
what I was told it should be, oil on canvas, watercolor
on paper, figurative sculpture, scenes, fruit bowls, flowers,
and people (with their clothes on). So there." Everyman
Well, that's my take on one of the attitudes which I have
observed. The universal ability to physically _see,_
(not talking about individual perception here) seems to
give people that right to judge art as shallowly as
"what you see is what you get." There seems to be a demand
almost that visual art be easy to look at and easy to understand.
In a discussion with a writer who writes about visual art,
he said that the first thing he looked for at an exhibition was
-meaning.-
I responded that I look for these things:
aesthetics of the work
technique
art historical connections
then _meaning_ .
Be interesting to learn what lists other people here
have when they enter an exhibition.
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
mark webber wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, AAR wrote:
>
> > Hi Mark: I feel like I want to dive back into the Baudrillard's
> > Transaesthetics and the Sublime thread again and try and clarify what we
> > perceive as perfection - what we look for - and I mean *we* in the
> > widest sense. How do you measure *perfection* - what is perfect to you
> > may not be to someone else, so how can it then be *perfect* ?
>
> Who that "someone else" is matters a lot. I've said this in a variety of
> ways but I don't care much what most people think about art, because most
> people haven't thought enough about it. "Someone else" who has looked at a
> lot of paintings usually agrees.
>
> This goes back to my "What's wrong with Elitism?" thread, but again I ask
> why is it so odd to think of connoiseurship being a respectable thing when
> it comes to art?
>
> > Perfection
> > is subjective, which is shown by the artists' decision to exclude in
> > order to portray it. Does that make any sense ?
>
> Yes of course it does, but what would an objective perfection be? A
> Platonic ideal, fine.
>
> I have no trouble with the idea of subjectivity in the arts. In fact, that
> is their essential component: sensibility.
>
> >
> > There was an interesting programme on TV in the UK last night about art
> > and dyslexia. It seems that dyslexic people perceive in a different way
> > - they *read* through images and have a more natural tendency to design
> > and form. Fascinating - many of the best artists I have met are
> > dyslexic. I wonder then if our perceptions are conditioned by the
> > language we learn ?
>
> Interesting question. I think they are separate things... but certainly
> inform each other.
>
> >
> > Thanks for all the information on Italy. I think we are going in October
> > so may have some more questions to ask you !
> >
>
> Well, have a great time. You should be able to get about 1900 lira to the
> dollar - I don't know how that translates to pounds, but I've never seen
> such a terrific rate of exchange.
>
> Mark
Yes, but are rates of exchange subjective....ha ha ha
Erik Mattila
mark webber
> Hmmm, interesting discussion here. It's too early for me to
> get my non-philosophically-trained mind into aesthetics so
> I thought I would play the devil's advocate as 'everyman.'
>
> "What do you mean connoiseurship? I've got eyes to see, so
> that's all I need to judge so-called art. I don't need to
> know how to read wine labels, vintage history, botany of
> grapes, I got eyes. If I go into a museum on a Sunday
> with my kids, because it's raining outside, I look at
> stuff, and I expect to be pleased with what I see.
> If I like it, I hold up my two-year old and tell him,
> see, this is Art. If I don't like it, especially all that
> new stuff that I don't understand, I don't point it out
> to my kids. Visual Art should be for everybody and it should be
> what I was told it should be, oil on canvas, watercolor
> on paper, figurative sculpture, scenes, fruit bowls, flowers,
> and people (with their clothes on). So there." Everyman
>
> Well, that's my take on one of the attitudes which I have
> observed. The universal ability to physically _see,_
> (not talking about individual perception here) seems to
> give people that right to judge art as shallowly as
> "what you see is what you get." There seems to be a demand
> almost that visual art be easy to look at and easy to understand.
Yes. Well. I'm afraid the devil needs to hire another advocate, because
you haven't convinced me. It isn't an argument that suits you, Marilyn.
>
> In a discussion with a writer who writes about visual art,
> he said that the first thing he looked for at an exhibition was
> -meaning.-
> I responded that I look for these things:
> aesthetics of the work
> technique
> art historical connections
> then _meaning_ .
>
> Be interesting to learn what lists other people here
> have when they enter an exhibition.
>
> Marilyn
The only _meaning_ for me is those things you cited.
Mark
tstp
<<Mondrian made some paintings that were so well balanced that it seemed
if any line were a milimeter thicker, if any zhue took up any more space
the work would slide off the wall.>>
This strikes me particularly, but in terms of my own work.
I love the thrill of pen and ink and spare art. One added line, and
the whole drawing/painting is irrevocably ruined. Pen and ink cannot
easily, if at all, be erased, painted over, or lifted.
I have often gotten in a rage or a funk
because I had to experiment with that one extra little line. I mean, I
Had to Do it, despite that some other part of me was saying, "don't
mess it up. leave it alone. "
That is the hardest part of art for me. When to leave it alone. But
I have that problem with life, too :).
I have non-artist friends who cannot understand what I do for
excitement, since I am in the house all the time instead of driving on
the freeway. or skydiving,:)
Nancy
tstp
Mark--forgot to attribute that Mondrian paragraph to you, especially
since "sliding off the wall" was a good one.
Marilyn has brought up a provocative
idea. I did not know what the first thing is that I look for, so I
actually had to think.
I guess it is an overall
thing--First there is my immediate response as a person and as an
artist, and then a more universal and detached assessment follows.
(Mark, I look at at them with Kirghiz eyes :)
I would like to add "originality" to the list.
Nancy
her...@linknet.com.au
----------
In article <CWU4FYA7...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
<a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> Yes, Zom - perfection, as I have tried to illustrate, cannot exist but
> in this ideal state. Striving for perfection is man's way of achieving a
> higher plane that bridges the gap between man and the *divine*.
I agree. And for me, this is also what art is about.
This is
> where my fascination with the sublime experience comes in. Man's desire
> to experience a state of transcendence reflects this - out of body
> experiences; meditation; feelings of awe when confronted with *nature* -
> all states of mind that make man feel closer to the *divine*.
>
>>Perhaps it is not nature as reality, but that *ideal* or archetype. I
>>believe art was made to mirror this.
>
> How does one mirror an ideal though ? especially one that we both agree
> cannot be materialised ?
It is never a *perfect* mirror, but what else is truly amazing art about?
Don't you find that some art (painting, music, poetry, movies) also causes a
state of transcendence? Perhaps it is 'the finger pointing at the moon.'
Maybe art doesn't mirror in the sense of being a *perfect* reflection, but
somehow can cause one to feel closer to the *divine*.
Zom
her...@linknet.com.au
very sincerely.
Zom
----------
In article <13387-37...@newsd-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
her...@linknet.com.au
> On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, AAR wrote: (snippet)
> dyslexic. I wonder then if our perceptions are conditioned by the
>> language we learn ?
Think of a language with 26 words (or was it more?) for snow. Would you notice more subtleties in the variations of snow? Or a language where there are no nouns, only verbs - where a stone isn't a *stone*, but is *stoning*. In that case, the next logical question would be "what is *stoning*?
For me, the question isn't "are our perceptions conditioned by the language?", but how much of our perception is *real* or unconditioned? Any?
Zom
AAR
<ts...@webtv.net> writes
>I love the thrill of pen and ink and spare art. One added line, and
>the whole drawing/painting is irrevocably ruined. Pen and ink cannot
>easily, if at all, be erased, painted over, or lifted.
Isn't that nerve racking !
This is kind of off the beaten track, Nancy, but Quink ink can be
bleached out easily. I have been using the process for years and years.
You need to use a pretty sturdy watercolour paper for it to survive.
Black Quink ink, depending on the strength of the bleach used or the how
dry the ink is, is reduced to a series of siennas, ochres and
ultramarine.
>I have often gotten in a rage or a funk
>because I had to experiment with that one extra little line. I mean, I
>Had to Do it, despite that some other part of me was saying, "don't
>mess it up. leave it alone. "
I am sure most artists go through this - I wonder how many canvases,
prints or sculptures get trashed because the artist has tried to push it
just that bit further. That's the stuff that makes an artist !
>
> That is the hardest part of art for me. When to leave it alone. But
>I have that problem with life, too :).
>
>I have non-artist friends who cannot understand what I do for
>excitement, since I am in the house all the time instead of driving on
>the freeway. or skydiving,:)
>
>Nancy
>
Isn't that the way - people insist on asking me what I am doing at the
weekends - I do the same every weekend, and every day - come to the
studio. I can't imagine it any other way. What a great life !
Cheers !
Alison
michael...@my-deja.com
Whether art is perfect or not is only a matter of consequence to the
artist. (One exception to this is the artist who produces their work
primarily for others. In this case the "art is right" when the "others'
buy or appreciate the work.) But as with "mans desire to experience a
state of transcendence", perfection in art is also an entity an artist
may strive for. And equally true as man can and does reach a state of
transcendence, (although perhaps only a few) artists can and do create
perfection in their art.
An idealist notion, I know but so is perfection.
MM
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Erik A. Mattila
Cherokee is a language that leans way over to the verb side of the scale, and subsequently very difficult to learn. Many Cherokee verbs have 150 or so conjugations, and paint a very subtle picture of the world. Something your relative told you is different from something a stranger told you. Hopi verb tenses are something you witnessed, something someone told you, or something you dreamed. California Wintun has 7 classes of reality, each discrete from one another. Navajo classifys the things of the world by shape, so a turtle, hill and volkswagon belong to the same linguistic category.
Nahuatl, on the other hand, is very nouny. It is easy to learn. What's difficult about it that it's chock full of metaphors that just learning the language doesn't help you here. "Tlalchialoni" is the name for the perforated mirror you see in Aztec iconography - a mirror with a hole at its center. It belongs to a complex, a mirror that reflects the world, a mirror that obscures the world (the famous Tezcatlipoca - smoking mirror) and the perforated mirror that allows the observer to see the world reflected, and to see through that reflection (at truth?). 'Tlachialoni' is therefore translated as 'lookout' or 'observatory.' But the literwal translation is "someone worthy of waiting for."
Anyway, if you are saying that we can't look at a painting without the intervention of language, I wholeheartedly agree. It's most fascinating. But there are many who do not agree.
Erik Mattila
tstp
I am resending this post which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle,
as no one rspoded to it then. But it seems appropriate now:
<<Group: rec.arts.fine Date: Mon, Jul 19, 1999, 5:41pm From:
ts...@webtv.net Re: More Re:Joycing about Italy
Mark, Erik, and N,
I have enjoyed this whole Italy thread immensely.
Mark has brought up something, which I will take out of context because
I want to relate it to my own art. Art and literature (language). Art
and music Now why is it that literature has provided as much, and
sometimes more, inspiration for my own paintings than music or other
works of art?
I am not at all an intellectual painter. I do all my art out of my head,
but I am not an abstract artist. If I told you my subject matter,
you would laugh.
When i read "The Magic Mountain," I began drawing snow,
sometimes adding color. and this went on for years, long after I
finished the book, of course. I have lived in snow, I have seen many
paintings of snow, certainly enough photos of snow, and none of them
produced this fascination with snow that only one or two sentences in
Mann's book triggered off. I cannot think of any literary examples
right now, but this has happened numerous times to me.
Is it pretty common?
Nancy >>
Nancy
tstp
Thanks for the tip on the ink. I use tech pens, and have to use ink
just for them. I have used bleach, but not successfully. My most
successful eraser is the old stick typewriter eraser with the white tip,
getting harder to find with the advent of computers. But still,
sometimes there is a line indent left, despite the most careful and
tedious erasing. I use Strathmore drawing paper most of the time
because I like the surface and the off-white. I also like your "ammo"
paper , but there is only one store in the U.S. that sells it. But
Fabriano 90 lb.W.C. paper is great, too.
I never throw anything out in a fit, I keep it. I have thirty years of
fits in the house.
Loved Monday's conversation between you and Zom. No need for us to
leave the house to go to church :)
Speaking of the house, I hide in the bathroom if anyone drives up. So
does my cat. That leaves the dog to bark in the livingroom, and he
likes that. Funny, though, how people don't want to visit me.
Regards,
Nancy
tstp
<<I would be very interested in a definition of *originality*. I mean
this very sincerely.
Zom>>
Why did you have to ask me this? Now I have to think about what
originality is.
Would it be the opposite of complete, blatant imitation?
Is it my (subjective) idea of originality? I can see a picture that
has been painted a zillion times by other artists, and yet
I may see something in that work of art
that is just a slight twist different that makes it original for me.
Well, take a basset hound. No, take lots of bassett hounds...and line
them all up in a row and walk down the row and look at each one of them
carefully. There are sometimes imperceptible differences in each
bassett hound, though at first glance
they might all look alike. This is original art to me.
But if I see one bassett hound that looks exactly and precisely the
same as another bassett hound, well that's not original. But I've never
seen that.
Regards,
Nancy
her...@linknet.com.au
but under that definition everything would be original, because how could
any painting be exactly like another?
Zom
----------
In article <16043-37...@newsd-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
AAR
<ts...@webtv.net> writes
>Alison--
>
>Thanks for the tip on the ink. I use tech pens, and have to use ink
>just for them. I have used bleach, but not successfully. My most
>successful eraser is the old stick typewriter eraser with the white tip,
>getting harder to find with the advent of computers. But still,
>sometimes there is a line indent left, despite the most careful and
>tedious erasing. I use Strathmore drawing paper most of the time
>because I like the surface and the off-white. I also like your "ammo"
>paper , but there is only one store in the U.S. that sells it. But
>Fabriano 90 lb.W.C. paper is great, too.
For some reason Nancy, I thought you lived in the British Isles. I don't
think Quink ink is available in the States is it ? I could never find
any and it is the only ink I know that bleaches out with such dramatic
effects. Those typewriter erasers I find too hard - they seem to damage
the paper so. For ink and bleach drawings I use Bockingford 72lb/150
gsm. It seems to be strong enough and copes with the bleach fine.
>
>I never throw anything out in a fit, I keep it. I have thirty years of
>fits in the house.
Don't talk to me about it ! I just collected all my work that was
scattered across the country and finally brought it all into one studio.
Now I have to look for a bigger studio or throw stuff away - I chose the
latter for financial reasons !
>
>Loved Monday's conversation between you and Zom. No need for us to
>leave the house to go to church :)
or the studio
>
>Speaking of the house, I hide in the bathroom if anyone drives up. So
>does my cat. That leaves the dog to bark in the livingroom, and he
>likes that. Funny, though, how people don't want to visit me.
