Cezanne Defends Himself
mark webber
same respect from his opponents that they themselves demand.
On 29 Aug 1998, it was written:
> "I must always work, but not to achieve a final polish,
> which is for the admiration of imbeciles. And this thing
> which is commonly so appreciated is only the accomplishment
> of the artisan's skill and makes every work resulting
> from it inartistic and vulgar."
>
> p. 106 "Cezanne" by John Rewald, 1912
>
> "Technique grows in contact with nature. It develops
> through circumstances. It consists in seeking to express
> what one feels, in organizing sensations into personal
> esthetics."
>
> p. 192, ibid
>
> M.
>
>
Iian Neill
> which is for the admiration of imbeciles. And this thing
> which is commonly so appreciated is only the accomplishment
> of the artisan's skill and makes every work resulting
> from it inartistic and vulgar."
Denial of the use of polish and finish is equally vulgar. While art that only
aims to look pretty is not elevated art, its obverse (art which seeks
intelligence through ugliness) is not necessarily greater.
Every good artist is also a craftsman (or craftsperson, if you prefer) and so
such concerns as "final polish" cannot be entirely removed from the equation.
Where they differ is in expectations of "finality". This is certainly a
legitimate concern, as their works of art which are "too" finished, which is to
say that aesthetic value has been relegated second place behind smooth
perfection.
Bland perfection is worthy at least from a technical perspective - whereas crude
"finish" and savage distortion does not score highly on this scale. Both are
aesthetically suspect, however.
> p. 106 "Cezanne" by John Rewald, 1912
>
> "Technique grows in contact with nature. It develops
> through circumstances. It consists in seeking to express
> what one feels, in organizing sensations into personal
> esthetics."
That seems to be a fair enough point. But what of it? How does it defend Cezanne
any more than Gerome or Meissonier?
Regards,
Iian Neill.
DFRussell
The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
>"I must always work, but not to achieve a final polish,
>which is for the admiration of imbeciles. And this thing
>which is commonly so appreciated is only the accomplishment
>of the artisan's skill and makes every work resulting
>from it inartistic and vulgar."
Sounds pleasant.... what, if anything, does it mean?
That Cezanne is historically significant is undeniable --
so is the fact that all the words you wish to put forward can't
give him an 'artisan's skill".
>
>p. 106 "Cezanne" by John Rewald, 1912
>
>"Technique grows in contact with nature. It develops
>through circumstances. It consists in seeking to express
>what one feels, in organizing sensations into personal
>esthetics."
Again, what does this actually mean? Since it's difficult
to argue with something that is ambigous, I won't try.
Marilyn
> Re: Cezanne Defends Himself
>
> From: nobody@localhost (DFRussell)
> Reply to: [1]nobody@localhost
> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 14:51:21 GMT
> Organization: of american anarchists
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5]<35e82...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
>
>
>The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
>diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
>may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
Cezanne wrote:
>
>>"I must always work, but not to achieve a final polish,
>>which is for the admiration of imbeciles. And this thing
>>which is commonly so appreciated is only the accomplishment
>>of the artisan's skill and makes every work resulting
>>from it inartistic and vulgar."
>
>Sounds pleasant.... what, if anything, does it mean?
Hellow, is English your first language? Maybe you would understand
the French better.
>That Cezanne is historically significant is undeniable --
>so is the fact that all the words you wish to put forward can't
>give him an 'artisan's skill".
>
>>
>>p. 106 "Cezanne" by John Rewald, 1912
>>
>>"Technique grows in contact with nature. It develops
>>through circumstances. It consists in seeking to express
>>what one feels, in organizing sensations into personal
>>esthetics."
>
>Again, what does this actually mean? Since it's difficult
>to argue with something that is ambigous, I won't try.
It seems plain enough to me and why would you want to
argue with a dead man?
Marilyn
> Re: Cezanne Defends Himself
>
> From: Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au>
> Reply to: [1]Iian Neill
> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 21:54:05 +1000
> Organization: University of Queensland
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5]<35e82...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
>
>> which is for the admiration of imbeciles. And this thing
>> which is commonly so appreciated is only the accomplishment
>> of the artisan's skill and makes every work resulting
>> from it inartistic and vulgar."
>
>aims to look pretty is not elevated art, its obverse (art which seeks
>intelligence through ugliness) is not necessarily greater.
>
>Every good artist is also a craftsman (or craftsperson, if you prefer) and so
>such concerns as "final polish" cannot be entirely removed from the equation.
>Where they differ is in expectations of "finality". This is certainly a
>legitimate concern, as their works of art which are "too" finished, which is to
>say that aesthetic value has been relegated second place behind smooth
>perfection.
>
>Bland perfection is worthy at least from a technical perspective - whereas crud
>e
>"finish" and savage distortion does not score highly on this scale. Both are
>aesthetically suspect, however.
>
You are arguing with a dead man.
I take issue with the word "perfection." Isn't it beyond our reach?
Is it not for the gods alone? Some Chinese craftsmen used to deliberately
flaw their work so as not to anger the gods.
I prefer the word "excellence" because it is achievable (sometimes).
>> p. 106 "Cezanne" by John Rewald, 1912
>>
>> "Technique grows in contact with nature. It develops
>> through circumstances. It consists in seeking to express
>> what one feels, in organizing sensations into personal
>> esthetics."
>
>That seems to be a fair enough point. But what of it? How does it defend Cezann
>e
>any more than Gerome or Meissonier?
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
Who cares about those guys? They were not being attacked here on the ng
for being "crude & inept."
As I wrote in another post,
if Cezanne doesn't pass the Iian-meter,
what hope is there for me?
Anyway, I give you last word. Kill this thread.
How about telling us about the Australian art scene? Do the galleries
showing modern art outnumber the galleries showing classical art?
Marilyn
DFRussell
>>
>>The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
>>diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
>>may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
>
>Cezanne wrote:
>>
>>>"I must always work, but not to achieve a final polish,
>>>which is for the admiration of imbeciles. And this thing
>>>which is commonly so appreciated is only the accomplishment
>>>of the artisan's skill and makes every work resulting
>>>from it inartistic and vulgar."
>>
>>Sounds pleasant.... what, if anything, does it mean?
>
>Hellow, is English your first language?
Yes.
> Maybe you would understand the French better.
Written French is OK. Can't pronounce it.
Spanish is OK also... smatterings of Russian, Hangul (Korean),
Japanese, and Latin also. The cryllic alphabet takes a bit of getting
used to.
Not that it really matters :-)
Since you simply responded with an [attempted] insult and didn't
address the question I'll assume you really haven't a clue what
the above meant either.
>
>>That Cezanne is historically significant is undeniable --
>>so is the fact that all the words you wish to put forward can't
>>give him an 'artisan's skill".
>>
>
>
>>>
>>>p. 106 "Cezanne" by John Rewald, 1912
>>>
>>>"Technique grows in contact with nature. It develops
>>>through circumstances. It consists in seeking to express
>>>what one feels, in organizing sensations into personal
>>>esthetics."
>>
>>Again, what does this actually mean? Since it's difficult
>>to argue with something that is ambigous, I won't try.
>
>It seems plain enough to me and why would you want to
>argue with a dead man?
You're the one who put forth his words in support of his
paintings.....?
Q. What does the fact that he is dead have to do with the validity
his words?
A. Absolutely nothing.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
I can see great minds think similarely, but I post this anyway
* * *
I must quote a discussion outside this NG. The language was French, I got
only a German translation. Now I work on it without a dictionary. I plead
guilty of misundnerstandings, omission of too difficult paragraphs. I have
also deliberately shortened it. Maybe those who know better, can later
correct me. I do this only because it brings a new point of view in the
stagnating argumentation about Cezanne.
>To paint a landscape correctly, I have to learn the geological layers first.
