Pollock
Glenn Geist
>
>As far as good art is concerned Pollock never existed. He was a man
>without ideas, without thought and without vision. He made accidental
>images as a result of a mixture of his Jungian psychiatrists
>ideation-having no mind to ideate himself-, his training with Benton
>and his wife's with Hofmann. A milieu is not a great artist. Pollock
>was a milieu - a specific time and a specific place. But an artist of
>vision, never.
>Gabriel
Well, I truly like Balthus *and Pollock, but once again, like many
others, you're asserting your judgement as absolute. The jury is
still out and always will be out. As I mentioned before, no one cares
any more that conservatives thought Beethoven undisciplined and
discordant. The conservative vision is ultimately utopian and
ultimately fictitious, I think. Nothing ever again will be as it was
when we were young and it was our world and most new things will seem
stupid and empty to us, but railing against poor, dead modernism won't
help more than complaining about low fat cornflakes or Sport Utility
Vehicles. It all boils down to you don't like it.
As to your agument about his influences, does anyone fault Gruenewald
for his influences? Was it just religious pap? Someone here was
talking about Ruskin, and I'll bet Ruskin was even more sure of the
solid foundations of his taste than you are. It's all built on air
and ego and opinion, and we should recognize it and indeed dignify it
as such. It's only a function of our frailty that everything always
looks downhill from wherever we are - oh, in my opinion, of course.
Glenn
John Haber
the fanatic contingent here. But the content is still, I have to
agree with Glenn, too much like theirs: grumping about an artist
you're not interested in, as that should be binding on the world.
Hey, I don't like Balthus, who you came to see back in 1956, but I
don't think that means he's a sham, a fad, or something so nasty and
discreditable to his supporters. I just don't think he's any good and
spare the world my opinion.
But think about it, 1956 is 43 years ago, practically half a century.
And the art public still can't get over it? Tsk, tsk.
Imagine 43 years on either side of Giotto or Ingres or Titian, and
then consider how transient things always have been in art, how far
that has been from fashion -- and how stable the influence of Pollock
has been by comparison.
The line that Pollock was "without ideas" puzzles me. It seems to
turn up just when the news group has been articulating (correctly) the
instinctive nature of art and (was too often with anger and dismay)
the rich critical dialog of ideas that surrounded Pollock.
Get over it. We should call this entire news group
i.hate.arts.fine.today.
BTW, I think Balthus makes sense only as (a) an illustration of
adolescent fears of sexuality I'd gotten over at age 12; (b) a
technique that takes representation for granted without pushing its
envelope or the nature of seeing the way pretty much all my favorite
art has since Monet if not since ALWAYS; and (c) an annoying
upper-class estheticism. But while at least I'm trying to be more
specific than you in analyzing the work before dismissing it, still,
that isn't what I as a critic should be spending my time on.
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
May Flowers
>BTW, I think Balthus makes sense only as (a) an illustration of
>adolescent fears of sexuality I'd gotten over at age 12; (b) a
>technique that takes representation for granted without pushing its
>envelope or the nature of seeing the way pretty much all my favorite
>art has since Monet if not since ALWAYS; and (c) an annoying
>upper-class estheticism.
He seems to have become passé now, but if you substitute
the name of Eric Fischl for Balthus, I think the entire
above could be applied. At least for his blatantly erotic
pictorial themes. But Balthus is a better painter, IMO.
mark webber
(snipping)
>
> Imagine 43 years on either side of Giotto or Ingres or Titian, and
> then consider how transient things always have been in art, how far
> that has been from fashion -- and how stable the influence of Pollock
> has been by comparison.
John, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here, but do you really mean you
think that Pollock has a more stable influence than Giotto or Titian?
I mean, even in the very simplistic approach of merely rendering, both of
these Italians influenced painters for a lot more than 43 years.
And in terms of Form and gesture... well, Pollock is just one who was
still being influenced centuries later.
Pollock is still influencing artists because of his role as iconoclast and
medium/technique toreador - not because of his sensibility.