>
>Regards,
>
>Nancy
>
Ha ha ! I have a room in a house with eight strangers and only go to
sleep there about three times a week. The rest of the time I am in the
studio - sleep on an inflatable bed amongst the fumes. If I leave the
studio door open there is inevitably a stream of people in and out -
which is fun but often very distracting. A closed studio door here means
*do not disturb*. Seems to work well.
Cheers
Lauri.L.
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> Yes, you would notice more subtleties of snow. Inuit, over a hunned
> words for snow.
> Anyway, if you are saying that we can't look at a painting without the
> intervention of language, I wholeheartedly agree. It's most
> fascinating. But there are many who do not agree.
>
> Erik Mattila
>
> her...@linknet.com.au wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, AAR wrote: (snippet)
> >
> > > dyslexic. I wonder then if our perceptions are conditioned by the
> > >> language we learn ?
> >
> > For me, the question isn't "are our perceptions conditioned by the
> > language?", but how much of our perception is *real* or
unconditioned?
> > Any?
> >
> > Zom
I feel handicapped here, my language has only maybe 10 separate
nouns for snow. I have to illustrate my thinking with
different examples.
I agree that our perception and language interact. The direction
is not always so self-evident.
I have but one word for rock music, noise. If I were interested or
forced to hear more, I might learn to discriminate punk,funk and techno.
The mere words are not of much help.
Pychnic, choleric, sangvinian and athletic are concepts of human
habitus, but I can see more subtle variations, especially in
a female form. I am sure that if I learned more terms of facial
anatomy, it would be easier to draw portraits.
If I drew more portraits, I would learn or invent more names for
facial features.
Our taste is a subtle sense, but lacks words. Can you *tell*
verbally even the difference in taste between banana and sausage.
Still you can discriminate brands of bananas.
I think it was in Korea they had a base called
"Twin Peaks of Marilyn". I confess, if I had to paint a landscape,
before and after hearing the name, there would be
measurable differences between the drawings.
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Kay
tstp wrote:
Mark has brought up something, which I will take out of context because
I want to relate it to my own art. Art and literature (language). Art
and music Now why is it that literature has provided as much, and
sometimes more, inspiration for my own paintings than music or other
works of art?
I think different things affect different artists in different ways (getting
redundant here!) Kandinsky was affected by Music. The visual arts
movement, Surrealism, was first influenced by the literary Surrealists.
I am not at all an intellectual painter. I do all my art out of my head,
but I am not an abstract artist. If I told you my subject matter,
you would laugh.
Why? (This makes me even more curious...)
When I read "The Magic Mountain," I began drawing snow,
sometimes adding color. and this went on for years, long after I
finished the book, of course. I have lived in snow, I have seen many
paintings of snow, certainly enough photos of snow, and none of them
produced this fascination with snow that only one or two sentences in
Mann's book triggered off. I cannot think of any literary examples
right now, but this has happened numerous times to me.
Is it pretty common?
Nancy
I guess it isn't common for everyone, Nancy, but it isn't that unusual. I
did a series based on the writings of Virginia Woolf and many people who saw
the art seemed to have expected a more literal interpretation of the titles.
For example, "The Voyage Out" left me with a closed-in claustrophobic
feeling, so the work is filled with bricks and boulders and rocks with a
little teeny opening. A fairy tale series resulted in a "sleeping Beauty"
piece of bricks and zippers from the intrusive feeling of the myriad of
suitors she had. Recently, simple words have resulted in paintings for me,
such as "Zipless Fuck", "Killroy was here", "Witness" and they are in the
process of becoming some of my strongest works so far. I considered myself
literary inspired and it seems to have evolved into simple words and phrases
for me. So your process makes perfect sense to me :-)
Kay
tstp
<<I guess it isn't common for everyone, Nancy, but it isn't that
unusual. I did a series based on the writings of Virginia Woolf and many
people who saw the art seemed to have expected a more literal
interpretation of the titles. For example, "The Voyage Out" left me with
a closed-in claustrophobic feeling, so the work is filled with bricks
and boulders and rocks with a little teeny opening. A fairy tale series
resulted in a "sleeping Beauty" piece of bricks and zippers from the
intrusive feeling of the myriad of suitors she had. Recently, simple
words have resulted in paintings for me, such as "Zipless Fuck",
"Killroy was here", "Witness" and they are in the process of becoming
some of my strongest works so far. I considered myself literary inspired
and it seems to have evolved into simple words and phrases for me. So
your process makes perfect sense to me :-) Kay>>
Were the first two spontaneous from just reading independent of any
thought of doing your art ahead of time?
And with the others where just a phrase has spurred you, did you then
interpret the phrase? Or just have an image kick in?
I guess what I am fumbling around with here is the fact that I have a
non-thinking and emotional response to the way a writer writes a
particular sentence. It is as if he sees it and I see it, but he writes
it and I paint it.
The different thoughts on this thread, dyslexia, how many words for a
subject, have been interesting to me.
Nancy
tstp
<<I think it was in Korea they had a base called "Twin Peaks of
Marilyn". I confess, if I had to paint a landscape, before and after
hearing the name, there would be measurable differences between the
drawings. - lauri>>
I am so word-sensitive that I have to stay
away from lots of things that abuse words,
especially commercials. It almost hurts my teeth :).
Where I live there are immense boulders,
and when people try to personalize them
with the wrong word, it takes away from
their magnificence. Reductivizes them.
Nancy
tstp
I just figured out a terrific way to get out from under this "original"
question.
I'll ask you what is your definition of Originality?
Ha--now you try ! :-)
from a coward,
Nancy
tstp
<< For some reason Nancy, I thought you lived in the British
Isles. >>
I am very flattered by this. I wish I did!
<< I use Bockingford 72lb/150 gsm. It seems to be strong enough and
copes with the bleach fine. >>
I find Bockingford and some of the tough papers do well with erasures,
but the surface is rough for my pens. I use tech pens that are 000 or
0000, and the points are so thin that they bounce on anything but the
smoothest surface. That is why I keep going back to the drawing paper.
It would drive me nuts to have all those people around! You must be
good at working under pressure.
Now lots of dogs running in and out, well that would be different....
Nancy
AAR
<ts...@webtv.net> writes
>I am very flattered by this. I wish I did!
I was about to say for goodness sakes why, Nancy ! and then I suddenly
remembered what a great country it is and what an incredible city London
is. For an artist, London has everything. Galleries, museums, parks,
water, architecture, lots of pubs and a huge buzz (usually the latter
after the former) ! This morning, as part of my job, I drove down to
Southampton to pick up an artist and a painting for an exhibition in the
centre of London. An hour and a half of driving and I was having my
coffee looking out to sea. How can you beat that ?
>
>I find Bockingford and some of the tough papers do well with erasures,
>but the surface is rough for my pens. I use tech pens that are 000 or
>0000, and the points are so thin that they bounce on anything but the
>smoothest surface. That is why I keep going back to the drawing paper.
Boy, you must have patience to use such delicate pens - that's not an
option for me because I don't have any grip left in my hands. I cam
barely close them. Nice big chunks of charcoal and a kneaded erasure and
off I go. Did I hear your *subject* was snow ? You must be far north
then ?
>
>It would drive me nuts to have all those people around! You must be
>good at working under pressure.
Oh yes ! I used to do all the cooking at my restaurant - on a busy night
cooking up to fifty a la carte meals single handed from scratch. Got to
have a head for working under pressure in that sort of a job .... and
plenty of co-ordination.
In terms of painting: I absolutely hate people in the studio (well I
wasn't very fond of them standing around in the kitchen either), but in
studios like ours, where there are a couple of hundred artists, it is
inevitable that visitors will arrive. We have two galleries at our
studios at Cable Street and are currently putting together a Community
Arts programme for the East End of London - opening up the studios for
workshops and children's weekend arts groups; setting up a course of
life drawing classes; having artists talks and doing theatre and music
evenings ... and so on. Unfortunately, I was the bright spark that set
the project in motion and now have to administer it, which means that
life has become one long meeting and fund raising activity ... maybe I
will get back to the painting one of these days !
>
>Now lots of dogs running in and out, well that would be different....
>
>Nancy
Oh to be able to swop places with you for a few hours !
Lauri.L.
ts...@webtv.net (tstp) wrote:
> I am so word-sensitive that I have to stay
> away from lots of things that abuse words,
> especially commercials. It almost hurts my teeth :).
Well, I am just the opposite. My day is saved,
when I see beautifully abused words, like:
"Don't take it seriously" ( A beer ad)
I enjoy playing with words, and paraphrasing
citations. Only the foreign language
is such a limitation here.
My artwork has a lot to do with thinking,
but next to nothing with words.
- lauri
her...@linknet.com.au
This isn't entirely fair, originality wasn't one of my criteria of paintings.
I don't know what originality is in painting. I don't know if anyone can do a painting that isn't at least partly derivative, and then does it qualify as original? I don't see how we can help but work from others' influence or why we would want to.
You've got me arguing against myself because I don't think I believe in originality, which was why I wanted someone's definition who believed in it.
Okay, come on you-guys out there! someone who believes in originality, I'm calling for a definition and an opinion on its value.
Zom
----------
her...@linknet.com.au
I can hardly believe the energy you must have. But then I live the
diametrical opposite of you - the completely introverted life. Painting out
in the bush surrounded by only wildlife (but never painting landscapes.)
Probably seeing as many people in a week as you do in a morning. It's the
only way that I can paint.
Zom
----------
In article <5krW5XA7...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
Peter H.M. Brooks
her...@linknet.com.au " " writes:
>
> I don't know what originality is in painting. I don't know if anyone can do
> a painting that isn't at least partly derivative, and then does it qualify
> as original? I don't see how we can help but work from others' influence or
> why we would want to.
>
Every single art work [however you define it] is unique - even the 100,000th
postcard reproduction of a photograph. In the same way, as you say, every
single art work is derivative - if it uses light, colour or form to convey
meaning, then it is part of a tradition of art that includes everything
from the famous urinal through a postcard to the 'Scream', or one of those
pickled sharks.
So, when looking for originality, you are not looking for something that is
not derivative as that is impossible, nor for something that is unique,
because that is trivially easy to produce.
It is also the case that the perception of originality is in the eye of the
beholder. An art teacher would probably find a good many things unoriginal,
having seen thousands of pupils producing similar stuff over the years, while
a child might be captivated by the 'originality' of much of it - since it
would be original to the child.
It is also the case that, with an obviously 'original' artist, once the
artist starts to explore the theme, the initially startling 'originality'
becomes more part of their style, and a gallery full of their paintings
starts to look much the same.
I think that the most fruitful way to explore the question from the point
of view of aesthetics is to consider what pieces give you the gestalt, or
'ah ha' experience. An Original art work is often [using a capital 'O' to
suggest something other than the trivial originality of being unique as
a postcard is] startling. If enough people find it startling, that they
feel a reaction to it, that is different from that caused by other art,
then it has a claim to actually being an Original piece.
A gruesome photograph of a battlescene casualty or operation could
be 'startling' and give a strong feeling to the observer, without necessarily
being what one would call Art [though the photography could be artistic]. A
shocking picture may well not be original as many people would find gruesome
pictures shocking even if they were much the same as other gruesome pictures.
The same, of course applies to twee pictures of wide eyed animals, that could
give rise to feelings of tenderness etc, even when completely hackneyed. Of
course there is also pornography which can produce strong feelings without
being original.
So, though it is necessary for the piece to startle, it is not sufficient
for a startling piece to be said to be an original art work - this seems
to be a fundamental problem with much of 'Brit Art' at the moment, which
appears to identify originality only with uniqueness and startle value. It
has, consequently, become quite stale and arid very quickly - one can't
imagine anybody being really interested in another animal in formaldehyde
unless they are a biologist.
So, I think that we need a third dimension to originality. An original
piece needs to startle, and have an element of uniqueness about it, but
must also say something new, or different to us. I think that, for example,
the 'Scream' is original as it shows how the texture and colour of paint
can reinforce a human expression, it also shows how an internal feeling
of emptiness and distress can be portrayed in a painting. I also think that
it shows us part of the human condition in a different way, we have
empathy with the feeling that the artist wishes to convey that is different
from the feeling that we may have had with a real scream of our own, or
even with an imagined scream.
Having said all the above, I would still say that, though one can analyse
the 'Scream' [in considerably more detail, and with more erudition than
I have!], even this analysis misses the point. The 'Scream' gives us something
that we can spend time learning from. The 'Ah ha' feeling doesn't just
last for the first moment and then go, we can return and understand more
about the perspective that the artist is showing us of this part of
humanity. For this reason, and the fact that this is what most people
feel when seeing the painting, I would say that it is original.
Of course, despite what I say above, it is still necessary for people to
approach the 'Scream' [as with any other work] within some sort of context.
If an 18th Century audience were to see the painting one imagines [one can't
be certain] that they would reject it, because it is not sufficiently
derivative, it is 'too original' to be appreciated. Many producers of works
like the modern 'Brit Art' would like to hold the conceit that their works
being rejected by the majority suggests that they too are 'too original'
but I would disagree. A work like the 'Scream' is visceral, even to people
who don't appreciate it, in a way that may cause them to react violently
against it - unlike the tepid indifference with which much of the currently
vogue produces.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mark webber
>
> I don't know what originality is in painting. I don't know if anyone can do
> a painting that isn't at least partly derivative, and then does it qualify
> as original? I don't see how we can help but work from others' influence or
> why we would want to.
>
> You've got me arguing against myself because I don't think I believe in
> originality, which was why I wanted someone's definition who believed in it.
>
> Okay, come on you-guys out there! someone who believes in originality, I'm
> calling for a definition 限 and an opinion on its value.
>
> Zom
>
Hi Zom,
Isn't this all a little black and white? I mean, aren't some things a
little more original than others? There is a big difference, I think,
between outright theft of an image or content or an idea, and another
thing to be influenced.
For example, was Dekooning more original than his many imitators? or is he
really equally derivative? By your definition, there is no difference
between Caravaggio and the Caravagists, Michelangelo and the
Mannerists, Picasso/ Braque and all the other Cubists....
Now I don't think that Originality is the reason for the greatness
of Caravaggio, Michelangelo and Braque - the fact that they were great
painters is the reason we consider them great painters (you can quote me
on that if you like) but they did begin some things to a degree.
Was Caravaggio as derivative as Artemesia Gentilisci? Sexists will have
you believe she is the more important painter - but it simply isn't true.
Mark
AAR
her...@linknet.com.au writes
> I don't know what originality is in painting. I don't know if
> anyone can do a painting that isn't at least partly derivative, and
> then does it qualify as original? I don't see how we can help but
> work from others' influence or why we would want to.
>
> You've got me arguing against myself because I don't think I
> believe in originality, which was why I wanted someone's definition
> who believed in it.