>Think of the day the world history >begun, the dawn of of ourselves over
>nothing. (...) I solve thru first scetches, the geological lines. The
>geometry, the masses of earth. (...) An airy, colourful logic replaces
>suddenly the sad, hardcore geometry. All finds its place, the trees, fields,
>the houses. The geological ground, the preliminary work , the world of
>drawing >breaks down. Now there is only colours, and in their brightness. (...)
>to be >one with the world, a <photosensitive plate.
# You have said, one must forget all. Why this preliminary, the whole
# meditation with the landscape.
> Oh, because I am no longer innocent. We are civilized people, who miss the
>classical in ourselves, if we >want it or not. I want to express me clearly in
>my paintigs. There is a kind of barbarism in the false primitivism, that
>deserves more hate than the academism itself.
>We cannot be primitive anymore. The skill is already born in us. (...)
>When I think the first humans, who painted their hunting dreams in the caves,
>or any good christian who painted a fresco of paradise on the cemetery wall,
>they painted themselves, all of them, their skill, their soul, thei experience
>of themselves. I must be like that in front of my landscape, and extract the
>religion.
> only the true is beautiful,
> the true only is worht of loving
(...)
# But Veronese, Rubens, Velasquez, Tintoretto, sure you love them?
> Oh those. They possess such vitality, that in all those trees the juices
# still flow, their own juice, their tremendows vitality.
* * *
These quotes are from a discussion between Cezanne and Gasquet! I confess, my
selection is intentionally biased. To be honest, I have to continue a bit.
>Go to the exhibitions. When one cannot paint the reflection of the water under
the foliage, one pastes there a najade. Die Quelle (Seems to be The Bathing)
of Ingres? What has it to do with water? (...)
>And the names; Venus, Zeus, Apollo, when they no longer can say with deeper
>confidence: Foam of see, Clouds of heaven, Power of sun. Did they really
>believe on those thruworn heroes of Olympia.
>The nature is more in the depth than on the surface. Then, hear me, you can
>change the surface, >decoreate, clean it, but you cannot chage the deep,
>without tampering the reality. One will know.
# Know?
> Yes, I want to know. To know how to feel better, to feel how to know better.
Sometimes it is nice to read the original, not the hindsight of history. You
might love Cezanne, Iian. - lauri -- One must come throuh nature to Louvre,
and throuh Louve back to nature (Cezanne)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mark webber
words of the artists more than the critics and historians these days. But
do have a look at the Berenson quotes I posted and tell me what you think.
If none of them interest you, let me know - there are several more I'd
like to toss out for discussion.
Mark
Marilyn
> Re: Cezanne Defends Himself
>
> From: nobody@localhost (DFRussell)
> Reply to: [1]nobody@localhost
> Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 23:19:26 GMT
> Organization: of american anarchists
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
DFRussell wrote:>
>
>>>
>>>The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
>>>diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
>>>may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
>>
The words were not associated with a painting, they reflected
Cezanne's view on his painting in general. They are quite
clear and do not need to be expounded .
>>Cezanne wrote:
>>>
>>>>"I must always work, but not to achieve a final polish,
>>>>which is for the admiration of imbeciles. And this thing
>>>>which is commonly so appreciated is only the accomplishment
>>>>of the artisan's skill and makes every work resulting
>>>>from it inartistic and vulgar."
>>>
>>>Sounds pleasant.... what, if anything, does it mean?
>>
>>Hellow, is English your first language?
>
>Yes.
>
>> Maybe you would understand the French better.
>
>Written French is OK. Can't pronounce it.
>Spanish is OK also... smatterings of Russian, Hangul (Korean),
>Japanese, and Latin also. The cryllic alphabet takes a bit of getting
>used to.
>
>Not that it really matters :-)
>
>Since you simply responded with an [attempted] insult and didn't
>address the question I'll assume you really haven't a clue what
>the above meant either.
>
So now who is attempting an insult?
I have interpreted his words for myself, can you?
>
>>
>>>That Cezanne is historically significant is undeniable --
>>>so is the fact that all the words you wish to put forward can't
>>>give him an 'artisan's skill".
>>>
Why would he need it? It's the result that counts and the
results are quite wonderful. Vive Cezanne.
>>
>>>>
>>>>p. 106 "Cezanne" by John Rewald, 1912
>>>>
>>>>"Technique grows in contact with nature. It develops
>>>>through circumstances. It consists in seeking to express
>>>>what one feels, in organizing sensations into personal
>>>>esthetics."
>>>
>>>Again, what does this actually mean? Since it's difficult
>>>to argue with something that is ambigous, I won't try.
>>
>>It seems plain enough to me and why would you want to
>>argue with a dead man?
>
>You're the one who put forth his words in support of his
>paintings.....?
>
>Q. What does the fact that he is dead have to do with the validity
>his words?
>
>A. Absolutely nothing.
same to you
M.
if...@my-dejanews.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> My news server is down. I have lost some ...........
Excellent stuff!
thank you for posting this translation
ifree
>only the true is beautiful,
> > the true only is worht of loving>
>..............of the flood during this weekend.
setai
>Marilyn,
>
>Your taste in art is questionable, your logic is -- for the most part
>-- completely lacking, and you are very, very predictable.
>
>And I have more constructive things to do than point that out to you
>:-)
>
>Have a nice night.
>
i have been browsing through this rather heated thread for a while now, but
i must speak up on this point. whereas the value of Cezanne's or any other
artist work is for the most subjective, logic is concrete. as far as i am
concerned Marilyn's logic is quite solid and any predictability is a
manifestation of the correct reponses.
aside from uncalled for flames, though i must admit some were rather witty,
this has been an extremely educational thread. if you(and i am not just
speaking to dfrussell) look past your own self-defense, to information on
Cezanne and what is "good"art, the discussion is more direct and honest than
90% of art history courses. i personally think that this is more than worth
my time.
my opinion of Cezanne and most of the "classics" tended/tends to swing
depending on the level and aspect of art that is my current focus. when i
first attended art school my opinion of Cezanne(most classical art for that
matter) was rather low, a reflection of my desire to create "new art". for
a period when i was very involved with painting and art history and having
critiqued hundreds of bad abstract student art, my admiration was at an all
time high. after a thorough beating of art history and one too many painting
courses, the pendulum swung again. now, and for quite a while, i think i
have placed the "classics" in a proper place for my view of art and my own
artwork.
i do not know if you or others have encountered such artistic mood swings,
but i would be interested in hearing from you.
t aubuchon
http://home.pacbell.net/dijit/index1.html
To Marilyn
i know that you are perfectly capable of your own defense, far better than
myself, and i hope that you do not take this post in any way as an insult.
DFRussell
>>>>The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
>>>>diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
>>>>may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
>>>
>
>The words were not associated with a painting, they reflected
>Cezanne's view on his painting in general.
;-)
I apolgize, I didn't know you had a difficulty generalizing...
substitute "his work" for "a piece" are re-read.
>They are quite clear and do not need to be expounded .
Translation: I'm clueless and hope to get past this by acting insulted
that anyone could dare question me.
>
>>>Cezanne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"I must always work, but not to achieve a final polish,
>>>>>which is for the admiration of imbeciles. And this thing
>>>>>which is commonly so appreciated is only the accomplishment
>>>>>of the artisan's skill and makes every work resulting
>>>>>from it inartistic and vulgar."
>>>>
>>>>Sounds pleasant.... what, if anything, does it mean?
>>>
>>>Hellow, is English your first language?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>> Maybe you would understand the French better.
>>
>>Written French is OK. Can't pronounce it.
>>Spanish is OK also... smatterings of Russian, Hangul (Korean),
>>Japanese, and Latin also. The cryllic alphabet takes a bit of getting
>>used to.
>>
>>Not that it really matters :-)
>>
>>Since you simply responded with an [attempted] insult and didn't
>>address the question I'll assume you really haven't a clue what
>>the above meant either.