The role of rebel will, by its nature, continue to be filled by new, sexy
and exciting personalities, endlessly introduced to us in the NYTimes
Magazines.
>
> The line that Pollock was "without ideas" puzzles me. It seems to
> turn up just when the news group has been articulating (correctly) the
> instinctive nature of art and (was too often with anger and dismay)
> the rich critical dialog of ideas that surrounded Pollock.
>
> Get over it. We should call this entire news group
> i.hate.arts.fine.today.
Here, I'm in agreement with you. However...
>
> BTW, I think Balthus makes sense only as (a) an illustration of
> adolescent fears of sexuality I'd gotten over at age 12; (b) a
> technique that takes representation for granted without pushing its
> envelope or the nature of seeing the way pretty much all my favorite
> art has since Monet if not since ALWAYS; and (c) an annoying
> upper-class estheticism. But while at least I'm trying to be more
> specific than you in analyzing the work before dismissing it, still,
> that isn't what I as a critic should be spending my time on.
>
> John (jha...@haberarts.com)
>
>
Wow. That is pretty damned dismissive. Are you in front of his paintings
or looking at a monograph when you come to these conclusions?
Again, I respect the opinions of anyone trying as hard as you do to look
and think openly. But your criticisms don't even make sense to me. Not
this time.
I quote again:
> BTW, I think Balthus makes sense only as (a) an illustration of
> adolescent fears of sexuality I'd gotten over at age 12;...
Some of the paintings have content that deals with sexuality - certainly
the most famous ones do - but I don't see anything that has to do with
adolescent fears. Maybe adolescent self-discovery or even hunger.
(I have to say that at age twelve I wasn't exactly afraid of sex, nor have
I gotten over any aspect of it, then or since, so I don't really
understand what you mean by this. However, the paintings don't feel like
illustrations anymore than the work of any other great painter, to me.)
>(b) a technique that takes representation for granted without pushing its
> envelope or the nature of seeing the way pretty much all my favorite
> art has since Monet if not since ALWAYS...
This is a bit hard to understand too. Do you mean it isn't abstract
enough?
I can tell you that I've looked at alot of Balthus in a lot of settings
and today no one combines color or creates shapes with more conviction. I
find his work absolutely transfixing. His technique, his contrasts, the
color, the form - it is all beyond comparison to me. I can't speak highly
enough of these things. Some of them are perfect. Really.
Again, I respect your opinion - very much - but:
>(c) an annoying upper-class estheticism.
Come now. The entire history of art is based on this same esthetics.
I mean the upper class is certainly annoying, but they can't be blamed for
having had the time for some of them to develop an eye.
I don't know. I'm not sure you are making a solid argument.
If you don't like him, that's really ok. I don't hold it against you, but
something here doesn't ring true. Where are you seeing the paintings?
very respectfully,
Mark
mark webber
> In article <372b78c0...@news.onepine.com>, jha...@haberarts.com says...
>
> >BTW, I think Balthus makes sense only as (a) an illustration of
> >adolescent fears of sexuality I'd gotten over at age 12; (b) a
> >technique that takes representation for granted without pushing its
> >envelope or the nature of seeing the way pretty much all my favorite
> >art has since Monet if not since ALWAYS; and (c) an annoying
> >upper-class estheticism.
>
> He seems to have become passé now, but if you substitute
> the name of Eric Fischl for Balthus, I think the entire
> above could be applied. At least for his blatantly erotic
> pictorial themes. But Balthus is a better painter, IMO.
>
>
>
Much, IMO.
And a good backdoor for our friend John. Here, John; you can just say "Oh
that's who I meant to trash."
regards,
Mark
John Haber
>think that Pollock has a more stable influence than Giotto or Titian?
>I mean, even in the very simplistic approach of merely rendering, both of
>these Italians influenced painters for a lot more than 43 years.
I apologize totally for being sucked into the rating game like that.
Obviously Giotto changed art ever since. Hard to do more than that.
Is Pollock in that class? I hate ranking games and refuse to play. I
can't live without either of them.