>
> Okay, come on you-guys out there! someone who believes in
> originality, I'm calling for a definition 限 and an opinion on its
> value.
>
> Zom
Zom: there is no point getting into a discussion on semantics here - it
solves nothing other than prove that everything that stands alone is
original. In artistic terms, originality defines *progress*. It
represents artists work who make a deliberate attempt to push the
boundaries - to move past what has been done before and to look for work
that represents their period in history. Many artists see this as their
major role - to create a history representative of their times. This
doesn't necessarily mean that they abandon that which has gone before
but look for development of it. Growth is the key to originality.
Personally I have no respect for an artist whose work is clearly *in the
style* of another artist - to look at an artists work and immediately
identify someone else's style in their work is, for me, fraudulent.
This, I think, is where the discussion should move to the difference
between *style* and *stylisation*.
BTW, although there are 200 artists at Cable Street it would be very
unusual to see all of them at once ! Many are overseas artists; lots
have to go to work; and some work through the night. There is still a
good feeling of community here though and the majority of the day is
spent in total solitude with the rumblings of others working drifting
through the building. That's what I really like. If you are able to get
a copy of Contemporary Visual Arts (incorporating World Art) this
month's issue is devoted to the growth of alternative spaces in London
and to the era of artist-curator that has come to represent the
nineties. Cable Street is one of those venues - we have two artist run
galleries here with 24 shows a year.
Anyway, I fully understand your need for solitude to be able to work,
Zom. As a sailor, I have spent many weeks crossing the Atlantic and
having nothing but the vast ocean for hundreds of miles to contemplate.
Insignificance and feelings of helplessness at the hands of nature have
dominated my thought process for many years.
Keep painting !
Alison
Dik F Liu
<her...@linknet.com.au> writes:
>Okay, come on you-guys out there! someone who believes in originality, I'm
calling for a definition 限 and an opinion on its value.<
From The Art Spirit: Don't worry about originality. You couldn't get rid of it
even if you try.
Dik
tstp
never painting landscapes.) >>
Alison wrote << Insignificance and
feelings of helplessness at the hands of nature have dominated my
thought process for many years.>>
Funny, I don't do landscapes either.
(Maybe the competition is too much).
I am not near the sea, but I sometimes think of it and paint it.
I agree that Alison's location sounds tempting. I was brought up in
NYC, and under good circumstances, but tried going back and just
missed the wild too much.
I guess I'd rather feel helpless and insignificant in the face of
nature.
There is a certain grandeur to my ignominy :).
And the beasts are friendlier.
Nancy
her...@linknet.com.au
----------
In article <Gxqf26AfKtp3Ew+$@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
<a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> In article <5Ayp3.13$V12....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> her...@linknet.com.au writes
>
>> I don't know what originality is in painting. I don't know if
>> anyone can do a painting that isn't at least partly derivative, and
>> then does it qualify as original? I don't see how we can help but
>> work from others' influence or why we would want to.
>>
>
> Zom: there is no point getting into a discussion on semantics here - it
> solves nothing other than prove that everything that stands alone is
> original.
It wasn't my intention to argue semantics, although I can see how you
would've gotten that impression.
> In artistic terms, originality defines *progress*. It
> represents artists work who make a deliberate attempt to push the
> boundaries - to move past what has been done before and to look for work
> that represents their period in history. Many artists see this as their
> major role - to create a history representative of their times.
As an artist, do you see this as your role? I know that what you're saying
is true, and this interests me. It seems almost a given, that we as artists
are suppose to represent our time. But this is a contemporary idea, a
self-consciousness that perhaps crept in when painting genre became an
acceptable option.
For myself, I find it an uninspiring idea. I have no interest in
representing these times. Not that I think there is anything wrong with
others doing it.
This
> doesn't necessarily mean that they abandon that which has gone before
> but look for development of it. Growth is the key to originality.
> Personally I have no respect for an artist whose work is clearly *in the
> style* of another artist - to look at an artists work and immediately
> identify someone else's style in their work is, for me, fraudulent.
When does being influenced by someone else become fraudulent? And why
fraudulent?
I know it isn't exactly the same, but when a musician plays another's music
we don't consider it dishonest. What about artists 'trying on' others' ways
of painting? Or learning from others that way?
Isn't there a possibility that you can *take in* someone else's way and then
have it develop into something else, more *original*? Surely there are many
artists from the past I could site here. (I say this and yet my mind goes
blank. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything as I'm rotten at history.)
> This, I think, is where the discussion should move to the difference
> between *style* and *stylisation*.
Are you relating stylisation to stylized? "made to conform to rules of a
conventional style?"
>
> BTW, although there are 200 artists at Cable Street it would be very
> unusual to see all of them at once ! Many are overseas artists; lots
> have to go to work; and some work through the night. There is still a
> good feeling of community here though and the majority of the day is
> spent in total solitude with the rumblings of others working drifting
> through the building. That's what I really like. If you are able to get
> a copy of Contemporary Visual Arts (incorporating World Art) this
> month's issue is devoted to the growth of alternative spaces in London
> and to the era of artist-curator that has come to represent the
> nineties. Cable Street is one of those venues - we have two artist run
> galleries here with 24 shows a year.
I should be able to get it, I would be very interested.
>
> Anyway, I fully understand your need for solitude to be able to work,
> Zom. As a sailor, I have spent many weeks crossing the Atlantic and
> having nothing but the vast ocean for hundreds of miles to contemplate.
> Insignificance and feelings of helplessness at the hands of nature have
> dominated my thought process for many years.
You're a sailor as well!
>
> Keep painting !
>
> Alison
Definitely will keeping painting...
Zom
her...@linknet.com.au
----------
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9908030...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> Hi Zom,
>
> Isn't this all a little black and white? I mean, aren't some things a
> little more original than others? There is a big difference, I think,
> between outright theft of an image or content or an idea, and another
> thing to be influenced.
I realize that I appeared to be making a stand, when I was actually asking
questions.
>
> For example, was Dekooning more original than his many imitators? or is he
> really equally derivative? By your definition, there is no difference
> between Caravaggio and the Caravagists, Michelangelo and the
> Mannerists, Picasso/ Braque and all the other Cubists....
Your point is taken here.
>
> Now I don't think that Originality is the reason for the greatness
> of Caravaggio, Michelangelo and Braque - the fact that they were great
> painters is the reason we consider them great painters (you can quote me
> on that if you like) but they did begin some things to a degree.
How much of a person being considered a great painter is dependent upon this
*beginning things*? Can someone be good if their paintings are largely
derivative?
>
> Was Caravaggio as derivative as Artemesia Gentilisci? Sexists will have
> you believe she is the more important painter - but it simply isn't true.
You seem to be saying here that Caravaggio is more important because he was
more original? I'm not arguing at this point, merely clarifying.
>
> Mark
>
It seems to me that originality is very highly rated in our time and
culture. I am questioning that and am interested in other's opinions.
Zom
mark webber
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Zom wrote:
(I wrote)
> >
> > Now I don't think that Originality is the reason for the greatness
> > of Caravaggio, Michelangelo and Braque - the fact that they were great
> > painters is the reason we consider them great painters (you can quote me
> > on that if you like) but they did begin some things to a degree.
>
> How much of a person being considered a great painter is dependent upon this
> *beginning things*? Can someone be good if their paintings are largely
> derivative?
Well, for me it is just as I said above: I don't consider them to be great
*because* they began some things to some degree - and everyone has their
influences. But I think changing the way we see (with something new) is a
worthwhile contribution - worthy of augmented reputation.
To answer your second question, in the early 1500s, Titian's work was so
very derivative of Giorgione's that experts are still debating who painted
what. But those early Titians are really splendid things. Not very
original in some ways, but really great paintings. Of course he went on to
develop something more personal and he changed the way "we" see.
So, yes, I think someone can be good even if they are largely derivative.
> >
> > Was Caravaggio as derivative as Artemesia Gentilisci? Sexists will have
> > you believe she is the more important painter - but it simply isn't true.
>
> You seem to be saying here that Caravaggio is more important because he was
> more original? I'm not arguing at this point, merely clarifying.
Well, historically that is a useful way to look at it. But from an
esthetic point of view, I think he made better paintings. It isn't cut and
dried. Some painters make new contributions - but who cares? Others blow
us away with something new and still others blow us away with something
restated.
> It seems to me that originality is very highly rated in our time and
> culture. I am questioning that and am interested in other's opinions.
>
> Zom
My experience is a bit to the contrary. I have had posters to this
group tell me that "originality is problematic", meaning, I belive, that
they don't believe it exists. It is too simplistic an viewpoint to me. It
neglects all the subtlety that you and I are navigating.
Anyway, it is very interesting talking to you - I look forward to more.
Mark
AAR
her...@linknet.com.au writes
>It wasn't my intention to argue semantics, although I can see how you
>would've gotten that impression.
No no, Zom - I just saw the discussion about to creep off that way and
hoped to steer it back on course to what I saw as your original
intentions.
>As an artist, do you see this as your role? I know that what you're saying
>is true, and this interests me. It seems almost a given, that we as artists
>are suppose to represent our time. But this is a contemporary idea, a
>self-consciousness that perhaps crept in when painting genre became an
>acceptable option.
It's a difficult one this one. When I first read you I thought, god no -
I don't really play a part in contemporary art, but was speaking for the
younger ones around me in my peer group. But then I pondered and
thought, well maybe I play to it more than I realise. For me, the course
of Modernism never reached maturity - Post Modernism arrived before it
was due. I see my role as helping to push Modernism to its full.
Modernism currently stands for *exclusion* - it represents a structure
of looking at art without consideration for the peripheral countries and
regional arts that in essence make up the mass of art being produced. It
cannot then give us a true picture of what represents the art of our
time - its a Hollywood situation that focuses on the *stars*, where the
artist has become more concerned with making his mark in history than
about art itself.
One only had to look at the recent regeneration of painting to realise
that it has not in any way, *died*. Abstract Art in particular has not
been fully investigated or resolved - how then can we move forward if
today's art is dictated by *fashion* ? So if my own stance were to be
anything it would have to be to denounce the way that art history is
written and, as my passions dictate, to push abstract art past the
boundaries imposed by Post Modernism.
>
>For myself, I find it an uninspiring idea. I have no interest in
>representing these times. Not that I think there is anything wrong with
>others doing it.
You represent a large section of the art world in this thought and in
that alone represent our times. Its one that needs to be recognised.
>When does being influenced by someone else become fraudulent? And why
>fraudulent?
Now, now Zom. Being influenced was not the issue. Deliberately copying a
style was.
>I know it isn't exactly the same, but when a musician plays another's music
>we don't consider it dishonest.
If a musician copies the way that another musician performs a piece of
music and then attaches his name to it, he is fraudulent and is liable
in the court of law.
>What about artists 'trying on' others' ways
>of painting? Or learning from others that way?
That's part of the learning process and a good one. Again, we are
discussing originality here not learning to paint. Few professional
musicians would be content with imitating other's music as they mature -
they seek originality in the same way as artists but still retain their
influences - that is progression for the artist. Perhaps then it is a
question of the maturity of an artist's work ?
>Isn't there a possibility that you can *take in* someone else's way and then
>have it develop into something else, more *original*? Surely there are many
>artists from the past I could site here. (I say this and yet my mind goes
>blank. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything as I'm rotten at history.)
Of course - all artists learn from someone else and then use those
lessons to develop their own work.
>Are you relating stylisation to stylized? "made to conform to rules of a
>conventional style?"
Maybe. What I intended to imply was that artists who deliberately adopt
a style as a statement about their work ... call it impressionist or
abstract expressionist for instance, they are putting the emphasis on
the manner in which they are making a statement about their work more
than about what they are saying with their work.
>You're a sailor as well!
Damn I wish I was half way across the Atlantic this very day !
>Definitely will keeping painting...
>Zom
Yes !!!
--
Alison
tstp
I meant to ask you what the trouble is with your hands. It must be
miserable for you.
Nancy
her...@linknet.com.au
----------
In article <3fHl30AC...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
<a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> In article <jyTp3.18$Ve2....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> her...@linknet.com.au writes
>
>>As an artist, do you see this as your role? I know that what you're saying
>>is true, and this interests me. It seems almost a given, that we as artists
>>are suppose to represent our time. But this is a contemporary idea, a
>>self-consciousness that perhaps crept in when painting genre became an
>>acceptable option.
>
> It's a difficult one this one. When I first read you I thought, god no -
> I don't really play a part in contemporary art, but was speaking for the
> younger ones around me in my peer group. But then I pondered and
> thought, well maybe I play to it more than I realise. For me, the course
> of Modernism never reached maturity - Post Modernism arrived before it
> was due. I see my role as helping to push Modernism to its full.
This is interesting, can you expand on this? By Post Modernism do you mean
when art began to comment on itself?
> Modernism currently stands for *exclusion* - it represents a structure
> of looking at art without consideration for the peripheral countries and
> regional arts that in essence make up the mass of art being produced. It
> cannot then give us a true picture of what represents the art of our
> time - its a Hollywood situation that focuses on the *stars*, where the
> artist has become more concerned with making his mark in history than
> about art itself.
Yes, I see your point.
>
> One only had to look at the recent regeneration of painting to realise
> that it has not in any way, *died*.
What is the recent regeneration of painting? I am out here at the bottom of
the world and haven't been paying attention.
> Abstract Art in particular has not
> been fully investigated or resolved - how then can we move forward if
> today's art is dictated by *fashion* ? So if my own stance were to be
> anything it would have to be to denounce the way that art history is
> written and, as my passions dictate, to push abstract art past the
> boundaries imposed by Post Modernism.
>>
>>For myself, I find it an uninspiring idea. I have no interest in
>>representing these times. Not that I think there is anything wrong with
>>others doing it.
>
> You represent a large section of the art world in this thought and in
> that alone represent our times. Its one that needs to be recognised.
>
I didn't know that. I don't have much company out here.
>>When does being influenced by someone else become fraudulent? And why
>>fraudulent?
>
> Now, now Zom. Being influenced was not the issue. Deliberately copying a
> style was.
>
I stand corrected. It came out more combative than my conscious intention.
>>I know it isn't exactly the same, but when a musician plays another's music
>>we don't consider it dishonest.
>
> If a musician copies the way that another musician performs a piece of
> music and then attaches his name to it, he is fraudulent and is liable
> in the court of law.
Good point.
>>What about artists 'trying on' others' ways
>>of painting? Or learning from others that way?
>
> That's part of the learning process and a good one. Again, we are
> discussing originality here not learning to paint. Few professional
> musicians would be content with imitating other's music as they mature -
> they seek originality in the same way as artists but still retain their
> influences - that is progression for the artist. Perhaps then it is a
> question of the maturity of an artist's work ?