>>
>
>So now who is attempting an insult?
:) I'm sorry. I wasn't aware you considered it insulting for someone
to point out that you're weren't answering questions.
>I have interpreted his words for myself, can you?
Nope. Seems like gibberish to me... and, forgive me for saying it,
but I've not noted you doing more than, "You're arguing with a dead
man!"
I'm afraid that's not a good argument.
>>
>>>
>>>>That Cezanne is historically significant is undeniable --
>>>>so is the fact that all the words you wish to put forward can't
>>>>give him an 'artisan's skill".
>>>>
>
>Why would he need it? It's the result that counts and the
>results are quite wonderful. Vive Cezanne.
Well, it's nice you like Cezanne. However; I'm afraid you're not
doing much in the way of countering Mani's point(s).
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>p. 106 "Cezanne" by John Rewald, 1912
>>>>>
>>>>>"Technique grows in contact with nature. It develops
>>>>>through circumstances. It consists in seeking to express
>>>>>what one feels, in organizing sensations into personal
>>>>>esthetics."
>>>>
>>>>Again, what does this actually mean? Since it's difficult
>>>>to argue with something that is ambigous, I won't try.
>>>
>>>It seems plain enough to me and why would you want to
>>>argue with a dead man?
>>
>>You're the one who put forth his words in support of his
>>paintings.....?
>>
>>Q. What does the fact that he is dead have to do with the validity
>>his words?
>>
>>A. Absolutely nothing.
>
>same to you
:-)
"I know you are but what am I?"
mark webber
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, setai wrote:
(snip)
>
> i have been browsing through this rather heated thread for a while now, but
> i must speak up on this point. whereas the value of Cezanne's or any other
> artist work is for the most subjective, logic is concrete. as far as i am
> concerned Marilyn's logic is quite solid and any predictability is a
> manifestation of the correct reponses.
I agree.
(minor snip)
>
> my opinion of Cezanne and most of the "classics" tended/tends to swing
> depending on the level and aspect of art that is my current focus. when i
> first attended art school my opinion of Cezanne(most classical art for that
> matter) was rather low, a reflection of my desire to create "new art". for
> a period when i was very involved with painting and art history and having
> critiqued hundreds of bad abstract student art, my admiration was at an all
> time high. after a thorough beating of art history and one too many painting
> courses, the pendulum swung again. now, and for quite a while, i think i
> have placed the "classics" in a proper place for my view of art and my own
> artwork.
>
> i do not know if you or others have encountered such artistic mood swings,
> but i would be interested in hearing from you.
> t aubuchon
My enthusiasm shifts from one period to another pretty frequently, but
there always seems to be some master that I keep refering to. I can't
remember any time when I was dismissing the "classics", as you call them,
in general, but I certainly understand why someone would (based on the way
you describe it) and can see how it could be healthy in doses.
Glad you decided to add to the discussion.
Mark
if...@my-dejanews.com
nobody@localhost wrote:
> Marilyn wrote:
>
> >>>>The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
> >>>>diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
> >>>>may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
> >>>
> >
> >The words were not associated with a painting, they reflected
> >Cezanne's view on his painting in general.
>
> "I know you are but what am I?"
well, IMHO you're a creep, satisfied?
> Marilyn,
>
> Your taste in art is questionable, your logic is -- for the most part
> -- completely lacking, and you are very, very predictable.
Rubbish!
Marilyn,
I enjoy reading your posts, they're are intelligent and witty and if you can
dig Cezanne your taste can't be that bad :-)
good luck
ifree
Bob C
>
> i do not know if you or others have encountered such artistic mood swings,
> but i would be interested in hearing from you.
>
I have artistic mood swings all the time, both on small and large time
scales. There was a time when I didn't look at modern art except as a
curiosity and as a part of my art history education. The scales shifted,
and at one point I had become so addicted to the big, bright,
in-your-face over-stimulation provided by modern art, that I couldn't
even look at traditional paintings without seeing nothing more than
random application of muddied pigments. Now it has largely shifted back
and I spend most of my gallery time drinking in the relatively more
traditional works while paying very little attention to the modern art.
An experience I have with many modern abstract artists follows a
predictable pattern. First, there is the puzzlement of what it is that
others are seeing in the work. This is followed by slowly gaining some
sort of understanding of what others value but without the work
necessarily having any value for me personally. This goes on for any
period of time until I suddenly find myself viewing the artist's work
and being totally captivated by it. Sometimes it is because I finally
find one of their works which is able to draw me in, but sometimes it
will be the same painting I've seen on many occasions which had never
had an effect on me before. After one or more experiences like this, I
then pretty much lose the ability to achieve anything close to this same
level of captivation again, but I certainly feel much better for having
once experienced it.
This is not true of all artists; Rothko and Pollock come to mind as
examples. Some modern artist I took to immediately (Johns,
Rauschenberg), others I feel that I'm continuing to get more and more
out of them with every single viewing (de Kooning, Klee).
Cezanne, Manet, and el Greco also immediately come to mind as painters
whose works are a continual learning experience for me. Sometimes I
wonder if I should even dare try to evaluate them knowing that I'll have
learned so much more in the future that whatever I'm saying now can't
possibly hope to get it right!
- Bob C.
Marilyn
> Re: Cezanne Defends Himself
>
> From: if...@my-dejanews.com
> Reply to: [1]if...@my-dejanews.com
> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 13:23:17 GMT
> Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [6]<35eb3770...@news.mindspring.com>
>
>In article [7]<35eb3770...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
>>
>> >>>>The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
>> >>>>diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
>> >>>>may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
>> >>>
>> >
>> >The words were not associated with a painting, they reflected
>> >Cezanne's view on his painting in general.
>>
> [................................snip..............................]
>
>
>> "I know you are but what am I?"
>
> well, IMHO you're a creep, satisfied?
>
>
>> Marilyn,
>>
>> Your taste in art is questionable, your logic is -- for the most part
>> -- completely lacking, and you are very, very predictable.
>
>
> Rubbish!
>
> Marilyn,
>
> I enjoy reading your posts, they're are intelligent and witty and if you can
> dig Cezanne your taste can't be that bad :-)
>
>
> good luck
>
> ifree
>
Thanks.
Actually, I didn't get Russell's original rude post. Maybe my server
deleted it. : )
I thought I would be quite safe in simply quoting Cezanne, no opinion,
do dogma, just let the guy speak for himself. But some found it
annoying...
Today there is so much rich stuff (including yours) on this ng, I'm going
to have to print it out.
Marilyn
Marilyn
> Re: Cezanne Defends Himself
>
> From: "setai" <se...@geocities.com>
> Reply to: [1]"setai"
> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:54:54 -0700
> Organization: The Hand
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5]<35ea8...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
> [6]<35eb3770...@news.mindspring.com>
>
>
>>Marilyn,
>>
>>Your taste in art is questionable, your logic is -- for the most part
>>-- completely lacking, and you are very, very predictable.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Have a nice night.
>>
>
>i must speak up on this point. whereas the value of Cezanne's or any other
>artist work is for the most subjective, logic is concrete. as far as i am
>concerned Marilyn's logic is quite solid and any predictability is a
>manifestation of the correct reponses.
>
>this has been an extremely educational thread. if you(and i am not just
>speaking to dfrussell) look past your own self-defense, to information on
>Cezanne and what is "good"art, the discussion is more direct and honest than
>90% of art history courses. i personally think that this is more than worth
>my time.
>
>depending on the level and aspect of art that is my current focus. when i
>first attended art school my opinion of Cezanne(most classical art for that
>matter) was rather low, a reflection of my desire to create "new art". for
>a period when i was very involved with painting and art history and having
>critiqued hundreds of bad abstract student art, my admiration was at an all
>time high. after a thorough beating of art history and one too many painting
>courses, the pendulum swung again. now, and for quite a while, i think i
>have placed the "classics" in a proper place for my view of art and my own
>artwork.