I had in mind only that 43 years later was the conservative period
that lay between the 1320s and the early Renaissance. (It's the
period that Millard Meiss famously identified with a pessimistic
cultural reaction in the face of the black death: in the book
"Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death.") Or by the
time Titian died, Mannerism and then 43 years later we've already the
Baroque.
So I was just saying that if Gabriel is still after a comparable
period saddened at Pollock's staying power with artists, critics, and
the public, his conservatism is that much more obviously childish.
John
John Haber
>that's who I meant to trash."
LOL. I guess Balthus MUST be a better painter than Fischl. I'd
already forgotten about him too much to want to have intended to trash
him. :)
John
mark webber
> >John, I hope you don't mind if I jump in here, but do you really mean you
> >think that Pollock has a more stable influence than Giotto or Titian?
> >I mean, even in the very simplistic approach of merely rendering, both of
> >these Italians influenced painters for a lot more than 43 years.
>
> I apologize totally for being sucked into the rating game like that.
> Obviously Giotto changed art ever since. Hard to do more than that.
> Is Pollock in that class? I hate ranking games and refuse to play. I
> can't live without either of them.
To tell the truth, I wasn't thinking of it as a rating game. It looked
to me like you were, perhaps, forgetting some aspects of the earlier
guys' works. But comparison is inevitable. Every room in every museum begs
for it. I think its good excercise to comply and judge.
>
> I had in mind only that 43 years later was the conservative period
> that lay between the 1320s and the early Renaissance. (It's the
> period that Millard Meiss famously identified with a pessimistic
> cultural reaction in the face of the black death: in the book
> "Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death.") Or by the
> time Titian died, Mannerism and then 43 years later we've already the
> Baroque.
Yes, but the whole of Baroque is very much tied to Titian. Late Titian,
for me, is the true beginning of Baroque.
I see what you mean about the transient nature of styles, but style at its
most authentic is simply voice. And for me, focusing on the differences
between styles is actually superficial. It is too easy.
This is exactly why I see a strong relationship between Pollock and
Tintoretto. Stylisticly, technically, they differ (but not that much,
really) but formally, rhythmicly they are tanists of each other.
Now I know I am steering away from your original intent in this - I
understand that you are simply pointing out that 43 years should not be a
painful length of time to endure work which one finds unsuccessful.
But if someone finds it so, that can't be helped here, in the usenet. So I
thought I'd try to jump tracks to a (hopefully) more appetizing line.
BTW, I noticed you haven't much to say to my rejoinder in defense of
Balthus. As you wish. (I have never been so tempted to use one of those
puntuation smiles....)
warmly,
Mark
Glenn Geist
>And in terms of Form and gesture... well, Pollock is just one who was
>still being influenced centuries later.
Everyone, especially rebels are influenced by the past
>
>Pollock is still influencing artists because of his role as iconoclast and
>medium/technique toreador - not because of his sensibility.
>The role of rebel will, by its nature, continue to be filled by new, sexy
>and exciting personalities, endlessly introduced to us in the NYTimes
>Magazines.
>
>
It's funny, because I sort of like Balthus too, and I have to ask you
where you're seeing Pollock The effect of his paintings is invisible
in books, you have to see them in person - absolutely. At one time, I
though of him more of a media creation too, but now I think he was a
victim of the publicity that may have made him famous. After seeing a
huge retrospective with his works laid out chronologically, I can't
see him as a rebel at all - any more than Philip Glass is a rebel
against classical music.
And as to Balthus, his paintings really do have an effect on me that
has nothing to do with craft or color or perspective. It's a
disturbing effect, but that's art. Of course I *am an annoying
esthete. <s>
Glenn
John Haber
denying Titian's or Tintoretto's importance.
Even if I grant you the idea of a new thread, I am not going to bite.
I'm not convinced we can make the connection to Pollock precise enough
to make it part of a valuable interpretation. Criticism has to be
precise, too.