Perhaps you have realized from my defensiveness that my work is extremely
derivative. To the point of copying another's style. Although fortunately
(for me) they are dead.
It certainly could be immaturity as an artist on my part. As I have said
before I have only been painting seven years. But you said that that was
true for you as well, didn't you? Perhaps I am a slow learner.
But to be honest, I don't necessarily have it as a goal to develop a more
*original* style. I wouldn't have anything against it happening -but I don't
look at my art as an expression of *Zom*. I relate more to the days when
artists didn't even sign their work.
>>Are you relating stylisation to stylized? "made to conform to rules of a
>>conventional style?"
>
> Maybe. What I intended to imply was that artists who deliberately adopt
> a style as a statement about their work ... call it impressionist or
> abstract expressionist for instance, they are putting the emphasis on
> the manner in which they are making a statement about their work more
> than about what they are saying with their work.
Well at least I'm not guilty of that.
Zom
AAR
her...@linknet.com.au writes
>This is interesting, can you expand on this? By Post Modernism do you mean
>when art began to comment on itself?
The thought of going into a discussion on Post Modernism leaves me
weary! Our entire University education was centred around this blessed
*Post Modern Condition* to the point that I know curl up into a ball
when I hear the term. But here is a little tale, Zom: we spent five
years listening to lectures on post modernism and looking at
contemporary art that represents this *ism*. I dutifully read all the
right books and wrote the obligatory dissertations mentioning the word
at least a dozen times in every paragraph and getting decent marks for
my attention to it. At the end of that time my younger peer group, who
had all goofed off for the duration, were contemplating their
forthcoming MFA interviews at London Art Schools. I warned them that at
interviews they would have to show a grasp of the era they are working
in - that they would be asked about Post Modernism in particular. Terror
set into their faces. "So", they asked me, "what is Post Modernism,
Alison" ? My reply ? "You, guys, *are* Post Modernism." One of those
guys got a First Class Honours Degree for his pink paintings with the
word *chicken* scribbled across the surface !!!
>What is the recent regeneration of painting? I am out here at the bottom of
>the world and haven't been paying attention.
In London, Berlin and Brussels, painting is booming - it has taken on a
new energy and the contempt of the last two decades to those who stayed
committed to painting seems to be dying. The three major contemporary
art competitions this year were overwhelmed with applications - the last
one I delivered a painting had to open a second warehouse to store the
entries after only the second day of accepting them. There were thousand
upon thousands of paintings in those warehouses.
It seems to me that the possibilities of painting has far from run its
course - how many more videos or cut up cows do we need to deaden our
sensory perceptions. The viewer needs visual stimulation and the artist
needs the physical of the process of making art.
>Perhaps you have realized from my defensiveness that my work is extremely
>derivative. To the point of copying another's style. Although fortunately
>(for me) they are dead.
Well you know I disapprove of that, Zom. Art is a way of pushing your
own ideas and investigations. The mind of an artist should be constantly
at work in the task of progress ... of development and pushing the
boundaries. Style is a signature - it represents the individuality of
the artist - that is originality. You have to learn to write from
someone but if you are constantly copying someone else's signature how
will you ever know what your own one is ?
>
>It certainly could be immaturity as an artist on my part. As I have said
>before I have only been painting seven years. But you said that that was
>true for you as well, didn't you? Perhaps I am a slow learner.
Seven years since I started *art studies*. I have been *painting* since
I was eleven when I got my first set of oil paints and canvas panel !
Making a decision to *take art seriously* is what I was talking about.
Artists can have been painting for decades without any progress - their
art may look technically mature but their ideas are often stagnant. The
length of time spent painting has little to do with it - its too hard to
measure. You might have been painting for ten years but in terms of
hours spent it may only represent the same time as someone who has been
painting for two years - its the intensity of the time spent on art that
has to be considered and the capacity for self improvement that sets
great artists aside. Take a look at many of the great artists of our
time - the ones whose impact on the arts has been foremost - and you
will be reminded that many of them came to art very late in their lives.
Gauguin was 35; Van Gogh was 27; the German *Die Bruck* group
(Kirschner, Bleyl, Heckel and Schmidt-Rottluff) were all trained
architects before they started painting.
>But to be honest, I don't necessarily have it as a goal to develop a more
>*original* style. I wouldn't have anything against it happening -but I don't
>look at my art as an expression of *Zom*. I relate more to the days when
>artists didn't even sign their work.
Why ?
Regards.
cb
I hardly ever do this but here goes - GOOD POST!. Particularly the part "Art is a
way of pushing your own ideas and investigations The mind of an artist should be
constantly
at work in the task of progress ... of development and pushing the
boundaries. Style is a signature - it represents the individuality of
the artist - that is originality. You have to learn to write from
someone but if you are constantly copying someone else's signature how
will you ever know what your own one is ? "
Sorry for the shout :)
Chris
AAR
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
But Chris, it would be wrong for me to claim originality for that idea
;-)
Don't shout too much - you might wake some of this lot up.
Regards
Alison
renat...@my-deja.com
> >This is interesting, can you expand on this? By Post Modernism do you
mean
> >when art began to comment on itself?
>
> The thought of going into a discussion on Post Modernism leaves me
> weary! Our entire University education was centred around this blessed
> *Post Modern Condition* to the point that I know curl up into a ball
> when I hear the term. But here is a little tale, Zom: we spent five
> years listening to lectures on post modernism and looking at
> contemporary art that represents this *ism*.
I agree, but why are artists so hesitant to look at the *new*? We
certainly don't wear powdered wigs, corsets, bussels, etc. in our daily
dress. We want to have the latest *fashions* in our wardrobes. We want
to drive the newest cars - why do you think artists - as the majority
seem to - close their eyes and minds to the *new* in art?
London seems to be emerging with so much energy of a new, very HOT
generation of artists who are getting a lot of international attention
as well as much prominent exposure. I wonder if the rest of the art
scene will be following this new wave of artists?
> It seems to me that the possibilities of painting has far from run its
> course - how many more videos or cut up cows do we need to deaden our
> sensory perceptions. The viewer needs visual stimulation and the
artist
> needs the physical of the process of making art.
The 70s were officially called "The Pluralist era", but has it ever
stopped being "Pulralist" since? It doesn't appear so to me, except
with the growth of photography and video art. The painters aren't
discarded and still fetch top prices. I don't know what is going on
with sculpture. Maybe that is the most effected medium? Seems like
assemblage is edging out the traditional sculptures.
> >Perhaps you have realized from my defensiveness that my work is
extremely
> >derivative. To the point of copying another's style. Although
fortunately
> >(for me) they are dead.
That's appropriation. Very post-modern.
> Well you know I disapprove of that, Zom. Art is a way of pushing your
> own ideas and investigations. The mind of an artist should be
constantly
> at work in the task of progress ... of development and pushing the
> boundaries. Style is a signature - it represents the individuality of
> the artist - that is originality. You have to learn to write from
> someone but if you are constantly copying someone else's signature how
> will you ever know what your own one is ?
There is a differnce between copying and being influenced by, also, when
we appropriate images, we can put them in an entirely different context
which deviates so extremely from the original intent that it is an
entirely different work! I think the Pop artists and Dada before have
done this and it shouldn't be a shock to anyone anymore. It depends on
what he means by being "extremely derivitave."
> >It certainly could be immaturity as an artist on my part. As I have
said
> >before I have only been painting seven years. But you said that that
was
> >true for you as well, didn't you? Perhaps I am a slow learner.
> Seven years since I started *art studies*. I have been *painting*
since
> I was eleven when I got my first set of oil paints and canvas panel !
> Making a decision to *take art seriously* is what I was talking about.
> Artists can have been painting for decades without any progress -
their
> art may look technically mature but their ideas are often stagnant.
Aint it the truth. The painting can be wonderful, but leave one feeling
empty. Nothing to catch our interest, huh?
The
> length of time spent painting has little to do with it - its too hard
to
> measure. You might have been painting for ten years but in terms of
> hours spent it may only represent the same time as someone who has
been
> painting for two years - its the intensity of the time spent on art
that
> has to be considered and the capacity for self improvement that sets
> great artists aside. Take a look at many of the great artists of our
> time - the ones whose impact on the arts has been foremost - and you
> will be reminded that many of them came to art very late in their
lives.
> Gauguin was 35; Van Gogh was 27; the German *Die Bruck* group
> (Kirschner, Bleyl, Heckel and Schmidt-Rottluff) were all trained
> architects before they started painting.
Don't hear enough about Schmidt-Rottluff and adore his work. Rousseau
was in his 50s when he decided to become a painter wasn't he?
> >But to be honest, I don't necessarily have it as a goal to develop a
more
> >*original* style. I wouldn't have anything against it happening -but
I don't
> >look at my art as an expression of *Zom*. I relate more to the days
when
> >artists didn't even sign their work.
>
> Why ?
Yes, why?
> Regards.
> --
> Alison
Sorry to intrude in your conversation, but I printed it out and
thought about it and had to reply. This was an inspiring post. Thanks.
Renata
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
her...@linknet.com.au
----------
In article <0+LjlqAR...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR <a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> In article <jqxq3.13$T7....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> her...@linknet.com.au writes
>
>>the world and haven't been paying attention.
>
> In London, Berlin and Brussels, painting is booming - it has taken on a
> new energy and the contempt of the last two decades to those who stayed
> committed to painting seems to be dying. The three major contemporary
> art competitions this year were overwhelmed with applications - the last
> one I delivered a painting had to open a second warehouse to store the
> entries after only the second day of accepting them. There were thousand
> upon thousands of paintings in those warehouses.
>
> It seems to me that the possibilities of painting has far from run its
> course - how many more videos or cut up cows do we need to deaden our
> sensory perceptions. The viewer needs visual stimulation and the artist
> needs the physical of the process of making art.
>
>
>>Perhaps you have realized from my defensiveness that my work is extremely
>>derivative. To the point of copying another's style. Although fortunately
>>(for me) they are dead.
>
> own ideas and investigations. The mind of an artist should be constantly
> at work in the task of progress ... of development and pushing the
> boundaries.
> Style is a signature - it represents the individuality of
> the artist - that is originality. You have to learn to write from
> someone but if you are constantly copying someone else's signature how
> will you ever know what your own one is ?
>>
>>It certainly could be immaturity as an artist on my part. As I have said
>>before I have only been painting seven years. But you said that that was
>>true for you as well, didn't you? Perhaps I am a slow learner.
>
> Seven years since I started *art studies*. I have been *painting* since
> I was eleven when I got my first set of oil paints and canvas panel !
> Making a decision to *take art seriously* is what I was talking about.
> Artists can have been painting for decades without any progress - their
> art may look technically mature but their ideas are often stagnant.
The
> length of time spent painting has little to do with it - its too hard to
> measure. You might have been painting for ten years but in terms of
> hours spent it may only represent the same time as someone who has been
> painting for two years - its the intensity of the time spent on art that
> has to be considered and the capacity for self improvement that sets
> great artists aside. Take a look at many of the great artists of our
> time - the ones whose impact on the arts has been foremost - and you
> will be reminded that many of them came to art very late in their lives.
> Gauguin was 35; Van Gogh was 27; the German *Die Bruck* group
> (Kirschner, Bleyl, Heckel and Schmidt-Rottluff) were all trained
> architects before they started painting.
I think that perhaps it isn't up to us when we come into our *style* or mature. My experience around painting has been that I didn't choose what I paint or how. I still don't. There will be a strong feeling of 'this is it', and if that feeling persists after doing some sketches and developing the idea, I usually go ahead.
But, even with saying that, I can also see the distinct possibility of standing in the way of that *style* coming. Blocking myself, so to speak.
>
>>But to be honest, I don't necessarily have it as a goal to develop a more
>>*original* style. I wouldn't have anything against it happening -but I don't
>>look at my art as an expression of *Zom*. I relate more to the days when
>>artists didn't even sign their work.
>
> Why ?
I would just like to add that our discussion has been on my mind a lot. What you have said has effected my thinking and helped me to clarify some of these issues that have been just floating around. I don't feel that I have come to any definite conclusions, but I appreciate the movement - and the questioning of my ideas that the discussion has perpetuated.
Zom
AAR
>I agree, but why are artists so hesitant to look at the *new*? We
>certainly don't wear powdered wigs, corsets, bussels, etc. in our daily
>dress. We want to have the latest *fashions* in our wardrobes. We want
>to drive the newest cars - why do you think artists - as the majority
>seem to - close their eyes and minds to the *new* in art?
The *new* is no longer identified with progress, I believe, but rather
with *anything goes*. The attitude that *everything has been done* now
represents the slowing down in what has turned out to be a century of
incredible innovation and change. Some believe the progress has been too
rapid - forced upon us and denied many the chance to adapt to a new
world and that in turn, has caused rejection and alienation. Its the
same in the arts. My suggestion is this is largely due to the
development of the media and the way that we communicate ideas - often
prematurely. Jean Baudrillard has suggested that the rapidity with which
we move from the making of the art to the museum environment has now
made us approach art in a new way. The hype of fame and this incessant
desire to be the *best* and *succeed* is brought about by a desire to be
part of history. In this we are actually writing our own history and
trying to establish a place within it. That is what I was hopefully
leading the discussion with Zom towards.
>London seems to be emerging with so much energy of a new, very HOT
>generation of artists who are getting a lot of international attention
>as well as much prominent exposure. I wonder if the rest of the art
>scene will be following this new wave of artists?
One has to recognise that in Europe, and particularly in London, there
is a considerable amount of financial backing available for the support
of artists. The art school bursaries for Masters degrees are in plenty;
many government funded residencies are in place; the museums are well
supported - hence the new building of the largest museum in Europe (or
is it the world), the new Bankside Tate; council and arts council
funding for projects and artists groups is readily available. Without
financial support art cannot survive - one only has to relate it to
one's own personal struggles to finance an art career to understand that
a countries art must receive the support of the government to grow in
international prestige.
>The 70s were officially called "The Pluralist era", but has it ever
>stopped being "Pulralist" since? It doesn't appear so to me, except
>with the growth of photography and video art. The painters aren't
>discarded and still fetch top prices. I don't know what is going on
>with sculpture. Maybe that is the most effected medium? Seems like
>assemblage is edging out the traditional sculptures.
>
Sculpture has largely been overtaken by Installation Art. It seems to me
that the making of *objects* has declined and the attempt to create
*experiences* through installations is more predominant. I also noticed
that video has been integrated into the *experience* and wonder whether
that is a recognition that video art does not have the capacity to
captivate the audience in isolation.