>
>but i would be interested in hearing from you.
Cezanne, and Klee are two painters whose work helps me understand Modern
Art, and Postmodern Art. To me, they made the great leap. That is my own
personal path.
>
>t aubuchon
>[7]http://home.pacbell.net/dijit/index1.html
>
>To Marilyn
>
>i know that you are perfectly capable of your own defense, far better than
>myself, and i hope that you do not take this post in any way as an insult.
Not insulted at all, thanks, but I never got DFRussell's original post above.
Am I lucky or what?
au revoir
Marilyn
DFRussell
>DFRussell wrote:
>
>>Marilyn,
>>
>>Your taste in art is questionable, your logic is -- for the most part
>>-- completely lacking, and you are very, very predictable.
>>
>>And I have more constructive things to do than point that out to you
>>:-)
>>
>>Have a nice night.
>>
>
>i have been browsing through this rather heated thread for a while now, but
>i must speak up on this point. whereas the value of Cezanne's or any other
>artist work is for the most subjective, logic is concrete. as far as i am
>concerned Marilyn's logic is quite solid and any predictability is a
>manifestation of the correct reponses.
Please feel free to explain how, "You're arguing with a dead man."
is logical.
I can provide a long list of currently dead people with whom most
people would disagree.
Let's assume -- for the sake of argument -- that Webber completely
loses it, manages to track Mani down, and kills him. Mani is now
dead. Will Marilyn now agree with what he's said? He is dead now,
after all... that means that she can't argue with is words.
>
>aside from uncalled for flames, though i must admit some were rather witty,
>this has been an extremely educational thread. if you(and i am not just
>speaking to dfrussell) look past your own self-defense,
Think you hit a dry hole on this one.... :)
I'm pretty much indifferent to Cezanne's work. I don't personally
like it, if you do it's fine with me.
My objection is the blithering stupidity that is put forth as support
for his work. Mani has a right to dislike his work. If you can
reasonably refute what he has said in regard to it, please do so.
>to information on
>Cezanne and what is "good"art, the discussion is more direct and honest than
>90% of art history courses.
I'd say at least 90% :-)
DFRussell
>In article <35eb3770...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
>> Marilyn wrote:
>>
>> >>>>The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
>> >>>>diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
>> >>>>may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
>> >>>
>> >
>> >The words were not associated with a painting, they reflected
>> >Cezanne's view on his painting in general.
>>
> [................................snip..............................]
>
>
>> "I know you are but what am I?"
>
> well, IMHO you're a creep, satisfied?
Bolshe nichevo?
;-)
DFRussell
>Thanks.
>Actually, I didn't get Russell's original rude post.
Rude: (adj), anything which intrudes upon Marilyn's view of the world.
> Maybe my server deleted it. : )
One never knows.
>
>I thought I would be quite safe in simply quoting Cezanne, no opinion,
>do dogma, just let the guy speak for himself. But some found it
>annoying...
The thing which people are finding annoying is the fact that you're
presenting something as a fact which isn't. And then using the
*fact* that he's dead to imply that one has to accept what is being
said.
Fortunately, that's not the case.
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>My enthusiasm shifts from one period to another pretty frequently, but
>there always seems to be some master that I keep refering to. I can't
>remember any time when I was dismissing the "classics", as you call them,
>in general, but I certainly understand why someone would (based on the way
>you describe it) and can see how it could be healthy in doses.
>
>Glad you decided to add to the discussion.
>
>Mark
>
mark
first i wish to thank you for such a polite and thoughtful response, i tend
to shy away from posting because so many of the use groups are
over-glorified flame wars, all contempt and no content.
to be completely honest, i too had a few masters that always were dear to my
heart, but the "classics" (which i know is a gross generalization) played
tug of war in my mind for many years. Cezanne being a post- impressionist
really is on the cusp of the "classics", which is a term more about the view
of the artist than the artwork itself. the almost idolatrous attitude toward
certain artists, unattainable and indisputable, though for the most part
justified, is a point of contention for a number young artists. the revolt,
at least for the people i know, is against unmovable claims of beauty,
quality, form, style, and importance, the same emotion felt by the
impressionist i now include in the "classics".
thank you for the opportunity
t aubuchon
setai
Bob C wrote :
>An experience I have with many modern abstract artists follows a
>predictable pattern. First, there is the puzzlement of what it is that
>others are seeing in the work. This is followed by slowly gaining some
>sort of understanding of what others value but without the work
>necessarily having any value for me personally. This goes on for any
>period of time until I suddenly find myself viewing the artist's work
>and being totally captivated by it. Sometimes it is because I finally
>find one of their works which is able to draw me in, but sometimes it
>will be the same painting I've seen on many occasions which had never
>had an effect on me before. After one or more experiences like this, I
>then pretty much lose the ability to achieve anything close to this same
>level of captivation again, but I certainly feel much better for having
>once experienced it.
>This is not true of all artists; Rothko and Pollock come to mind as
>examples. Some modern artist I took to immediately (Johns,
>Rauschenberg), others I feel that I'm continuing to get more and more
>out of them with every single viewing (de Kooning, Klee).
I could not agree more completely, i do not think i have heard a better
explanation on viewing abstract art. de Konning and Klee, i feel exactly the
same but i would add Miro to that list. On Pollock, i never really had more
than a luke warm opinion of his work until i saw it in person, though even
then it did not blow me away.
>Cezanne, Manet, and el Greco also immediately come to mind as painters
>whose works are a continual learning experience for me. Sometimes I
>wonder if I should even dare try to evaluate them knowing that I'll have
>learned so much more in the future that whatever I'm saying now can't
>possibly hope to get it right!
>
>- Bob C.
el Greco, yes... Cezanne, i would for the most part agree... Manet
?,definitely my favorite impressionist, but i am not i painter and that
makes a world of difference.
i know i am reading into your words, but the symbology of savoring fine wine
comes to mind, an educated eye/mind instead of palate. to know that you do
not know is the sign of a truly wise man. as person evolves good art unfolds
more of its precious secrets to you, i can't count the times i reread a book
or revisited a piece of art years later and my mind/imagination was thrown
wide open once again.
thank you
t aubuchon
setai
DFRussell wrote:
i really don't want to get involved into a "sticks and stones", and i was
not in this from the beginning so if the names and timeline is off, for give
me. for the sake of time(mine), i will paraphrase.
>Please feel free to explain how, "You're arguing with a dead man."
>is logical.
mani( i think that was who started this) held the opinion that he did not
like Cezanne and thought his work was crude. then followed " your entitled
to your opinion but i disagree...." marilyn used an extremely poignant
quote where Cezanne was say that his intent was not too be polished, yes his
work is crude but that was the point.
what is more logical to the response an artist work is crude, than to use a
quote from the artist saying his art was crude.
you try to argue that the words are unintelligible... but they weren't
marilyn's words, they were Cezanne's.
i think this is where you went awry, marilyn said, "You're arguing with a
dead man."(for being unintelligible) and you perceived this to mean she
wouldn't disagree with a dead mans words. there is a subtle but important
difference and i was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying you were
too involved in being right, instead of saying you are lacking basic logic(i
am speaking only on this point, this is not a flame).
>I can provide a long list of currently dead people with whom most
>people would disagree.
even if marilyn was completely wrong, this is a childish attempt at logic,
sorry but it is true.
>Let's assume -- for the sake of argument -- that Webber completely
>loses it, manages to track Mani down, and kills him. Mani is now
>dead. Will Marilyn now agree with what he's said? He is dead now,
>after all... that means that she can't argue with is words.
even if you had the gist of ,"You're arguing with a dead man." the best you
could squeeze out of that was she wouldn't argue about a dead man's opinion
of himself/or his own art, not some random quote from some person who
happens to be dead.