You have to prove that these artists and specifically them defined a
conceptual or technical means that is in turn specific to Pollock,
prefrably in his head. There's even strong reason to argue that his
strain of modern art reacts against them, insisting on a concept of
color and paint centered around the clarity and tactility of
everything in the foreground. No atmosphere, fuzz, layering,
coloristic perspective, etc., etc. need apply.
Also, don't conflate the two T.'s. That's really bad art history.
Tintoretto is Mannerist and Titian High Renaissance. Different
spaces, color palettes, emotional feel, etc. etc.
Beware: again, I'm not talking about who I like and don't like. Art
history and modern art criticism alike take the same precision and
rigor you want for your own work. Or so I believe.
jh.
mark webber
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> >And in terms of Form and gesture... well, Pollock is just one who was
> >still being influenced centuries later.
>
> Everyone, especially rebels are influenced by the past
Of course! And not simply as something to rebel against. My point about
Pollock is that it is simplistic to see him only as a rebel, only as
someone forging ahead with his medium.
> >
> >Pollock is still influencing artists because of his role as iconoclast and
> >medium/technique toreador - not because of his sensibility.
> >The role of rebel will, by its nature, continue to be filled by new, sexy
> >and exciting personalities, endlessly introduced to us in the NYTimes
> >Magazines.
> >
> >
> It's funny, because I sort of like Balthus too, and I have to ask you
> where you're seeing Pollock
I've looked at both the big poured paintings and the pre-poured
abstractions in museums. I hope you don't mistintepret me as trashing him.
I just don't see him the same way someone like Julian Schnabel sees him.
> The effect of his paintings is invisible
> in books, you have to see them in person - absolutely. At one time, I
> though of him more of a media creation too, but now I think he was a
> victim of the publicity that may have made him famous. After seeing a
> huge retrospective with his works laid out chronologically, I can't
> see him as a rebel at all - any more than Philip Glass is a rebel
> against classical music.
Exactly. There are misconceptions out there, simplified approaches to the
complex, personal nature of creativity, that are amplified and nourished
by the museum's need to make it all accessible to everybody. Projecting
Pollock as someone pouring, blindly, his emotions on the floor is just
absurd. The guy was in love with paintings, with form and movement. He was
expressing his sensibility, not angst or rebelliousness.
I'm for Pollock. He doesn't grab me the way he used to. He doesn't strike
me as the greatest painter of his generation. But I can't dismiss him.
>
> And as to Balthus, his paintings really do have an effect on me that
> has nothing to do with craft or color or perspective. It's a
> disturbing effect, but that's art.
I see what you mean... but the technique and the color decisions -
especially the color, do really hold me. In addition to the other content
issues.
I'll say this: one thing that troubles me about much criticism of Balthus
is that it is so oriented to his content. Because the man puts some
personal, sexual elements into *some* of his work most people won't speak
to the form. What do these people do with one of his landscapes or
portraits?
And further, how does one criticize content without sounding moralist?
People are falling all over each other to defend Mapplethorpe's content,
but we might be overlooking one of the great sensibilities of this half of
the century because he has challenging content?
> Of course I *am an annoying
> esthete. <s>
>
> Glenn
Annoy away. I want the esthetes to run this place. I want esthetes to
bully philistines. Aluminum bats at the ready? Now swing!
Mark
mark webber
> You're right: you are indulging in a bit of thread drift. No one's
> denying Titian's or Tintoretto's importance.
I assume you mean me, amigo, but I didn't think you were denying their
importance. However, it might be more interesting to shift away from the
more personal opinions of Pollock to one of my favorite themes: the
reliance on schools and groupings at the expense of seeing the individual.
You've set it up - I can't help myself. Now read the whole post this time,
please - there is a tiny bit more below!
> Even if I grant you the idea of a new thread, I am not going to bite.
> I'm not convinced we can make the connection to Pollock precise enough
> to make it part of a valuable interpretation. Criticism has to be
> precise, too.
>
> You have to prove that these artists and specifically them defined a
> conceptual or technical means that is in turn specific to Pollock,
> prefrably in his head.