Susan Sontag has identified one of the major concerns about art today as
the increase in *content* in art - where now the audience is forced to
interpret the work in order to obtain any sort of value from it. A piece
of art can no longer stand alone as an aesthetic object and this seems
to indicate a dissatisfaction with art. This fascinates me - it
indicates a loss of a human experience that used to be able to enjoy art
for the experience of aesthetic stimulation and not as a statement by
the artist. As far as I am concerned this seems to be the root of the
problem concerning the more recent dissatisfaction with art. What do you
think ?
>Don't hear enough about Schmidt-Rottluff and adore his work. Rousseau
>was in his 50s when he decided to become a painter wasn't he?
Schmidt-Rottluff's work was pretty *harsh* wasn't it ? - in that I mean
*honest* - I like that also. That poor guy Rousseau spent most his life
as a Customs officer before he started painting seriously ! still, we
can all relate to that one can't we ?
>Sorry to intrude in your conversation, but I printed it out and
>thought about it and had to reply. This was an inspiring post. Thanks.
>
>Renata
>
No intrusion felt - public forum and all that. Thanks for contributing.
Alison
Interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art - Susan Sontag
cb
renat...@my-deja.com wrote:.
>
> I agree, but why are artists so hesitant to look at the *new*? We
> certainly don't wear powdered wigs, corsets, bussels, etc. in our daily
> dress. We want to have the latest *fashions* in our wardrobes. We want
> to drive the newest cars - why do you think artists - as the majority
> seem to - close their eyes and minds to the *new* in art?
>
This is a really nasty thread - it's had me thinking about things all day!
Thinking on a Sunday! So unfair :)
For me the question of avoiding the new isn't really here nor there - it's
just that there's so much of it that one can easily lose sight of the task
of indiviual exploration (which I guess is how I see my art) for the sake of
technique. It's sort of like the the problem of having so many
'store-bought' colours available - and believe me, when a new colour comes
along, I feel obligated to buy it - but my palette almost invariably finds
itself back to the few I have some understanding of - i.e in how they
interrelate, how they mix, how they glaze, etc. (But even there I cheat, by
using two palettes - a bright one and a more subtle one - depending on which
painting I'm working on).
Cheers;
Chris
AAR
her...@linknet.com.au writes
>
> I think it comes back to the question that I brought up earlier, in
> that I don't necessarily accept that it is important to express my
> individuality. For me art serves an impersonal service that doesn't
> have to do with individual personalities.
That's a lot of questions to answer ! But for now I just want to
comment on your above statement, where, in case you haven't noticed, you
just expressed your own individuality ! Nice one ;-)
More later ........ have to go earn some pennies !
Alison
tstp
picked up a pen, I had my own style. Not only that, but I love what I
do, and I do it over and over .
But, because I sometimes
do not feel like a "real" artist, I have at times attempted to push
boundaries and try new media, new subjects, new tools, new methods. And
I never like it.
So, the way Chris goes beck to his palette, I go back to my little
subjects. I am not going to change to anything new. New and different
does not mean better.
I am simply refining over and over what I started doing years ago.
I admire artists who push boundaries, but
whatever muse is sitting in me does not want to. Adamantly does not
want to. So I capitulate to my call.
Art is very humbling. It says, I can do
this, but not this, no matter what I think or want. It seems we all
desire to do something else--Joyce wanted to write plays. Tried it,
not good. Yeats waned to do other than poetry. Tried it, not good.
Poor Joyce and Yeats. Look what we are all stuck with reading as a
result of their inadequacies to go beyond themselves :).
I love the old unsigned Catholic Church artists, too. I am sure some
of them were quite devoted spiritually and were doing it for that
reason.
In Degas' time and before, artists spent years copying before they
developed their own style. I remember, though, that Degas said that
Fantin-Latour was held back by carrying copying too far. But I like
Fantin-Latour, despite his "inadequacy!"
On the other hand, Picasso, in his desperation to make a mark in the art
world, broke barriers, I guess, but there is something horribly lacking
in him. It is like there is no one there. As compared to Modi, who, to
me, is far more original than Picasso, and there is definitely someone
there. Read Jung on Picasso and Joyce. I always thought Picasso
was a phony (didn't his artist friends hide
their work from him when he visited?) and Joyce sincere, and when I read
Jung and he agreed with me--well, I was preening for weeks.
Nancy
Marilyn
And Picasso was so prolific, you have to
say what period you are discussing. His
late period as opposed to his cubist period
for example. Gertrude wrote about his work,
before his very late period.
You will find lots of company here on raf if you
don't like Picasso. Lots of conservatism.
Worrying about artists you don't like is
just another waste of time.
Marilyn
tstp
there? Picasso was a master draftsman, but there is something
indefineable lacking in him. Perhaps he was too calculating and
ambitious. I don't think reading about him any more (we are deluged
with Picasso) is going to make me find something that is not there. I
cannot approach art on a purely intellecual basis.
Also, I am merely sending in
personal feelings, not writing an essay.
I don't understand why a label is applied
to someone who does not like Picasso.
By now, liking Picasso could be considered old guard :). After all, he
painted more than six months ago.
What is someone who likes Picasso--a liberal?
Marilyn wrote:
<< Group: rec.arts.fine Date: Mon, Aug 9, 1999, 10:28am From:
not_...@bc.ca (Marilyn) Re: Originality (was When is art *right* ?)
Nancy
tstp
see what mess comes up. :)
Nancy
tstp
The Cedar Street Tavern would have a laugh on that.
Now why am I sitting here looking at my ten books on Paul Klee, my many
on Modigliani, my several on O'Keefe, my several on Matisse, etc., etc.,
plus my many books on the Renaissance, pre-Renaissance, pre-Raphaelite,
Victorian, etc., etc. periods.
Plus Pollock and deKooning and, particularly, Diebenkorn. Plus Chagall.
Plus Braque. I could go on and on.
Plus a lot of people not known.
When I first came on this list, I said something about modern art
which I regretted. I had meant it in an historical sense, and I sent
in another letter to
correct that impression.. My first letter had sounded as if I do not
like modern art, so I put my foot in my mouth on that one, I do like
it!
I have probably been influenced every bit as much by contemporary art as
by
others.
By the way, Marilyn, thank you for writing in about "The Dealer". I
could not find it yesterday. Was it pre-empted?
Nancy
tstp
<< Well, I am just the opposite. My day is saved, when I see
beautifully abused words, like: "Don't take it seriously" ( A beer ad)
I enjoy playing with words, and paraphrasing citations. Only the foreign
language
is such a limitation here.
My artwork has a lot to do with thinking, but next to nothing with
words.
- lauri >>
Hi Lauri--
I am about a week late, but I meant to ask
you about your letter. Do you mean slang? I love slang, but do you not
think there is a difference in slang used intentionally and often with
some humor
as compared to the general misuse of language? What language ae you
living around?
My art has nothing to do with thinking or words. But words used well,
as a good writer uses them, seem to produce
paintings in me. Now you have me thinking--does it happen with "abused"
words?
Nancy
Marilyn
I taped it.
There have been endless debates on Picasso on this ng,
and people with more conservative tastes in art
dislike his work the most. No need to be defensive,
you have every right to your opinion. Just wondered if
you had read Gertrude Stein on Picasso?
Marilyn
tstp
I did not realize there had been endless debates. If I did read
Stein on Picasso, it would have been a thousand years ago, and I don't
remember it. So I doubt I did. I have read a great deal about that
period of time because everything in every way changed for the world,
but I tend to read about people in whom I have an interest.
Can you tell me something about it, why it
is so important?
I have to confess that I probably dislike Picasso partly because I can't
get away from him. He is a mass media artist, but he brought it on
himself by playing the press. There are so many artists that I would
like to buy a book about, and nothing is published about them. And even
with contemporary artists I Iike, like Pollack, I sometimes wish other
artists would be profiled. The last time I looked into a book on
Diebenkorn, for example, I think there was only one, very expensive,
book of his works. Hardly a thing on Marin, another artist I wanted to
look into again. Now that I have internet, I will have more access, but
It is not the same as a book.
It's a funny idea, but what if neither of us knew anything about
Picasso, and we just ran across his paintings in a shabby store in the
early part of this century? I wonder what we'd have thought. Maybe I
would have thought he had a lot of talent and was sorely neglected.
Nancy
disquiet
wrote in message <5Ayp3.13$V12....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>...Wasn't trying to get out of the question, but our server hasn't been receiving the newsgroup.
This isn't entirely fair, originality wasn't one of my criteria of paintings.
I don't know what originality is in painting. I don't know if anyone can do a painting that isn't at least partly derivative, and then does it qualify as original? I don't see how we can help but work from others' influence or why we would want to.
You've got me arguing against myself because I don't think I believe in originality, which was why I wanted someone's definition who believed in it.
Okay, come on you-guys out there! someone who believes in originality, I'm calling for a definition and an opinion on its value.
Zom
----------
In article <23838-37A...@newsd-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, ts...@webtv.net (tstp) wrote:
> Hey Zom--
>
> I just figured out a terrific way to get out from under this "original"
> question.
>
> I'll ask you what is your definition of Originality?
>
> Ha--now you try ! :-)
>
> from a coward,
>
> Nancy
>
her...@linknet.com.au
Hi Allison and Renata,
----------
In article <VjhtYNAd...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
<a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
> In article <7oiao9$jcp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, renat...@my-deja.com writes
(snippet)
>>I agree, but why are artists so hesitant to look at the *new*?
>
> The *new* is no longer identified with progress, I believe, but rather
> with *anything goes*. The attitude that *everything has been done* now
> represents the slowing down in what has turned out to be a century of
> incredible innovation and change. Some believe the progress has been too
> rapid - forced upon us and denied many the chance to adapt to a new
> world and that in turn, has caused rejection and alienation. Its the
> same in the arts.
Thinking about what you said earlier Allison, about feeling that Modernism
had been prematurely cut off in the onrush of the Postmodern. IMHO there are
a few aspects of art that could be returned to and explored more deeply.
Returning again to my derivative style. I was sitting in my studio looking
at the paintings that I am working on and I thought to myself: if an admired
style should be continued after the artist's death, is there anything wrong
in that? And perhaps this also returns us to my statement of being more
comfortable in an era before artists signed their names. I love to paint in
this style, I don't mind whether I get credit for it.
> My suggestion is this is largely due to the
> development of the media and the way that we communicate ideas - often
> prematurely. Jean Baudrillard has suggested that the rapidity with which
> we move from the making of the art to the museum environment has now
> made us approach art in a new way. The hype of fame and this incessant
> desire to be the *best* and *succeed* is brought about by a desire to be
> part of history. In this we are actually writing our own history and
> trying to establish a place within it. That is what I was hopefully
> leading the discussion with Zom towards.
You've lost me in the last two sentences. You mean that we are writing our
own history of superficiality? ( the sarcasm is directed to the trend, not
you Allison)
>
> Susan Sontag has identified one of the major concerns about art today as
> the increase in *content* in art - where now the audience is forced to
> interpret the work in order to obtain any sort of value from it. A piece
> of art can no longer stand alone as an aesthetic object and this seems
> to indicate a dissatisfaction with art.
Part of the question is whose dissatisfaction? I think people not educated
in *artspeak* are frustrated to no longer find this aesthetic pleasure in
art.
> This fascinates me - it
> indicates a loss of a human experience that used to be able to enjoy art
> for the experience of aesthetic stimulation and not as a statement by
> the artist. As far as I am concerned this seems to be the root of the
> problem concerning the more recent dissatisfaction with art. What do you
> think ?
Personally I am getting pretty sick of this whole idea of *statements* by
artists. There seems to be some kind of arrogance in us that we think what
we have to say, because we're artists, is automatically important. It's like
all these magazine articles interviewing movie and rock stars. As if they
automatically have something worthwhile to say because they're famous.
I get kind of heated up about this stuff.
Zom
Lauri.L.
ts...@webtv.net (tstp) wrote:
> Hi Lauri--
Do you mean slang? I love slang, but do you
not
> think there is a difference in slang used intentionally and often with
> some humor
> as compared to the general misuse of language? What language ae you
> living around?
Hi Nancy
my language is Finnish. I do enjoy the gang culture, where
people recognize each other of the witty use of language.
A livelier form of what we see in British movies,
where someone makes a quotation, and the other replies with the source.
Unfortunately I'm too old to keep abreast with the slang even in my
own language,
It is difficult to find an English example, what I mean.
Something like:
" Lord Greystoke, I presume"
" ??? "
" You don't look exactly like Tarzan,
but sure you are the King of Monkeys"
In fact, sometimes my works have a verbal source,
like 'The prisoner of his own thoughts'. It is not a quote,
but a thought I had to make visible.
- lauri
A shot arrow, an uttered word
or a lent book
you never get back
--
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Erik A. Mattila
her...@linknet.com.au wrote:
> Hi Allison and Renata,
> ----------
> In article <VjhtYNAd...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
> <a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
>
> > In article <7oiao9$jcp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, renat...@my-deja.com writes
> (snippet)
> >>I agree, but why are artists so hesitant to look at the *new*?
> >
> > The *new* is no longer identified with progress, I believe, but rather
> > with *anything goes*. The attitude that *everything has been done* now
> > represents the slowing down in what has turned out to be a century of
> > incredible innovation and change. Some believe the progress has been too
> > rapid - forced upon us and denied many the chance to adapt to a new
> > world and that in turn, has caused rejection and alienation. Its the
> > same in the arts.
Of course Chas. Darwin was an Englishman, Alison, so I don't fault you for your
loyalty. What I'm driving at is that the concept of 'progress' may be much
more suspect that the concept ot the 'new.' Just consider that 'progress' is a
bit of a paper tiger, then what do you have? As Lao Tsu sez: the only constant
is change.
> Thinking about what you said earlier Allison, about feeling that Modernism
> had been prematurely cut off in the onrush of the Postmodern. IMHO there are
> a few aspects of art that could be returned to and explored more deeply.
Zom, somehow I get the feeling that the terms 'modernism' and 'post-modernism'
are fuzzy concepts - belonging to that class of words we use often that have no
explicit meaning. As I was taught, the source of these terms are from the
providence of the social sciences. What distinguished, for example, the
'medieval' from the 'early modern?' Some earthshattering events, no less. The
Eurpopean breakout, for example (the discovery of the world???) The great
Reformation -- which in so many words represented secularization and the
proto-social systems which later became politics and society as we now know
it. Carlos Fuentes wrote a wonderful interpretation of Quixote, in which he
describes the novel as the modern world trying to shake off the vestiges of the
past - the dragons.