>>aside from uncalled for flames, though i must admit some were rather
witty,
>>this has been an extremely educational thread. if you(and i am not just
>>speaking to dfrussell) look past your own self-defense,
>
>Think you hit a dry hole on this one.... :)
like i said, i was trying to be generous.
>I'm pretty much indifferent to Cezanne's work. I don't personally
>like it, if you do it's fine with me.
i never argued the merit of Cezanne, but i do enjoy his art.
>My objection is the blithering stupidity that is put forth as support
>for his work. Mani has a right to dislike his work. If you can
>reasonably refute what he has said in regard to it, please do so.
mani has every right and as an educated person the responsibility to
question and decided for himself what he does and does not like. i do not
recall anyone saying he shouldn't or that he was even wrong to have that
opinion, just that the crudeness was intentional.
the quote was called for and well documented, that you didn't understand it
is just a shame. i personally found it to be quite clear and it fondly
reminded me of what a extremist/ a rebel Cezanne was for his time and i
picked up one of his book and leafed through if for a while.
>>to information on
>>Cezanne and what is "good"art, the discussion is more direct and honest
than
>>90% of art history courses.
>
>I'd say at least 90% :-)
we agree on some things. i hope you do not take this harshly, but you asked
and i responded
t aubuchon
if...@my-dejanews.com
<Bolshe nichevo?> means <And nothing else?>
Well, I'm zorry, if there's something else I can't see it yet.
You're hiding behind that silly facade of yours...
come out to play
mark webber
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, setai wrote:
> mark
>
> first i wish to thank you for such a polite and thoughtful response, i tend
> to shy away from posting because so many of the use groups are
> over-glorified flame wars, all contempt and no content.
Yeah, it seems every newsgroup has one or two compulsive antagonists who
require killfiles or some form of ignoring.
>
> to be completely honest, i too had a few masters that always were dear to my
> heart, but the "classics" (which i know is a gross generalization) played
> tug of war in my mind for many years. Cezanne being a post- impressionist
> really is on the cusp of the "classics", which is a term more about the view
> of the artist than the artwork itself. the almost idolatrous attitude toward
> certain artists, unattainable and indisputable, though for the most part
> justified, is a point of contention for a number young artists. the revolt,
> at least for the people i know, is against unmovable claims of beauty,
> quality, form, style, and importance, the same emotion felt by the
> impressionist i now include in the "classics".
Very nicely put, and I'm glad you've entered the fray.
Mark
mark webber
On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, setai wrote:
(snip bulk)
>
> i know i am reading into your words, but the symbology of savoring fine wine
> comes to mind, an educated eye/mind instead of palate. to know that you do
> not know is the sign of a truly wise man. as person evolves good art unfolds
> more of its precious secrets to you, i can't count the times i reread a book
> or revisited a piece of art years later and my mind/imagination was thrown
> wide open once again.
>
> thank you
> t aubuchon
>
Another very important point, to my mind.
Lately there have been debates here that revolve around this prong: "I
know all I need to know to enjoy what I already enjoy." The unfortunate
result is that not only does this attitude preclude appreciation of new
art, it precludes new appreciation of old art.
Of course, the only time we hear this point of view is when it articulates
this sentiment: "That which I don't understand is inferior to what I do
understand. I know this because I happen to understand all the criteria."
saluts,
Mark
Iian Neill
> > heart, but the "classics" (which i know is a gross generalization) played
> > tug of war in my mind for many years. Cezanne being a post- impressionist
> > really is on the cusp of the "classics", which is a term more about the view
> > of the artist than the artwork itself.
There is certainly that issue of artistic prestige. Tolstoy addressed it well in
"What is Art?"
> > the almost idolatrous attitude toward
> > certain artists, unattainable and indisputable, though for the most part
> > justified, is a point of contention for a number young artists.
Unthinking adulation is a most harmful thing. People need to be shown the flaws
and strengths of even the greatest painters and sculptors, so that if they ever
feel the urge to 'hero worship', then it comes sincerely and out of study and
contemplation - not out of any doctrines which the orthodoxy of the time happened
to programme them with. They must have the courage to trust their own judgement,
whilst being open to other interpretations of it. This is not an easy thing to do,
and anyone who tries has my deepest sympathies!
> > the revolt,
> > at least for the people i know, is against unmovable claims of beauty,
> > quality, form, style, and importance, the same emotion felt by the
> > impressionist i now include in the "classics".
There is a growing revolt against the "cult of ugliness" now; in no way is it
orthodox, but there is this perception amongst some people that Post-Modernism is
very old and tired and should move aside - relinquish the throne, so to speak. Not
that it hasn't made some useful contributions to art history - and some terrible
ones - but there needs to be, some people feel, a renewal of artistic integrity -
and a move to connect again with the public. Whatever you may think of that
amorphous mass, whether you call them "the mob", the "bourgeoisie", or "the
philistines", they won't go away, and they have all the money. Besides that,
seriously, they are human beings and have as much right as you and I to enjoy art;
why should it be denied to them through pompous academic filibustering and
elitism?
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> know all I need to know to enjoy what I already enjoy." The unfortunate
> result is that not only does this attitude preclude appreciation of new
> art, it precludes new appreciation of old art.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but personally I have a wide range of artistic
tastes, ranging from Gothic, Baroque, Symbolist, Surrealist, and beyond. Aesthetic
criteria help in defining more clearly that which is flawed, and how it is flawed;
nevertheless, because a work may be flawed in a number of ways, it does not
immediately follow that one cannot enjoy that painting, sculpture or drawing. All
important is the *effect* of the work in question.
> Of course, the only time we hear this point of view is when it articulates
> this sentiment: "That which I don't understand is inferior to what I do
> understand. I know this because I happen to understand all the criteria."
Fortunately such a view has not been expressed on this newsgroup. I have heard,
however, of a view somewhat different, one where it has not been claimed that
particular works are not misunderstood - instead, it is said that these works have
been understood enough to reveal their inherent flaws. The sentiment you have
phrased above also neglects to take into account that not all of the pieces of the
puzzle have been found. The struggle to find them is what often amounts to an
aesthetic theory, but the struggle is by no means an easy one.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Marilyn
> Re: Cezanne Defends Himself
>
> From: nobody@localhost (DFRussell)
> Reply to: [1]nobody@localhost
> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 23:22:39 GMT
> Organization: of american anarchists
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>Marilyn wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks.
>>Actually, I didn't get Russell's original rude post.
>
>Rude: (adj), anything which intrudes upon Marilyn's view of the world.
No dude! "rude" modifies your posts which contain insulting personal
remarks, like "clueless" like "creep"
Have I every called you names? You haven't even materialized as
a person to me. You are just typed lines on a computer screen
coming from the keyboard or some stranger far away. The least
you could do is keep a level of civil dialogue on that basis.
>
>> Maybe my server deleted it. : )
>
>One never knows.
>
>>
>>I thought I would be quite safe in simply quoting Cezanne, no opinion,
>>do dogma, just let the guy speak for himself. But some found it
>>annoying...
>
>The thing which people are finding annoying is the fact that you're
>presenting something as a fact which isn't. And then using the
>*fact* that he's dead to imply that one has to accept what is being
>said.
What people? If you don't agree with what Cezanne says about his
own work, that's your tough luck. Take it or leave it.
The FACT is HE said it, not me. Get it?
Marilyn
mark webber
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> > Lately there have been debates here that revolve around this prong: "I
> > know all I need to know to enjoy what I already enjoy." The unfortunate
> > result is that not only does this attitude preclude appreciation of new
> > art, it precludes new appreciation of old art.
>
> I cannot speak for anyone else, but personally I have a wide range of artistic
> tastes, ranging from Gothic, Baroque, Symbolist, Surrealist, and beyond. Aesthetic
> criteria help in defining more clearly that which is flawed, and how it is flawed;
> nevertheless, because a work may be flawed in a number of ways, it does not
> immediately follow that one cannot enjoy that painting, sculpture or drawing. All
> important is the *effect* of the work in question.