Why only conceptual or technical? For these Venetians (as well as great
artists of any other period or place) there was something fundamental,
primary, besides the technical. I'm not sure the conceptual is even
applicable as we think of it today.
Forgive me if I'm repeating myself (I think this is important enough that
it needs to be repeated, though) but the primary thing - and that which
sets the great Venetians apart from the lesser ones, was the inventiveness
of form/composition and the unity they achieve with movement and rhythm.
That is exactly the primary thing in Pollock. It is that which Greenberg
missed all-together. It is that which is *not* stressed in a blockbuster's
catalogue, because for most folks what is important is why Pollock is
different from the past - not how he was linked.
I apologize in advance of this next remark, but focusing on the technical
or conceptual in Pollock is to miss Pollock. It is the lazy, dilletante
approach. I believe the same is true of all worthwhile modern art. Only
seeing it as different is doing an injustice to the artists. Seeing the
common threads takes more work but ultimately that is what interested them
and that is what makes the esthetic experience.
My not very humble opinion of course.
> There's even strong reason to argue that his
> strain of modern art reacts against them, insisting on a concept of
> color and paint centered around the clarity and tactility of
> everything in the foreground. No atmosphere, fuzz, layering,
> coloristic perspective, etc., etc. need apply.
With the greatest respect, John, bullshit. (I smile.)
Pollock insists on one thing throughout his work - trying to make it work.
Reworking it until it works. What does that mean? Does that mean making
sue the paint flows or the canvas remains flat?
No, that means making sure the form unites.
In addition, Titian was ALL about tactility, everything in the forground,
the picture plane. Look at Titian! It is in-your-face dynamic, painterly
modern art.
>
> Also, don't conflate the two T.'s. That's really bad art history.
> Tintoretto is Mannerist and Titian High Renaissance. Different
> spaces, color palettes, emotional feel, etc. etc.
Bad art history is the over-simplification and reliance on terms like
mannerist and High Renaissance. I really admire your writing, John, and
enjoy you, but you can't tell me that Tintoretto is simply a Mannerist and
that in this way he is something different than the High Renaissance
Titian. They are different, of course, but not because Janson has labeled
them this way.
Tintoretto was essentially born in Titian's studio. He was one of his most
important students. They were both very much interested in pictorial
dynamics which are among the earliest examples of what we call Baroque.
They practically invented the Baroque in painting. El Greco was
Tintoretto's son and Titian's grandson.
Bad art history is failing to see what they share, what the lineage
is, from Bellini, through Giorgione and Titian, to El Greco through
Tintoretto and seeing how T.H. Benton was enthralled by that Gothic
distortion and shared it with his student Jackson.
Tintoretto wasn't a Mannerist. Mannerism describes an aspect of something
Tintoretto did with what he learned from Titian, just as it describes
something Pontormo did with what he learned from Michelangelo.
Saying Tintoretto was a Mannerist is bad art history because it is
simplistic; it is Survey Thought.
>
> Beware: again, I'm not talking about who I like and don't like. Art
> history and modern art criticism alike take the same precision and
> rigor you want for your own work. Or so I believe.
Absolutely - so as I take you to task I smile respectfully.
utmost respect,
Mark
John Haber
>as a rebel, only as someone forging ahead with his medium.
I find that really perceptive. Schnabel's from an era where you HAVE
to make an impact by rebelling. Pollock was still back in the days
when one had work to do first! Even if it did take 24-hour manic
spurts amid a disastrous life.
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
John Haber
connections between the qualities of artists you love. I do the same
thing. The great artists of the past tower over everything I see.
But one can't work that way in art history. Talk of "rhythms" is all
very nice, but it's not an assertion with which one can agree or
disagree, because it's not even an assertion about how and why someone
paints.
As for my contrast of post-Renaissance aims and modernist ones, it may
or may not be "bullshit," but surely it's not terribly original. The
standard history, which I echo, is that Monet and Manet (followed by
Cezanne and Picasso) overturn centuries by avoiding mixed colors and
atmospheric perspective in favor of new ways of constructing space and
of reflecting on the act of painting, through separate color and
contingent volumetric planes. Are you saying that I'm getting the
traditional account wrong or that it's wrong? You're just not arguing
with enough attention yet.