We don't seem to have a middle-modern era -- perhaps it is the Baroque or
things like that. The Enlightment -- maybe -- when 'science' began to assume
to emporer's clothes. The transition from the early modern to the middle
modern is an enigma to me, as is the middle modern to the modern. But less
problematical to me is the transition from the modern to the post modern.
There may have been a continuous thread throughout the modern epoch, and that
was society's organization around a unifying ideology, whether it was the
Reformation, the Enlightenment, The American and French Revolution, or the
Internationale. The rupture of this thread demarks the change from modernism
to post modernism. What caused this rupture. Certainly the faith-shaking
phenomena of facism - certainly the expose of Stalin (which split every left
wing claven there was) - certainly the atom bomb - certainly Vietnam and the
list goes on and on. Generally, people ceased seeing social progress in terms
of a unifying ideology, and problems began to be met on a local, pragmatic
level.
Would art reflect such a change of consciousness. I think it would, and did.
The rules began to break down, the idea of a 'standard' of measure for Art
dissolved. Eclecticism flourished. The artist became a micro-social unit,
meeting each day with a new agenda, each problem with a new solution.
> Returning again to my derivative style. I was sitting in my studio looking
> at the paintings that I am working on and I thought to myself: if an admired
> style should be continued after the artist's death, is there anything wrong
> in that? And perhaps this also returns us to my statement of being more
> comfortable in an era before artists signed their names. I love to paint in
> this style, I don't mind whether I get credit for it.
I had a professor, a literary critic, who told me that there was a catalogue of
emplotments for novels and short stories resting somewhere in the library
reference section. He insisted that it was impossible to think of a new plot
that wasn't included in this collection of plots. As unbelievable as that
sounds to me, I think he is probably correct. But it might be like imagining
yourself a space traveler who lands on a planet that has a new color -- one
that no human being has ever seen before. It would probably drive you mad.
> > My suggestion is this is largely due to the
> > development of the media and the way that we communicate ideas - often
> > prematurely. Jean Baudrillard has suggested that the rapidity with which
> > we move from the making of the art to the museum environment has now
> > made us approach art in a new way. The hype of fame and this incessant
> > desire to be the *best* and *succeed* is brought about by a desire to be
> > part of history. In this we are actually writing our own history and
> > trying to establish a place within it. That is what I was hopefully
> > leading the discussion with Zom towards.
>
> You've lost me in the last two sentences. You mean that we are writing our
> own history of superficiality? ( the sarcasm is directed to the trend, not
> you Allison)
I've wondered about this. Is wishing for artist superstardom a ruse for fear
of death? A better investment might be spending your creative life dreaming up
a killer epitath for your tombstone. There are writers who periodically go
through graveyards and collect these things, and publish the really clever
ones.
> > Susan Sontag has identified one of the major concerns about art today as
> > the increase in *content* in art - where now the audience is forced to
> > interpret the work in order to obtain any sort of value from it. A piece
> > of art can no longer stand alone as an aesthetic object and this seems
> > to indicate a dissatisfaction with art.
I disagree with this, Alison. No one forces anyone to 'read' a work of art.
Those who do, 'read' it with relish, as they are interested in this sort of
discourse. They may even believe it is a sign of being 'cultured.' (and maybe
it is). Those who have no wish to do such a thing need not worry about it. It
is only contentious when someone insists that somebody else likes a work of art
as they do.
You see, that's another thing that came out of post modernism. It is sort of a
social coagulation, I think. Various discourses split off from others, and
began talking to themselves and no others. With the decline of the unitary
ideology there is a decline of the unitary voice. We now live our lives in
descrete sectors. The Art wold talks to the Art wold, and not to the Movie
world, or the Rock world, or the Hot Rod world. As Japan moved into
techological mastery, I noticed that the Japanese began to adopt 'activity
uniforms' -- I mean there was a uniform to go hiking with, a uniform to go to a
baseball game with, a uniform to go to the ocean with -- all sorts of special
gizmos and do-dads associated with a recreational interest. When I saw this,
say 30 years ago, I thought it was corney. Now it is everywhere -- we have
reached the blessed ashion sartori or descrete practices.
But remarkably, a work of art can still stand alone as an aesthetic object. Or
maybe it's that it can finally stand alone as such. You know, the finest
Fragonard may have been loved by all Frenchmen when the paint was fresh because
it belonged to Louie.
> Part of the question is whose dissatisfaction? I think people not educated
> in *artspeak* are frustrated to no longer find this aesthetic pleasure in
> art.
But you know, every once in a while sombody on this ng mentiones Kincaid, and
then there's a string of vindictive posts. I just don't think anything has
replaced anything, as you would expect if art were inextricably bound up in a
trajectory of 'progress.' Rather, it is accumulative. As new art fashions
come to be, they are simply layered over the old. So I would disagree with
Sontag, it's not that a work of art is too ladened with content, but rather
that there is simply too much art. Given that, it's no wonder that we hear so
much (from artist, especially) "THAT'S NOT ART!!"
> > This fascinates me - it
> > indicates a loss of a human experience that used to be able to enjoy art
> > for the experience of aesthetic stimulation and not as a statement by
> > the artist. As far as I am concerned this seems to be the root of the
> > problem concerning the more recent dissatisfaction with art. What do you
> > think ?
Art proliferation -- clearly. Chartres Cathedral would make people weep
because it was an experience so far out of the ordinary that it tested the
senses. Well, here's an example. I saw an astounding thing one night in
Northern California. I drove over a rise in the mountains, in the snow, on a
full moon, and looming there was the mighty bulk of Mt. Shasta, and it knocked
my socks off. A few days later I was telling a neighbor about this wonderful
experience, and he said "Yeah, yeah, yea! Just like a picture postcard!" See
-- art proliferation.
> Personally I am getting pretty sick of this whole idea of *statements* by
> artists. There seems to be some kind of arrogance in us that we think what
> we have to say, because we're artists, is automatically important. It's like
> all these magazine articles interviewing movie and rock stars. As if they
> automatically have something worthwhile to say because they're famous.
>
> I get kind of heated up about this stuff.
>
> Zom
Me too, Zom. Artists are unbearable. I can't understand where the association
of making art and 'genius' came from. Art Museums are more or less culture
gurus, so it may be from there. Who ever heard of a genius carpenter? But you
can bet your bucks that a master carpenter has every bit the skill of an
artist, as well as the 'sensitivity.' But I guess when you hit six figure
sales you're surrounded by people who have to see you as a 'genius' in order to
write that many zeros on their cheques. It seems like much of the 'artistist
agony' disussed is really a matter of the frustrations felt about the odds of
getting there.
Erik Mattila
AAR
her...@linknet.com.au writes
>Thinking about what you said earlier Allison, about feeling that Modernism
>had been prematurely cut off in the onrush of the Postmodern. IMHO there are
>a few aspects of art that could be returned to and explored more deeply.
>
>Returning again to my derivative style. I was sitting in my studio looking
>at the paintings that I am working on and I thought to myself: if an admired
>style should be continued after the artist's death, is there anything wrong
>in that? And perhaps this also returns us to my statement of being more
>comfortable in an era before artists signed their names. I love to paint in
>this style, I don't mind whether I get credit for it.
Can't knock that, Zom. This discussion has gone off on some interesting
tangents so let me remind you that the original thread was regarding
what was *originality*. God knows what Darwin has to do with this ! if
you recall, my concerns are that an artists should never become stagnant
in their work. That doesn't mean that an artist should forever be
changing his *style* but that his mind should be constantly challenging
and inquiring. That, to me is progress. Progress is having the guts to
take a detour down a rocky road instead of sticking to the smooth
highway.
>Part of the question is whose dissatisfaction? I think people not educated
>in *artspeak* are frustrated to no longer find this aesthetic pleasure in
>art.
I also believe that many people have lost the ability to be able to
experience something simply on aesthetic values. Erik just illustrated
it by his postcard story. That sense of awe - the feeling of the sublime
- it is no longer a possibility for many because our visual senses have
been bombarded with multiple images of visions that used to send the
blood rushing through the veins.
>
>Personally I am getting pretty sick of this whole idea of *statements* by
>artists. There seems to be some kind of arrogance in us that we think what
>we have to say, because we're artists, is automatically important. It's like
>all these magazine articles interviewing movie and rock stars. As if they
>automatically have something worthwhile to say because they're famous.
>
>I get kind of heated up about this stuff.
>
>Zom
>
Quite right you should ! However, not to labour a point, it may be that
art is no longer capable of standing as an aesthetic object because the
contemporary artist (who here represents the mainstream artist) can no
longer accept it as such. That is where the dissatisfaction that
Baudrillard cites comes in. Hence the statements. The viewer, who no
longer receives the aesthetic stimulation seeks satisfaction in the
statements - they look for reasons to admire the work.
So you see - I demand the artist's progress recognise that progress is
not necessarily associated with *new* ....... in case that is in
question !
Happy painting .... even though it is officially *dead* eh ?
AAR
<ts...@webtv.net> writes
>I am probably fortunate because the very first time, as an adult, that I
>picked up a pen, I had my own style. Not only that, but I love what I
>do, and I do it over and over .
Hi Nancy.
Very fortunate I would say. The poor souls like me who are never content
with what they produce, must suffer in the eternal quest. Have pity on
our torment !
>
>But, because I sometimes
>do not feel like a "real" artist, I have at times attempted to push
>boundaries and try new media, new subjects, new tools, new methods. And
>I never like it.
>
>So, the way Chris goes beck to his palette, I go back to my little
>subjects. I am not going to change to anything new. New and different
>does not mean better.
I totally agree. However, I was never one for *safe* either and I have
chosen a fascination with the material *paint* and its associated
products in exchange for perfecting imagery. Maybe I should have been a
scientist. My own work is very much about the possibilities of the
materials. I never lost the chef in me - take a bunch of ingredients and
put some unusual ones together and sometimes, just sometimes, the taste
buds are set ablaze. One should never cook with turpentine, of course.
But seriously, I am fascinated by the medium of paint and what it means
to us in terms of the activity as a *ritual* - the need for the physical
involvement with the materials.
Whoops, out of time ..... back to Picasso later. One thing though - it
doesn't matter how many times the Picasso thing is debated - new people
arrive and have not debated him and others are happy to hear their
ideas. Don't be put off by raising an issue based on those who have
grown roots - there are plenty of people on this group, some who have
only just arrived, who are happy to talk about these so called worn out
issues. I am one of them !
Best regards.
AAR
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>This is a really nasty thread - it's had me thinking about things all day!
>Thinking on a Sunday! So unfair :)
>
>For me the question of avoiding the new isn't really here nor there - it's
>just that there's so much of it that one can easily lose sight of the task
>of indiviual exploration (which I guess is how I see my art) for the sake of
>technique. It's sort of like the the problem of having so many
>'store-bought' colours available - and believe me, when a new colour comes
>along, I feel obligated to buy it - but my palette almost invariably finds
>itself back to the few I have some understanding of - i.e in how they
>interrelate, how they mix, how they glaze, etc. (But even there I cheat, by
>using two palettes - a bright one and a more subtle one - depending on which
>painting I'm working on).
>
>Cheers;
>
>Chris
Hi Chris: I am not sure how we came to associate *new* with technique -
but it was certainly never my intention. Progress, in terms of artist's
development, and style as a signature of originality, was the starting
point though I guess if a *new* way of painting emerges we should
recognise that as a potential step forward in the ongoing pursuit of the
progress of painting. When something becomes stagnant it rots. Maybe
this is the reason that painting was declared dead. Our job, as
painters, is to infuse new life into it - or *we* have no future.
Seems to me that anyone who tries out new colours or is involved in the
fascination of the medium you describe, is doing exactly that. it
doesn't always mean it will be successful.
Cheers !
tstp
Remember me? I am the one who started this thread by saying that one of
my criteria when I look at a work of art is originality. Zom asked me
to explain what I meant and I could not, so I asked her to explain it,
and look what good stuff has come out of it with you two, Zom and
Alison! I guess we do all get like our mothers, because my mother used
to do the same thing :).
Two things: Zom's situation interests me because she and I are n the
same boat. Both os us are doing "no-no" art, that is, art that the art
world says is wrong. She is involved in painting in a style from a
bygone period, and I am involved with what would be considered
lightweight art. It seems we both love what we do. I do not think in
terms of success or fame (I'd just like the money!), but consider
myself a true "amateur', literal translation being "for the love of it."
I was brought up in the art world (mostly writers), and I find the
mentality in the most sacred enclaves in NYC to be pretty much the same
as my grandmother out in Wisconsin--provincial. Replacing the Church,
it says "thou shalt do this" or thou shalt not do that." It is as
stifling as any other small town.
The main thing for me, Alison, is not that I keep "making progress", but
that I do what my heart desires, despite what is acceptable to the
world of my chosen endeavor. That is the supreme progress. Everything
else is refinement.
P.S. In the 50s heyday of abstract expressionism, it was considered
unbelievably corny to do anything realistic. Now David Hockney is a god,
and it is probably considered corny to do anything abstract.
Or, as someone just said, the art world is now eclectic. I wish it were
more so. We seem, from what I can see and from what Alison said about
cows, to be entering an era of "thou shalt" eclecticism.
Nancy
Marilyn
You bring up an interesting thought. There are so many
"obscure" painters, like Nell Blaine, Wolf Kahn,
and more known artists who are virtually ignored like
Fairfield Porter. Picasso was a giant, he overdid it all,
the work, the publicity, the longevity and he changed
the face of painting. He leaves many painters conflicted.
There are two books that I know of on Diebenkorn,
works on paper, (we have it) and a jewel of a book depicting his
paintings on cigar boxes.
Happy Hunting!
Marilyn
tstp
Geez--just because I said I have a style and love doing it and do it
over and over, does not mean I am content with it!
I used to be content, back in the good old days, and was glad I was
spared the "torment" I saw in others. But in the past two years, the
gods have visited their wrath on me because now I am tormented.
Actually, it is sort of pleasurable. I merely changed from one subject
I did naturally and well to another subject which is driving me up a
wall! Now, at least, I feel more like a real artist. You should not be
tormented, though, with your stuff--it's smashing! More on that later.
Now "safe" is a good word and expresses
my worst fears. For years, I worried, "am I playing it safe by doing
what I do well?" Now I don't have to worry about that any more.
But this is curious, every time I experimented, be it with materials or
method or subject, it always turned out mundane (not just in my eyes,
but in everyone else's); and I have had to go back to my same old thing
in order to satisfy my quest for originality. Beats me. :).
Oh, do I love materials. I've got more
unused materials around this house than I
could possibly use up in my lifetime. Cannot bear to give them up,
though. You can't tell, I might need that piece of not-quite-right
paper that has been in a portfolio for ten years.