I don't disagreee with this, but I also don't see how it is a reply to the
above point.
>
> > Of course, the only time we hear this point of view is when it articulates
> > this sentiment: "That which I don't understand is inferior to what I do
> > understand. I know this because I happen to understand all the criteria."
>
> Fortunately such a view has not been expressed on this newsgroup.
I think it has - not in so many words, but this is the essence of the
Cezanne debate. In my view, of course.
> I have heard, however, of a view somewhat different, one where it has
> not been claimed that particular works are not misunderstood - instead,
> it is said that these works have been understood enough to reveal their
> inherent flaws. The sentiment you have phrased above also neglects to
> take into account that not all of the pieces of the puzzle have been
> found. The struggle to find them is what often amounts to an
> aesthetic theory, but the struggle is by no means an easy one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
Naturally, no one is coming out and saying "I don't understand this so
it's no good" - what I mean is, we keep hearing from anti-Cezanne folks
that they understand enough to say he's no good. Sorry about the
confusion, and in addition, since there is no resolving this division, how
about we politely agree to disagree. I really have no great need to make
converts of the unwilling. I just enjoy trying to articulate my reactions.
sincerely,
Mark
setai
Iian Neill wrote:
>Unthinking adulation is a most harmful thing. People need to be shown the
flaws
>and strengths of even the greatest painters and sculptors, so that if they
ever
>feel the urge to 'hero worship', then it comes sincerely and out of study
and
>contemplation - not out of any doctrines which the orthodoxy of the time
happened
>to programme them with. They must have the courage to trust their own
judgement,
>whilst being open to other interpretations of it. This is not an easy thing
to do,
>and anyone who tries has my deepest sympathies!
i agree with this completely, but who in this NG does not? it is not that i
disagree that artspeak(i do adore that phrase... i hope you do not mind if i
repeat it) directs the "masses" from admiring art on its own merit, but do
you really believe they would do this on their own? i believe this is a
supply and demand situation. if their was no artspeak, how would they know
what to buy, it is naive to believe they would trust their own judgement.
when in history have the masses ever done anything but been led, about art,
religion, philosophy, or politics?
>There is a growing revolt against the "cult of ugliness" now; in no way is
it
>orthodox, but there is this perception amongst some people that
Post-Modernism is
>very old and tired and should move aside - relinquish the throne, so to
speak.
of course, this is a "very old and tired" method for new art movements to
come about. whether it be the cult of ugliness, cult of light or cult of
realism, some people( most importantly artists and their following) will
come along and do something about it, r/evolution.
>Not
>that it hasn't made some useful contributions to art history - and some
terrible
>ones - but there needs to be, some people feel, a renewal of artistic
integrity -
>and a move to connect again with the public.
again i agree, but what art movement has not... why is it only the cult of
ugliness that deserves your pyres? it is history, it is human nature, it is
the cycle of things that have come and are to come.
>Whatever you may think of that
>amorphous mass, whether you call them "the mob", the "bourgeoisie", or "the
>philistines", they won't go away, and they have all the money. Besides
that,
>seriously, they are human beings and have as much right as you and I to
enjoy art;
>why should it be denied to them through pompous academic filibustering and
>elitism?
see this is where we split....
obviously we both hold disdain for the "bourgeoisie"(and well deserved) and
are intelligent enough to realize that they are necessary, but that some
how they can be educated for true art appreciation, no the can not. do they
have the right to enjoy art, yes... as much as you and I, no, they lost that
right when they chose not to think for themselves. the bourgeoisie is the
bourgeoisie because they do not think for themselves, if not they would be
the intellegensia. if you are an artist and your art is not in the favor of
the court of artspeak, then you can whore yourself by creating artspeak
approved work, be a hypocrite and artspeak your own style of art, or have
the integrity to create what you feel and perhaps be poor all your life... i
did not make up the rules, just know them.
yes there is something terribly wrong with artspeak, but that is because
there is something terribly wrong with humanity not having the will to think
for itself. when the world is more concerned with the cast of Friends than
the state of their own soul(no religious intent) all educated beings must
suffer.
t aubuchon
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>Lately there have been debates here that revolve around this prong: "I
>know all I need to know to enjoy what I already enjoy." The unfortunate
>result is that not only does this attitude preclude appreciation of new
>art, it precludes new appreciation of old art.
not only that, but the limitation of a mind is more a hindrance to good art
than bad technique, in my opinion.
almost anyone, with enough training, can be taught to be a reasonable good
artist( technically speaking). to have an open mind, a creative spirit, the
desire of knowledge and truth, that is a gift.
>Of course, the only time we hear this point of view is when it articulates
>this sentiment: "That which I don't understand is inferior to what I do
>understand. I know this because I happen to understand all the criteria."
>
this is the difference between man and sheep...
dancing monkeys, as if a few tricks and a pair of pants is civilization.
t aubuchon
DFRussell
>
>DFRussell wrote:
>
>
>i really don't want to get involved into a "sticks and stones", and i was
>not in this from the beginning so if the names and timeline is off, for give
>me. for the sake of time(mine), i will paraphrase.
>
>>Please feel free to explain how, "You're arguing with a dead man."
>>is logical.
OK....
>
>
>mani( i think that was who started this) held the opinion that he did not
>like Cezanne and thought his work was crude. then followed " your entitled
>to your opinion but i disagree...." marilyn used an extremely poignant
>quote where Cezanne was say that his intent was not too be polished, yes his
>work is crude but that was the point.
>what is more logical to the response an artist work is crude, than to use a
>quote from the artist saying his art was crude.
The quote implied that the work was intentionally crude -- and that
that was somehow "good". There is no indication that Cezanne was
capable of anything other than what he did. If you wished to make
that claim for Picasso, you'd have a reasonable chance with it...
Additionally, simply because someone claims something doesn't make it
so. That is one of Mani's central points: artspeak used to justify
crap.
It would hardly seem reasonable that someone would say, "Gee, you know
I can't paint worth crap and my sense of color is horrid -- but you
should buy this anyway." :-)
Unless you can put forth a *reasonable* argument to Mani's point, let
it stand as a difference in taste and drop it.
>
>you try to argue that the words are unintelligible... but they weren't
>marilyn's words, they were Cezanne's.
True. However she *did say she understood them*... so I'm afraid this
won't work for you either.
>i think this is where you went awry,
Well, you're entitled to your opinion as to who went awry where.
>marilyn said, "You're arguing with a
>dead man."(for being unintelligible) and you perceived this to mean she
>wouldn't disagree with a dead mans words. there is a subtle but important
>difference
Bunk. If mani was dead, she would still disagree with him. You have
no case here.
> and i was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying you were
>too involved in being right, instead of saying you are lacking basic logic(i
>am speaking only on this point, this is not a flame).
:-)
Um, no. I'm not "involved with being right" -- I am right. There is
a difference.
And as far as "lacking basic logic," I'm afraid you can repeat that as
many times as you wish and it will not make it so.
"Bill Clinton didn't inhale." :)
>
>>I can provide a long list of currently dead people with whom most
>>people would disagree.
>
>
>even if marilyn was completely wrong, this is a childish attempt at logic,
>sorry but it is true.
She is completely wrong... gee..... and I thought this wasn't a flame
:-)
Hitler is dead. Would you disagree with his statements?
Stalin is dead. Would you disagree with his statements?
Please tell me why it is that I should believe one dead man as opposed
to the other? Note also that Hitler was a painter.
[ text deleted]
Please respond with a logical explanation of how the self-serving
words of these three men are different. That is, why I should believe
one of them and not the other two.
DFRussell
>Yeah, it seems every newsgroup has one or two compulsive antagonists who
>require killfiles or some form of ignoring.