And this takes me back to your methods of art history. You can
quarrel with it, sure. But you then have to be able to show how your
construct mattered to Monet, Manet, and other artists. We know what
THEY thought. You have to show they might have cared what YOU think.
You see the connection to Titian, and it energizes your art. But
that's only the first step in a reinterpretation of the past.
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
Glenn Geist
>Of course! And not simply as something to rebel against. My point about
>Pollock is that it is simplistic to see him only as a rebel, only as
>someone forging ahead with his medium.
>
Agreed
>
>> It's funny, because I sort of like Balthus too, and I have to ask you
>> where you're seeing Pollock
>
>I've looked at both the big poured paintings and the pre-poured
>abstractions in museums. I hope you don't mistintepret me as trashing him.
>I just don't see him the same way someone like Julian Schnabel sees him.
>
I'm not a fan of Schnabel, but after all the Mani ranting, you don't
sound like you're trashing him. <s>
>
>Exactly. There are misconceptions out there, simplified approaches to the
>complex, personal nature of creativity, that are amplified and nourished
>by the museum's need to make it all accessible to everybody. Projecting
>Pollock as someone pouring, blindly, his emotions on the floor is just
>absurd. The guy was in love with paintings, with form and movement. He was
>expressing his sensibility, not angst or rebelliousness.
>
>I'm for Pollock. He doesn't grab me the way he used to. He doesn't strike
>me as the greatest painter of his generation. But I can't dismiss him.
>
>
Nice to hear a voice of reason in this valhalla of vituperation. <s>
>I see what you mean... but the technique and the color decisions -
>especially the color, do really hold me. In addition to the other content
>issues.
>
I just can't put my finger on what appeals to me there and perhaps
that's part of the intrigue
>
>I'll say this: one thing that troubles me about much criticism of Balthus
>is that it is so oriented to his content. Because the man puts some
>personal, sexual elements into *some* of his work most people won't speak
>to the form. What do these people do with one of his landscapes or
>portraits?
>
>And further, how does one criticize content without sounding moralist?
>
>People are falling all over each other to defend Mapplethorpe's content,
>but we might be overlooking one of the great sensibilities of this half of
>the century because he has challenging content?
>
Good points all - Perhaps if he'd paint those girls with birth
certificates proving they were 18 instead of 17. There's more
hysteria than reason out there these days.
>
>Annoy away. I want the esthetes to run this place. I want esthetes to
>bully philistines. Aluminum bats at the ready? Now swing!
>
Aluminum bats? How proletarian! How academic! How establishment!
No wood, no bat.
Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
>
mark webber
> >
> >I've looked at both the big poured paintings and the pre-poured
> >abstractions in museums. I hope you don't mistintepret me as trashing him.
> >I just don't see him the same way someone like Julian Schnabel sees him.
> >
> I'm not a fan of Schnabel, but after all the Mani ranting, you don't
> sound like you're trashing him. <s>
Well, I like to be fair - Schnable can't help it if he is more interested
in being an art star than painting a good picture. Now I have friends who
say they've seen good Schnables, but I haven't. It all looks gimmicky and
affected to me.
>
> >
> >Exactly. There are misconceptions out there, simplified approaches to the
> >complex, personal nature of creativity, that are amplified and nourished
> >by the museum's need to make it all accessible to everybody. Projecting
> >Pollock as someone pouring, blindly, his emotions on the floor is just
> >absurd. The guy was in love with paintings, with form and movement. He was
> >expressing his sensibility, not angst or rebelliousness.
> >
> >I'm for Pollock. He doesn't grab me the way he used to. He doesn't strike
> >me as the greatest painter of his generation. But I can't dismiss him.
> >
> >
> Nice to hear a voice of reason in this valhalla of vituperation. <s>
Shucks. I'm feeling so supported today. I may go read some Mani just to
keep me humble. Nahhhh.