Best,
Nancy
tstp
Thank you, thank you! I am excited. The Jane Livingston book from the
Whitney retro sounds good (cloth is only $15 more than paper). But
there is also a book by Nordland (Rizzoli). Do you have a
recommendation? I did not notice the cigar box book, but I have not
made a thorough search.
We had moved from NYC in '61 to Sausalito, back to NYC (which we
couldn't wait to get out of again), and then to Venice in '63, before
it became an "in" place. The artists were there, but not much else. It
was rundown, and the archway pavilions were empty, with only a few
almost-on the-sidewalk stores where I bought a bathing suit for a couple
of bucks. The pretty little bridges had paint peeling off and Hudson
River whitefish thrown in the canals. The place was like the death of
an old Hollywood movie. It was very Raymond Chandleresque. I kept
expecting Marlowe to appear, looking for Velma.
We had an apartment that was in a
split-up bleached-by-the-sun wood frame
house for $75 a month. You stepped outdoors into sand. The beach was
quiet and lonely, but lively in only a way that a Southern California
beach can be when
there is no one on the beach. Maybe a bright color or two aways down.
When I saw Diebenkorn's Ocean Park,
there it was. I felt the bleached color of old houses in the sun, the
blueness sea, the particular Southern California smell and weather, the
emptiness, the sand, the bright color far away. Oh, and even P.O.P.
-- the old pier there and the amusements (Daisy Clover got it, too).
Everybody called that part P.O.P. (Pacific Ocean Park).
Another thing about R.D. I see mention of his relation to Hopper during
his figurative period, but what about Hopper's "Rooms by the Sea", what
about the light of both of them.
This has been a good hunting day.
Nancy
Marilyn
I loved Venice in 1989, but the apartment we stayed in,
is now gated. It was on Sunset Avenue and you could actually
see the sun set at the end. It was a walk street, with bougainvilla
hanging all over the walls. I loved the boardwalk with the
ancient hippies, the roller blading hookers etc. There were orcas
travelling along the close to the shore making all the surfers,
take a break. After dark, it was like being in Saudi Arabia, everyone
stayed inside, and listened to the sirens, the hovering heliocopters
chasing people off the beach.
Galleries everywhere. We had coffee at the Rose cafe,it's still
there. And the light, that's what I remember most about
S. CA.
Diebenkorn's Ocean Park, it's all about light. He had assistants
put on the glazes. There were so many.
Marilyn
xform1
as here he's inescapable, there are always books (even in Barnes+Noble),
posters and continual exhibits (a huge one earlier this year at
SFMOMA). He is something of a "star" as people with little
knowledge of art recognize his name as they do Picasso.
In spite of this, and maybe a little because of it, I've never had
much appreciation for Diebenkorn, and this with benefit of seeing
his early and his student work. This is a pity, because maybe
with the insight I would come to understand Philip Guston and
a few others which I place in the same "category".
I guess I have a hard time seeing where his work can be taken
seriously, as for me it only reproduces certain "moments", and
overall has an anesthetizing quality. Perhaps my not "being there" in
the 60's and 70's has something to do with it, yet if a painter fails to
explore things that are in some sense timeless and universal using the
conditions of the moment, I don't think this qualifies them for
greatness.
Hopper's light does something totally different for me. It's the
acidic colors, the spirit of foreboding and loneliness, the subtle
transformations of such mundane scenery that convinces me of his
greatness. Do you know the work of John Register? I think as to the
effect it is very similar to Hopper, especially in the way his
light makes you want to squint and stare deeper at the same time.
Would be interesting to compare him with Diebenkorn...
cheers,
--Harvey
--xform1 at geocities dot com--
Transformations Digital Gallery:
http://www.geocities.com/Soho/Exhibit/5782
xform1
ts...@webtv.net (tstp) wrote:
> Hi Marilyn,
>
> I did not realize there had been endless debates. If I did read
> Stein on Picasso, it would have been a thousand years ago, and I don't
> remember it. So I doubt I did. I have read a great deal about that
> period of time because everything in every way changed for the world,
> but I tend to read about people in whom I have an interest.
>
> Can you tell me something about it, why it
> is so important?
>
> I have to confess that I probably dislike Picasso partly because I
can't
> get away from him. He is a mass media artist, but he brought it on
> himself by playing the press. There are so many artists that I would
> like to buy a book about, and nothing is published about them. And
even
> with contemporary artists I Iike, like Pollack, I sometimes wish
other
> artists would be profiled. The last time I looked into a book on
> Diebenkorn, for example, I think there was only one, very expensive,
> book of his works. Hardly a thing on Marin, another artist I wanted
to
> look into again. Now that I have internet, I will have more access,
but
> It is not the same as a book.
Couldn't agree with you more! I wouldn't call the superstars
undeserved, but after a while, feeling that "personal connection"
really starts to take over.
No one's to fault you if you don't make this connection with
Picasso. I respect what he did but my admiration is less felt
than intellectualized, if you know what i mean...
Re: internet Have you checked out www.artnet.com? Go to "Galleries"
then "Art Galleries" then select the listing "artist index". You will
see
a more or less random collection of works that galleries are actively
trying to sell, which nicely complements the perspective given by
historians. Thousands of contemporary artists, most of it interesting,
none of it affordable :)
Re: books Here are a few artists, for which I have a deep
personal interest, and which I feel there is far too
little information (espec. monographs) at this time:
William Baziotes
K.O.Goetz, Asger Jorn, Cobra in general
Adolph Gottlieb
Andre Masson
Georges Mathieu
Roberto Matta
Robert Ryman
Antoni Tapies
>
> It's a funny idea, but what if neither of us knew anything about
> Picasso, and we just ran across his paintings in a shabby store in the
> early part of this century? I wonder what we'd have thought. Maybe
I
> would have thought he had a lot of talent and was sorely neglected.
>
Hmm... I don't think Picasso would have *been* Picasso if he had not
worked so hard to situate himself at the very center, historically.
It was a kind of self-importance that benefitted the art world. I know
it's hard to think about the possibility today :-)
-- Harvey
her...@linknet.com.au
----------
In article <20781-37...@newsd-243.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
ts...@webtv.net (tstp) wrote:
> Art is very humbling. It says, I can do
> this, but not this, no matter what I think or want.
This is my experience as well. I don't choose what I paint or how I paint. I
have found that many artists understand what I mean when I say this.
> It seems we all
> desire to do something else--Joyce wanted to write plays. Tried it,
> not good. Yeats wanted to do other than poetry. Tried it, not good.
> Poor Joyce and Yeats. Look what we are all stuck with reading as a
> result of their inadequacies to go beyond themselves :).
Yes, it's funny isn't it? We disregard what comes naturally to us as of
little value. I wanted to be able to paint like Kandinsky, but I couldn't
paint an abstract painting for my life. It just becomes a mess. That talent
will always remain a mystery to me.
> I love the old unsigned Catholic Church artists, too. I am sure some
> of them were quite devoted spiritually and were doing it for that
> reason.
My understanding is that artists were considered the same as craftsmen, so
signing their work would not have entered their minds.
>
> In Degas' time and before, artists spent years copying before they
> developed their own style. I remember, though, that Degas said that
> Fantin-Latour was held back by carrying copying too far. But I like
> Fantin-Latour, despite his "inadequacy!"
>
> On the other hand, Picasso, in his desperation to make a mark in the art
> world, broke barriers, I guess, but there is something horribly lacking
> in him. It is like there is no one there. As compared to Modi, who, to
> me, is far more original than Picasso, and there is definitely someone
> there. Read Jung on Picasso and Joyce. I always thought Picasso
> was a phony (didn't his artist friends hide
> their work from him when he visited?) and Joyce sincere, and when I read
> Jung and he agreed with me--well, I was preening for weeks.
Here is a quote that you might find interesting. It is said to be from a
statement from of Picasso in an interview in the Libro Nero 1952 by Giovann
Papini:
"In art the mass of people no longer seeks consolation and exaltation, but
those who are refined, rich, unoccupied, who are the distillers of
quintessences, seek what is new, strange, original, extravagant, scandalous.
I myself, since Cubism and before, have satisfied these masters and critics
with all the changing oddities which passed through my head, and the less
they understood me, the more they admired me. By amusing myself with all
these games, with all these absurdities, puzzles, rebuses, arabesques, I
became famous and that very quickly. And fame for a painter means sales,
gains, fortune, riches. And today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich.
But when I am alone with myself, I have not the courage to think of myself
as an artist in the great and ancient sense of the term. Giotto, Titian,
Rembrandt were great painters. I am only a public entertainer who has
understood his times and exploited as best he could the imbecility, the
vanity, the cupidity of his contemporaries. Mine is a bitter confession;
more painful than it may appear, but it has the merit of being sincere."
Regards,
Zom
Marilyn
I love too, but I wouldn't move there.
Mostly because I live in one of the most beautiful cities in
the world.
M.
xform1 wrote:
>
> In article <27491-37...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
AAR
<ts...@webtv.net> writes
>Hi Alison--
>
>Geez--just because I said I have a style and love doing it and do it
>over and over, does not mean I am content with it!
>
>I used to be content, back in the good old days, and was glad I was
>spared the "torment" I saw in others. But in the past two years, the
>gods have visited their wrath on me because now I am tormented.
>Actually, it is sort of pleasurable. I merely changed from one subject
>I did naturally and well to another subject which is driving me up a
>wall! Now, at least, I feel more like a real artist. You should not be
>tormented, though, with your stuff--it's smashing! More on that later.
Ha ! I always measure a person's worth on how tormented they are. Now
the job is to *laugh in the face of the gods* as you face their wrath.
That stuff on my website is over a year old - managed to get the slides
done and onto CDrom and now waiting for some writing for the home page
from a r.a.f member, and for my web designer to get back from a film
festival in Chicago ...... by which time the new stuff will be old too.
See the dilemma ?
AAR
her...@linknet.com.au writes
>Yes, it's funny isn't it? We disregard what comes naturally to us as of
>little value. I wanted to be able to paint like Kandinsky, but I couldn't
>paint an abstract painting for my life. It just becomes a mess. That talent
>will always remain a mystery to me.
That's always fascinated me too - why some people *think* abstract. I
started out as a figurative artist but it became pretty obvious that I
would never be content with this, that my mind was seeking something
other than *reality*. However, I still do a lot of life drawing and find
that a necessary exercise for relating space and form to abstraction.
mdeli
>Have your read Gertrude Stein on Picasso?
>And Picasso was so prolific, you have to
>say what period you are discussing. His
>late period as opposed to his cubist period
>for example. Gertrude wrote about his work,
>before his very late period.
>
Having read Stein's "Picasso" I can only advise all here to peruse it.
Stein is a stuttering phoney who wrote as poorly as most artzy
fartzies paint. If she hadn't made it on good fortune and a large
blast of PR she would be as popular as last month's newspaper. Some
people still talk about her, its still somewhat fashionable, but
rarely waste time reading her crap.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
<her...@linknet.com.au> wrote:
>Here is a quote that you might find interesting. It is said to be from a
>statement from of Picasso in an interview in the Libro Nero 1952 by Giovann
>Papini:
>"In art the mass of people no longer seeks consolation and exaltation, but
>those who are refined, rich, unoccupied, who are the distillers of
>quintessences, seek what is new, strange, original, extravagant, scandalous.
>I myself, since Cubism and before, have satisfied these masters and critics
>with all the changing oddities which passed through my head, and the less
>they understood me, the more they admired me. By amusing myself with all
>these games, with all these absurdities, puzzles, rebuses, arabesques, I
>became famous and that very quickly. And fame for a painter means sales,
>gains, fortune, riches. And today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich.
>But when I am alone with myself, I have not the courage to think of myself
>as an artist in the great and ancient sense of the term. Giotto, Titian,
>Rembrandt were great painters. I am only a public entertainer who has
>understood his times and exploited as best he could the imbecility, the
>vanity, the cupidity of his contemporaries. Mine is a bitter confession;
>more painful than it may appear, but it has the merit of being sincere."
>
>Regards,
>Zom
As much as I dislike Picasso I believe that this quote is phoney. I
had some references about this in the past but seem to have lost them.
Does anyone here know of any referential material on this matter?
xform1
Marilyn <not_...@bc.ca> wrote:
> Thanks Harvey. There a quite a few NYC artists whose work
> I love too, but I wouldn't move there.
> Mostly because I live in one of the most beautiful cities in
> the world.
>
> M.
>
Wouldn't argue with that. The architecture alone, just walking
in the city was so memorable. Three years ago I had different
priorities and I didn't care so much about the art.
Anyway, I'm impressed that you've come naturally and authentically
to Diebenkorn. You've said about Ocean Park "It's all about light",
and I can see that and see how he captured the sense of place,
but it never does anything beyond that for me. Guess I'd have
to say the same about Thiebaud's SF cityscapes - I know *exactly*
the feeling of having "being there", but what is beyond? I'm
speaking about Diebenkorn's work as a whole, and the way he sort
of always touches on abstraction and representation without exploring
either... Just wondering if I will ever "get it"... Why was he
so important?
Yours,
--Harvey
--
tstp
Did you mean to address me? I think you did, and I want to answer you.
I am always curious about why we respond to a certain work of art. You
have a good point about universality and greatness. Maybe had I not
lived in Venice at that particular quiet time and maybe if Diebenkorn
had not titled his series Ocean Park, I might have appreciated his fine
line and color, but I might not have gone, "yes!" when saw his work.
Oh the other hand, I used to dislike Hopper until I started to paint
loneliness in a city, and, wow, then I sure appreciated Hopper and how
difficult his task was. And Hopper does stand alone. I always thought
he was an excellent artist, but I couldn't bear to look at at him. Now
I feel very much the opposite--I am fascinated.. I think his work
scared me a bit because it conveyed NYC (or any city) too well. I also
think that if you could find someone who had never been in a town or
city, there would still be a response to the utter aloneness. That does
make Hopper great, as you said.
I shall have to search John Register. I
am forty miles from the nearest, not very well stocked, bookstore.
Everything has to be ordered in by Pony Express.
I brought up Hopper, because I wonder if Diebenkorn was influenced by
his "Rooms by the Sea."
Best.
Nancy
Nancy >>>>
cheers,
--Harvey
--xform1 at geocities dot com--
nan...@my-deja.com
xform1 <xfo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <37B194...@bc.ca>,
> Marilyn <not_...@bc.ca> wrote:
> > Thanks Harvey. There a quite a few NYC artists whose work
> > I love too, but I wouldn't move there.
> > Mostly because I live in one of the most beautiful cities in
> > the world.
> >
> > M.
> >
>
> Wouldn't argue with that. The architecture alone, just walking
> in the city was so memorable. Three years ago I had different
> priorities and I didn't care so much about the art.