This? From Webber? :-)
DFRussell
>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>Actually, I didn't get Russell's original rude post.
>>
>>Rude: (adj), anything which intrudes upon Marilyn's view of the world.
>
>No dude! "rude" modifies your posts which contain insulting personal
>remarks, like "clueless" like "creep"
Ummm, Marilyn, someone was calling me a creep :-)
I don't use the word.... does this mean that you're confused?
Maybe clueless? :)
>
>Have I every called you names?
It certainly won't hurt my feelings.
> You haven't even materialized as
>a person to me. You are just typed lines on a computer screen
>coming from the keyboard or some stranger far away. The least
>you could do is keep a level of civil dialogue on that basis.
I'm so sorry. I apologize for pointing out that your argument was/is
invalid. It was extremely insensitive of me.
>>
>>> Maybe my server deleted it. : )
>>
>>One never knows.
>>
>>>
>>>I thought I would be quite safe in simply quoting Cezanne, no opinion,
>>>do dogma, just let the guy speak for himself. But some found it
>>>annoying...
>>
>>The thing which people are finding annoying is the fact that you're
>>presenting something as a fact which isn't. And then using the
>>*fact* that he's dead to imply that one has to accept what is being
>>said.
>
>What people? If you don't agree with what Cezanne says about his
>own work, that's your tough luck. Take it or leave it.
>The FACT is HE said it, not me. Get it?
And, I know it's crass of me, but, well, you *did* say you understood
it..... And, well, like, ya' know, I'm waiting for you to explain to
me why it is that *his* self-serving words are relevant. One would
hardly expect him to say anything else.
And, well, like, ya' know, if Mani was dead I could use his words to
trash Cezanne, ya' know? And, well, you *did* bring the subjet up...
DFRussell
>In article <35ec7c6c...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
>> if...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <35eb3770...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> > nobody@localhost wrote:
>> >> Marilyn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>The words associated with a piece are simply gloss and
>> >> >>>>diversion. Once you have to start explaining something, it
>> >> >>>>may be art - but it's more prose than painting.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >
>> >> >The words were not associated with a painting, they reflected
>> >> >Cezanne's view on his painting in general.
>> >>
>> > [................................snip..............................]
>> >
>> >
>> >> "I know you are but what am I?"
>> >
>> > well, IMHO you're a creep, satisfied?
>>
>> Bolshe nichevo?
>>
>> ;-)
>
> <Bolshe nichevo?> means <And nothing else?>
>
> Well, I'm zorry,
Yes. Yes. That's apparent. What's your point?
>if there's something else I can't see it yet.
> You're hiding behind that silly facade of yours...
> come out to play
I'm afraid you *vastly* overestimate your ability to annoy me :)
mdeli
>Lately there have been debates here that revolve around this prong: "I
>know all I need to know to enjoy what I already enjoy." The unfortunate
>result is that not only does this attitude preclude appreciation of new
>art, it precludes new appreciation of old art.
This is typical Artspeak doubletalk. The first sentence doesn't mean
much of anything. However it is designed to seem like the person
saying it claims he is dealing with a closed mind. You hear lots of
this sort of crap from academics like Webber when they are begging the
question.
The aphorism at the end of the sentence sounds like priestly nonsense.
I mention this because these sort of statements keep the unthinking
naive' stuck in a cult while the person who possesses a load of these
sort of silly aphorisms intimidates the boobs.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Marilyn
> Re: Cezanne Defends Himself
>
> From: nobody@localhost (DFRussell)
> Reply to: [1]nobody@localhost
> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:59:10 GMT
> Organization: of american anarchists
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>Marilyn wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>>Actually, I didn't get Russell's original rude post.
>>>
>>>Rude: (adj), anything which intrudes upon Marilyn's view of the world.
>>
>>No dude! "rude" modifies your posts which contain insulting personal
>>remarks, like "clueless" like "creep"
>
>Ummm, Marilyn, someone was calling me a creep :-)
What a shame!
>
>I don't use the word.... does this mean that you're confused?
>Maybe clueless? :)
>
>>
>>Have I every called you names?
>
>It certainly won't hurt my feelings.
>
This isn't the place for name-calling. It's like the "blatant stupidity"
which you abhor.
>> You haven't even materialized as
>>a person to me. You are just typed lines on a computer screen
>>coming from the keyboard or some stranger far away. The least
>>you could do is keep a level of civil dialogue on that basis.
>
>I'm so sorry. I apologize for pointing out that your argument was/is
>invalid. It was extremely insensitive of me.
It wasn't an argument, that is just the point. I quoted Cezanne to
speak for himself. I am not in a position to validate Cezanne's work
for you. You can do your own research. It's not as if he is an
"unknown."
>
>>
>>What people? If you don't agree with what Cezanne says about his
>>own work, that's your tough luck. Take it or leave it.
>>The FACT is HE said it, not me. Get it?
>
>And, I know it's crass of me, but, well, you *did* say you understood
>it..... And, well, like, ya' know, I'm waiting for you to explain to
>me why it is that *his* self-serving words are relevant. One would
>hardly expect him to say anything else.
Why should I explain it to you? hire yourself a consultant!
Hire yourself an art history teacher, hire yourself an art theorist.
You want me to write out paragraphs for you, I don't have time.
I am a painter who makes a few comments here, that's all. If you
don't like it, don't read it.
>And, well, like, ya' know, if Mani was dead I could use his words to
>trash Cezanne, ya' know? And, well, you *did* bring the subjet up...
You are the one who hates "blatant stupidity ." Are you perhaps
projecting?
Marilyn
DFRussell
>
>>>>>Actually, I didn't get Russell's original rude post.
>>>>
>>>>Rude: (adj), anything which intrudes upon Marilyn's view of the world.
>>>
>>>No dude! "rude" modifies your posts which contain insulting personal
>>>remarks, like "clueless" like "creep"
>>
>>Ummm, Marilyn, someone was calling me a creep :-)
>
>What a shame!
>>
>>I don't use the word.... does this mean that you're confused?
>>Maybe clueless? :)
>>
>>>
>>>Have I every called you names?
>>
>>It certainly won't hurt my feelings.
>>
>This isn't the place for name-calling. It's like the "blatant stupidity"
>which you abhor.
Actually, it is the place. The fact that you don't like it when it's
pointed out that your argument's are simply, at best, your
opinion, is really irrelevant.
>
>>> You haven't even materialized as
>>>a person to me. You are just typed lines on a computer screen
>>>coming from the keyboard or some stranger far away. The least
>>>you could do is keep a level of civil dialogue on that basis.
>>
>>I'm so sorry. I apologize for pointing out that your argument was/is
>>invalid. It was extremely insensitive of me.
>
>It wasn't an argument, that is just the point. I quoted Cezanne to
>speak for himself. I am not in a position to validate Cezanne's work
>for you. You can do your own research. It's not as if he is an
>"unknown."
You used Cezanne's words to attempt to justify your position -- that
is, an argument for your prior words.
Is this like, "Legally accurate"? :)
>>
>>>
>>>What people? If you don't agree with what Cezanne says about his
>>>own work, that's your tough luck. Take it or leave it.
>>>The FACT is HE said it, not me. Get it?
>>
>>And, I know it's crass of me, but, well, you *did* say you understood
>>it..... And, well, like, ya' know, I'm waiting for you to explain to
>>me why it is that *his* self-serving words are relevant. One would
>>hardly expect him to say anything else.
>
>Why should I explain it to you? hire yourself a consultant!
Put up or shut up.
>Hire yourself an art history teacher, hire yourself an art theorist.
>You want me to write out paragraphs for you, I don't have time.
>I am a painter who makes a few comments here, that's all. If you
>don't like it, don't read it.
Put up or shut up.