> >I'll say this: one thing that troubles me about much criticism of Balthus
> >is that it is so oriented to his content. Because the man puts some
> >personal, sexual elements into *some* of his work most people won't speak
> >to the form. What do these people do with one of his landscapes or
> >portraits?
> >
> >And further, how does one criticize content without sounding moralist?
> >
> >People are falling all over each other to defend Mapplethorpe's content,
> >but we might be overlooking one of the great sensibilities of this half of
> >the century because he has challenging content?
> >
> Good points all - Perhaps if he'd paint those girls with birth
> certificates proving they were 18 instead of 17. There's more
> hysteria than reason out there these days.
Oh they are/were twelve-year-olds, give or take. If he touches them he
ought to go to prison - at least. But frankly, I don't want to know. I
don't want to know what C.L.Dodgeson or Nabokov were really thinking
either. I only want what they offer to us: the art.
>
> >
> >Annoy away. I want the esthetes to run this place. I want esthetes to
> >bully philistines. Aluminum bats at the ready? Now swing!
> >
> Aluminum bats? How proletarian! How academic! How establishment!
> No wood, no bat.
No wood, no stain. Easier to clean. But ash does feel better in the hands.
Ok, I'll go with wood.
Mark
Nose quill, no wart
lilah
have I missed a bunch of this conversation?
mark webber
> how can you speak of pollock and not refer to hoffman?
>
> have I missed a bunch of this conversation?
I don't know how much you've missed; we haven't spoken much about Hoffman.
What would you like to add?
He's an important figure, no doubt. A Soho gallery director once told me
he thought H.H. was the worst thing to happen to American art. What can
one do but smile at the ass?
So have at it, Lilah; we're listening!
Webber
lilah
without mention of the man who started it all. none of hoffman's students
seemed really to establish a style all their own they each seem to have
taken something from his work and attempted to make it into their own
'sytle'. i have been told that hoffman spawned an entire generation of
poor artists and no doubt some of them are. Whether or not you like
abstract expressionism if you study the roots of it you will find that as
solomon so wisely said 'there is nothing new under the sun' hoffman just
did nothing new extremely well :)
thanks for letting me put my 2 cents in
mark webber wrote in message ...
mark webber
> >My point about Pollock is that it is simplistic to see him only
> >as a rebel, only as someone forging ahead with his medium.
>
> I find that really perceptive. Schnabel's from an era where you HAVE
> to make an impact by rebelling. Pollock was still back in the days
> when one had work to do first! Even if it did take 24-hour manic
> spurts amid a disastrous life.
>
> John (jha...@haberarts.com)
This also edges us toward the question of what "impact" means today.
To whom do we refer when we speak of impact - who was struck by Pollock's
work as he made the transition from relative obscurity to fame? Who was
involved in that same transition for Schnable, and maybe more important,
how do these two groups of "lookers" compare in terms of education,
experience?
If Pollock's work was *only* gimmick, as Schnable's appears to be for me,
would he have had an impact? It might be hard to say - Clifford Still
comes to mind....
But I'm glad to see someone else acknowlege that the "scene" really
appears quite different now than fifty years ago. It seems quite a bit
more shallow.
Arguments welcome.
Mark
mark webber
On Tue, 4 May 1999, John Haber wrote:
> You're doing bad art history, because what you're doing is seeing
> connections between the qualities of artists you love. I do the same
> thing. The great artists of the past tower over everything I see.
Steady, Trooper. Citing painters I love doesn't make it bad art history.
Let's try to organize this a bit: For me bad art history is a reliance on
catagorization at the expense of seeing individuality. Would you disagree
with that?
If not, then let me say my previous post used the two Venetians as
examples. Yes, I revere their work, but a general concensus is that they
are among the best of their time period. Fair?
Ok, my question is this: Does the historian have a responsibility to
explain his choices for who represents what period?