>
> Anyway, I'm impressed that you've come naturally and authentically
> to Diebenkorn. You've said about Ocean Park "It's all about light",
> and I can see that and see how he captured the sense of place,
> but it never does anything beyond that for me. Guess I'd have
> to say the same about Thiebaud's SF cityscapes - I know *exactly*
> the feeling of having "being there", but what is beyond? I'm
> speaking about Diebenkorn's work as a whole, and the way he sort
> of always touches on abstraction and representation without exploring
> either... Just wondering if I will ever "get it"... Why was he
> so important?
>
> Yours,
> --Harvey
>
> --
> Transformations Digital Gallery:
> http://www.geocities.com/Soho/Exhibit/5782
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hi Harvey--
I sent in a long letter to you this morning to the site I use (which I think
is Usenet) but that site has been frozen all day. I am confused, because
yesterday, you addressed Marilyn, but attached my letter.
Marilyn and I both like Diebenkorn and Southern California light,and, to add
to the confusion, and we have both lived in Venice.
On top of that, my post to usenet is not showing up here, and I am laughing
too hard to retype it to you here.
tomorrow I will get serious again, but right now I feel lik Inspector Clouzot.
My letter is more about Diebenkorn
and Hopper. If you don't see it, could you let me know?
Hi, Marilyn!
Nancy
xform1
Hi Nancy,
I'm really looking forward to your letter, but
I haven't seen it either on deja or on the system
at work. If you used deja, any chance you were
logged out? I've lost lots of posts that way. It's
always a good idea to paste the text into another
window, as a backup before you send. If it was a
problem with webtv probably not.
--Harvey
nan...@my-deja.com
<7ospm5$ri8$1...@nnrp1.deja
There is something wrong
with access to my usual
newsgroup, so I joined
deja.com and wrote
another long letter in
today re Diebenkrn and
Hopper, which has wound
up back
at my usual acess.
Please let me know if
you see this one.
I do not want to retype
my two letters unless
you all will get
them,and I do not know
how to transer them to
deja.com.
This has been a very
funny day.:)
Nancy
mark webber
> Harvey and Marilyn--
>
> There is something wrong
> with access to my usual
> newsgroup, so I joined
> deja.com and wrote
> another long letter in
> today re Diebenkrn and
> Hopper, which has wound
> up back
> at my usual acess.
> Please let me know if
> you see this one.
>
> I do not want to retype
> my two letters unless
> you all will get
> them,and I do not know
> how to transer them to
> deja.com.
>
> This has been a very
> funny day.:)
>
> Nancy
>
Hi Nancy,
This is the first time one of your posts has turned up on my server. Nice
to find you here.
Are you aware that you are stacking your prose into a poetic form?
best,
Mark
tstp
Alison wrote:
<<<<<<. I never lost the chef in me - take a bunch of ingredients
and put some unusual ones together and sometimes, just sometimes, the
taste buds are set ablaze. >>
Alison--
When I cooked in a wok (red peppers, snow peas, etc.), my husband would
say in appreciation, "It looks like one of your paintings."
Actually, it looked much better than one of my paintings, quite
beautiful floating around, like Monet's Water Lilies. Hated to eat it
:).
Nancy
her...@linknet.com.au
----------
In article <9HtnRmAy...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, AAR
<a...@signature.in.address> wrote:
(snippet)
> if
> you recall, my concerns are that an artists should never become stagnant
> in their work. That doesn't mean that an artist should forever be
> changing his *style* but that his mind should be constantly challenging
> and inquiring. That, to me is progress. Progress is having the guts to
> take a detour down a rocky road instead of sticking to the smooth
> highway.
I've found this not to be a choice. I wouldn't mind finding a smooth highway
--ah, to feel confident, even complacent. but all my highways turn into
unpaved backroads.
> I also believe that many people have lost the ability to be able to
> experience something simply on aesthetic values. Erik just illustrated
> it by his postcard story. That sense of awe - the feeling of the sublime
> - it is no longer a possibility for many because our visual senses have
> been bombarded with multiple images of visions that used to send the
> blood rushing through the veins.
In my experience one can be educated into this sensitivity. I have spoken to
people who have always felt it, memories from childhood and experiencing
that epiphany in front of a painting. But there must also be many like me. I
first experienced it at the age of thirty after being *educated* to see
more.
> Quite right you should ! However, not to labour a point, it may be that
> art is no longer capable of standing as an aesthetic object because the
> contemporary artist (who here represents the mainstream artist) can no
> longer accept it as such. That is where the dissatisfaction that
> Baudrillard cites comes in. Hence the statements. The viewer, who no
> longer receives the aesthetic stimulation seeks satisfaction in the
> statements - they look for reasons to admire the work.
>
> So you see - I demand the artist's progress recognise that progress is
> not necessarily associated with *new* ....... in case that is in
> question !
It was in question, and I appreciate the clarification.
>
> Happy painting .... even though it is officially *dead* eh ?
> --
> Alison
>
My beloved is not *dead*, I visited him just today.
Zom
tstp
Well, one letter is on both sites and one has disappeared. And now my
letter seems like nothing to make a fuss about either :).
I don't know what I did yesterday by now. I am not the swiftest
technically, and I was trying to see what was showing up to me and what
was showing up to others so I could let my tech dept. know.
Then I joined deja.com and added to the confusion by posting there and
coming up under a different name. I guess the sites are interchangeable,
so I got duplicated from both ends.
It was pretty amusing. I felt like several
different people by the end of the day.
I felt like a Picasso painting.
Nancy
~Artist~
Boring.
~Artist~
>
> ----------
> In article <20781-37...@newsd-243.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> ts...@webtv.net (tstp) wrote:
>
> > Art is very humbling. It says, I can do
> > this, but not this, no matter what I think or want.
>
> This is my experience as well. I don't choose what I paint or how I paint. I
> have found that many artists understand what I mean when I say this.
>
> > It seems we all
> > desire to do something else--Joyce wanted to write plays. Tried it,
> > not good. Yeats wanted to do other than poetry. Tried it, not good.
> > Poor Joyce and Yeats. Look what we are all stuck with reading as a
> > result of their inadequacies to go beyond themselves :).
>
> little value. I wanted to be able to paint like Kandinsky, but I couldn't
> paint an abstract painting for my life. It just becomes a mess. That talent
> will always remain a mystery to me.
>
> > of them were quite devoted spiritually and were doing it for that
> > reason.
>
> My understanding is that artists were considered the same as craftsmen, so
> signing their work would not have entered their minds.
> >
> > In Degas' time and before, artists spent years copying before they
> > developed their own style. I remember, though, that Degas said that
> > Fantin-Latour was held back by carrying copying too far. But I like
> > Fantin-Latour, despite his "inadequacy!"
> >
> > On the other hand, Picasso, in his desperation to make a mark in the art
> > world, broke barriers, I guess, but there is something horribly lacking
> > in him. It is like there is no one there. As compared to Modi, who, to
> > me, is far more original than Picasso, and there is definitely someone
> > there. Read Jung on Picasso and Joyce. I always thought Picasso
> > was a phony (didn't his artist friends hide
> > their work from him when he visited?) and Joyce sincere, and when I read
> > Jung and he agreed with me--well, I was preening for weeks.
>
> statement from of Picasso in an interview in the Libro Nero 1952 by Giovann
> Papini:
> "In art the mass of people no longer seeks consolation and exaltation, but
> those who are refined, rich, unoccupied, who are the distillers of
> quintessences, seek what is new, strange, original, extravagant, scandalous.
> I myself, since Cubism and before, have satisfied these masters and critics
> with all the changing oddities which passed through my head, and the less
> they understood me, the more they admired me. By amusing myself with all
> these games, with all these absurdities, puzzles, rebuses, arabesques, I
> became famous and that very quickly. And fame for a painter means sales,
> gains, fortune, riches. And today, as you know, I am celebrated,
Who cares ....just have a fricken ball!
Bet those idiots at Yahoo! saved my graffitti sign....
groveling over it.
LOL
2 FUN!!!!!
I am rich.
> But when I am alone with myself, I have not the courage to think of myself
Born alone die alone paint alone...big deal.
> as an artist in the great and ancient sense of the term. Giotto, Titian,
> Rembrandt were great painters. I am only a public entertainer who has
> understood his times and exploited as best he could the imbecility, the
> vanity, the cupidity of his contemporaries. Mine is a bitter confession;
> more painful than it may appear, but it has the merit of being sincere."
>
> Regards,
> Zom
DAmn good idea Pappinni !!
SOUNDS LIKE A BLAST TO ME!!!!!!!!
LETS ALL DO IT!!!!!!!
Mattison Fitzgerald
Artist
xform1
> I feel very much the opposite--I am fascinated.. I think his work
> scared me a bit because it conveyed NYC (or any city) too well. I also
> think that if you could find someone who had never been in a town or
> city, there would still be a response to the utter aloneness. That
does
> make Hopper great, as you said.
>
> I shall have to search John Register. I
> am forty miles from the nearest, not very well stocked, bookstore.
> Everything has to be ordered in by Pony Express.
>
> I brought up Hopper, because I wonder if Diebenkorn was influenced by
> his "Rooms by the Sea."
>
Finally saw it! I mean your post -- the connections between
Hopper and Diebenkorn are going to take me some time I'm
afraid, because I have seen so much of D.'s earlier stuff,
and I can't find a focus in any of it.
The other reason I mention Register and Hopper is because
both remind me so much of De Chirico, of course updated into
their times and surroundings.
Cheers,
tstp
I wrote:
I used to be content, back in the good old days, and was glad I was
spared the "torment" I saw in others. But in the past two years, the
gods have visited their wrath on me because now I am tormented.
Actually, it is sort of pleasurable.
------------------
Alison wrote:
<< Ha ! I always measure a person's worth on how tormented they are.
Now the job is to *laugh in the face of the gods* as you face their
wrath. >> ------------------
I don't know, Alison. I get enough torment from other areas. The older
I get, the less attractive is torment. I prefer facing just a little
belch from the gods.
However, you have started a whole good topic here. Is torment
necessary?
Best,
Nancy
tstp
Alison wrote:
<< I also believe that many people have lost the ability to be able to
experience something simply on aesthetic values. Erik just illustrated
it by his postcard story. That sense of awe - the feeling of the sublime
- it is no longer a possibility for many because our visual senses have
been bombarded with multiple images of visions that used to send the
blood rushing through the veins. >>
Zom wrote:
<< In my experience one can be educated into this sensitivity. I have
spoken to people who have always felt it, memories from childhood and
experiencing that epiphany in front of a painting. But there must also
be many like me. I first experienced it at the age of thirty after being
*educated* to see more. >>
Do you mean your appreciation of the
aesthetic, Zom? And how were you
educated to see more? Or, are you referring to yourself as an artist,
rather than as a person? (that sounds funny, doesn't it ? :)
Best,
Nancy
hermes
I meant the emotional and physical response to the aesthetic rather than an
intellectual appreciation. Though perhaps the intellectual appreciation can
pave the way, I don't know.
I'm not sure what part of my education sensitized me. I just know that there
was a point when paintings that I had seen before were affecting me
differently. Instead of just a feeling of 'oh, that's neat (or pretty)',
there would be a feeling of awe, of being knocked senseless or of
transportation.
It might come from someone more sensitive helping you to see more. I know
the woman who taught me painting, taught me to see more colours - that is
certainly a training in sensitivity.
For me, the artist and the person are the same.
Zom
----------
In article <5198-37B...@newsd-242.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, ts...@webtv.net
AAR
<ts...@webtv.net> writes
>
>However, you have started a whole good topic here. Is torment
>necessary?
One needs to clarify the word *torment* here, Nancy. Its almost
impossible not to want to draw from the myth of Van Gogh or Edvard Munch
as the genius' with the tormented minds and therefore conclude that it
*is* necessary. I don't hold with all that. Having suffered from
clinical depression on more than one occasion myself, to produce any
work during that time would have been impossible - getting out of bed at
all becomes the greatest achievement. The sense of not having a purpose
supersedes any will to create. The emergence from depression becomes the
critical factor - when suddenly purpose portrays itself in exactly that
form - the need and will to create. But this does NOT mean it is
necessary - thank goodness.
In order to *progress* (there we go again), one has to be able to
develop the mind and in turn the work. For some, emerging from a black
hole into the sunlight kindles the fire of creative spirit - which often
produces the surge of energy that new work needs. It isn't the *torment*
that does it but the *reflection* on the torment.
De Kooning's late work, suffering from Alzheimer's, reveals a dramatic
change in his thought mode. It is hard to measure the validity of this
work because one cannot help question those who controlled him and the
work that hit the market. Someone on this group who claimed to know the
De Kooning family stringently denied this accusation and I have to
accept this as so. However, during early stages of Alzheimer's, the mind
wanders between normality and a darkness that pulls the sufferer back
and forth. Sufferers experience hallucinations and lose all sense of
time. My father was still a practising architect when he developed
Alzheimer's at the age of 59 - he started to lose all sensibility in his
work and yet showed a new creative drive, particularly in his sketches,
that had not been evident before. As the disease progresses the ability
to function in the most simple of tasks becomes almost impossible. I
cannot imagine then, that the tormented mind of De Kooning could be
capable of considering a change in *style* during his later works or of
continuing to paint at all.
This concludes me to believe that one has to have a certain sensibility
to function as an artist, in formalist terms, in order to produce work
that could have intrinsic value.
What do you think ?
Aster Iske
says...
>It might come from someone more sensitive helping you to see more. I know
>the woman who taught me painting, taught me to see more colours - that is
>certainly a training in sensitivity.
>
>For me, the artist and the person are the same.
I don't know if this will illustrate anything pertinent
to this argument or not. But here goes anyway...
Where I live there is a lady with more money than she
knows what to do with who built a 'monstrosity' of a
theater which she has donated to the community. She
chose the setting for her theater for its spectacular
panoramic beauty. I don't know this lady nor what
she was thinking. She owned the land, obviously, and
obtained all the permits required to satisfy the
local building authorities.
But I would like to ask this lady if she ever once
stopped to think what the placement of her theater
would do to what was up until then a pristine naturally
beautiful setting. To describe it for you, it's as
if someone took one of the Egyptian pyramids and
plopped it down into the otherwise naturally scenic
location in New Mexico.
In reality, what she did was to lead the parade,
introducing urban blight into the area. The
plains surrounding Santa Fe were once starkly
beautiful too -- now they are covered with tan
stucco structures for as far as the eye can see.
And anyone can paint this same scenario for just
about any locale in the world where natural
beauty has been 'improved' by the intervention
of humans.