>
>>And, well, like, ya' know, if Mani was dead I could use his words to
>>trash Cezanne, ya' know? And, well, you *did* bring the subjet up...
>
>You are the one who hates "blatant stupidity ." Are you perhaps
>projecting?
Oh! Marilyn! And you said you never insulted people....
Does this make you a clueless hypocrite? :)
mark webber
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, setai wrote:
>
> mark webber wrote in message ...
>
> >
> >Lately there have been debates here that revolve around this prong: "I
> >know all I need to know to enjoy what I already enjoy." The unfortunate
> >result is that not only does this attitude preclude appreciation of new
> >art, it precludes new appreciation of old art.
>
>
> not only that, but the limitation of a mind is more a hindrance to good art
> than bad technique, in my opinion.
> almost anyone, with enough training, can be taught to be a reasonable good
> artist( technically speaking). to have an open mind, a creative spirit, the
> desire of knowledge and truth, that is a gift.
>
>
> this is the difference between man and sheep...
> dancing monkeys, as if a few tricks and a pair of pants is civilization.
>
> t aubuchon
>
>
>
>
No disagreement here.
By the way, is that Mark Twain?
Mark
Marilyn
> Re: Cezanne Defends Himself
>
> From: nobody@localhost (DFRussell)
> Reply to: [1]nobody@localhost
> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 19:11:27 GMT
> Organization: of american anarchists
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
>
>Marilyn wrote:
>
>>
>
>Actually, it is the place. The fact that you don't like it when it's
>pointed out that your argument's are simply, at best, your
>opinion, is really irrelevant.
My response to the crude critique of Cezanne comes from my education
in art history and my experience of seeing one of Cezanne's paintings,
also studying reproductions of his paintings.
This is not just an opinion off the top of my head.
There is no argument, it's the facts, man!
>>>I'm so sorry. I apologize for pointing out that your argument was/is
>>>invalid. It was extremely insensitive of me.
How insincere of you!
>
>You used Cezanne's words to attempt to justify your position -- that
>is, an argument for your prior words.
>
>Is this like, "Legally accurate"? :)
>
Not really, I had no "position." In the real world, there are
documented facts, and paintings (as evidence) which prove the
truth about Cezanne. There is a consensus of opinion in the
Western Art World about his prominence. That has nothing to
do with me, do you read me? It exists apart from you & me.
>>Why should I explain it to you? hire yourself a consultant!
>
>Put up or shut up.
>
>>Hire yourself an art history teacher, hire yourself an art theorist.
>>You want me to write out paragraphs for you, I don't have time.
>>I am a painter who makes a few comments here, that's all. If you
>>don't like it, don't read it.
>
>Put up or shut up.
Put up what, a long monologue about why I think Cezanne is good?
Who cares?
To put oneself in the position of evaluating Rembrandt for
example, don't you think that is ego-inflation?
Let you guys get some pleasure out of being "right"
out of showing how much you know. It doesn't appeal to me. : )
>Oh! Marilyn! And you said you never insulted people....
No, I did not, I said I don't call people names,
if they take insult at what I say, then they must be so sensitive
and so easy to annoy.
Over out roger wilco to you too! :)
M.
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>> this is the difference between man and sheep...
>> dancing monkeys, as if a few tricks and a pair of pants is civilization.
>>
>> t aubuchon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>No disagreement here.
>
>By the way, is that Mark Twain?
>
>Mark
no, it was me... monkeys one of my favorite symbols.
i'm off to burning man, please fill me if i miss any interesting dialogue.
thank you for the stimulating input, do you show your work virtually?
t aubuchon
mark webber
Pretty sharp aphorism. I like it.
No, I haven't even inquired about web-exhibiting because I don't much care
for the look of my work in digital format. 35 mm slides are bad enough. I
also haven't seen anything on the web that looks good yet. Not paintings
anyway. My gallery is making noise about a web page though, and they seem
pretty serious, so who knows.
Speaking of which, the group show was hung wednesday night and opened
today. The reception, due to the holiday, is Friday the 11th of September,
Prince Street Gallery, 121 Wooster (between Prince and Spring, in Soho.)
September 25 is the date of the next reception. This opens a show called
New Members, featuring the work of Arthur Kvarnstrom, a landscape painter;
Nicholas Evans Cato, a cityscape painter, and myself.
Again, all are welcome! Come have a glass of wine!
Saluts!
Mark
DFRussell
>>Marilyn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>Actually, it is the place. The fact that you don't like it when it's
>>pointed out that your argument's are simply, at best, your
>>opinion, is really irrelevant.
>
>My response to the crude critique of Cezanne comes from my education
>in art history and my experience of seeing one of Cezanne's paintings,
>also studying reproductions of his paintings.
;-)
Yeah. OK?
Other people have done and seen the same and come to other conclusion.
That's what opinions are.
>This is not just an opinion off the top of my head.
>There is no argument, it's the facts, man!
[LOL]
>
>
>>>>I'm so sorry. I apologize for pointing out that your argument was/is
>>>>invalid. It was extremely insensitive of me.
>
>How insincere of you!
Whatever.
>
>>
>>You used Cezanne's words to attempt to justify your position -- that
>>is, an argument for your prior words.
>>
>>Is this like, "Legally accurate"? :)
>>
>Not really, I had no "position." In the real world, there are
>documented facts, and paintings (as evidence) which prove the
>truth about Cezanne. There is a consensus of opinion in the
>Western Art World about his prominence.
I've never debated his historical significance -- only his work :)
>That has nothing to
>do with me, do you read me? It exists apart from you & me.>
>>>Why should I explain it to you? hire yourself a consultant!
>>
>>Put up or shut up.
>>
>>>Hire yourself an art history teacher, hire yourself an art theorist.
>>>You want me to write out paragraphs for you, I don't have time.
>>>I am a painter who makes a few comments here, that's all. If you
>>>don't like it, don't read it.
>>
>>Put up or shut up.
>
>Put up what, a long monologue about why I think Cezanne is good?
>Who cares?
NO ONE! By George! I think she's got it!
So, next time mani starts, ignore him or provide a rational counter to
his statements or just let it pass.
>
>To put oneself in the position of evaluating Rembrandt for
>example, don't you think that is ego-inflation?
Can't say. Never tried.
>
>Let you guys get some pleasure out of being "right"
>out of showing how much you know. It doesn't appeal to me. : )
LOL
Spare me the line.
>
>
>>Oh! Marilyn! And you said you never insulted people....
>
>No, I did not, I said I don't call people names,
>if they take insult at what I say, then they must be so sensitive
>and so easy to annoy.
Again! I think it's finally starting to sink in.... maybe there is
hope for you after all.
So, why they are you bitching and moaning about what I said.
To be honest, you main thurst appears to be to change the subject
to mindless drivel.
No response necessary. None will be forthcoming.
mdeli
>My response to the crude critique of Cezanne comes from my education
>in art history and my experience of seeing one of Cezanne's paintings,
>also studying reproductions of his paintings.
>This is not just an opinion off the top of my head.
You haven't responder to anything beyond crabbing at those who made
statements you didn't like.
>There is no argument, it's the facts, man!
You can't distinguish a fact from a banana peel.
>Not really, I had no "position." In the real world, there are
>documented facts, and paintings (as evidence) which prove the
>truth about Cezanne. There is a consensus of opinion in the
>Western Art World about his prominence. That has nothing to
>do with me, do you read me? It exists apart from you & me.
There are consensus about many untrue things. So what.
Marilyn
>
>You can't distinguish a fact from a banana peel.
>
Mani, you keep bringing up banana peels.
Like do you have an obsession with bananas or something?
Seen a shrink about it?
M.
Nevenka Dietrich
http://www.d-art.de
and see various arts, especially the FORTEEN-YEAR-OLD-DANCER e replica from
Edgar Degas' sculpture. English pages are still under construction and will
be ready by end of Sept. 98.
regards