In other words, if esthetics or criticism aren't the responsibility of the
historian, then why do all the surveys feature Titian at the exclusion of
Lotto? Why is Italian art featured at the expence of Spanish art? Some
sort of evaluative process is at work....
So the reliance on catagory is too simple.
>
> But one can't work that way in art history. Talk of "rhythms" is all
> very nice, but it's not an assertion with which one can agree or
> disagree, because it's not even an assertion about how and why someone
> paints.
Huh? Why can't one agree or disagree? There are rhythms and formal devices
and visual play at work in some paintings and not in others. The ones with
visual play are the ones that rise above representation. This is one of
the keystones to western esthetics.
Not "how and why someone paints"? Are you kidding? You aren't going to
stand there on one plaster-caked leg and tell me the Italian Renaissance
is about realistic depiction or representation, are you?
The shift from the Renaissance Classical to the Baroque is first and
foremost one of composititional types, spaces and rhythms. This was
unintended?
It wasn't the explicit intent of Hellenistic sculptors to break away from
the serene balance and idealized rhythms of what we now call Classical
sculpture, and deliberately find new, more tumultuous rhythms?
Ok, if this gets longer, my server won't pick up your reply, so I'm going
to cut this in half, and pick up where we leave off in part 2, ok?
see you shortly,
Mark
mark webber
If posts get too long, they are filtered out of the University server, so
I have to cut these things in half sometimes. Hope it doesn't create
problems.
On Tue, 4 May 1999, John Haber wrote:
>
> As for my contrast of post-Renaissance aims and modernist ones, it may
> or may not be "bullshit," but surely it's not terribly original.
I cuss at you in friendship and with warm regard....
> The
> standard history, which I echo, is that Monet and Manet (followed by
> Cezanne and Picasso) overturn centuries by avoiding mixed colors and
> atmospheric perspective in favor of new ways of constructing space and
> of reflecting on the act of painting, through separate color and
> contingent volumetric planes. Are you saying that I'm getting the
> traditional account wrong or that it's wrong? You're just not arguing
> with enough attention yet.
I don't disagree with those summaries - although they certainly don't seem
very complete. I don't remember how we made the jump to
Impressionism/Post-Impressionism, though. But what you are describing
here, again, is simply one aspect of developement.
Cezanne's spaces are new and exciting in his day, but that doesn't say
anything about beauty or esthetic experience.
Art history is littered with dudes who have something new to say; we ignor
many of them because they didn't say it so well. I offer all of the
Futurists as an example. I can walk right by any of their works, can't
you?
>
> And this takes me back to your methods of art history. You can
> quarrel with it, sure. But you then have to be able to show how your
> construct mattered to Monet, Manet, and other artists. We know what
> THEY thought.
Yes, we know some of what they thought. Monet said, among other things
that his paintings were about love. What does that mean to you?
Manet loved paintings, too. Just about every major work of his is based on
an easily recognizable masterpiece from an earlier era. That smells an
awful lot like a respect for a tradition to me.
Just what - be specific, please - is it about what I'm saying that you
disagree with? Which aspect of my "construct"?
> You have to show they might have cared what YOU think.
But it's the reverse. I care what *they* thought. They would only have
cared what I think in so much as they recognize it as their own.
> You see the connection to Titian, and it energizes your art. But
> that's only the first step in a reinterpretation of the past.
I have no interest in reinterpreting the past. I've spent twenty-five
years wading through art history, a wetdream from which I am trying to
awake. ***
Looking at a picture for its design isn't my idea - its about all
the great Venetians talked about. Check out Vasari.
BTW, This is the most fun I've had here in some time, thanks!
Mark
***Anyone recognize this bastardized reference? A blown kiss to you.
mark webber
> i was surprised is all that such a long discussion on pollock would be
> without mention of the man who started it all. none of hoffman's students
> seemed really to establish a style all their own they each seem to have
> taken something from his work and attempted to make it into their own
> 'sytle'. i have been told that hoffman spawned an entire generation of
> poor artists and no doubt some of them are.
I don't think Pollock studied with Hoffman, but I could be mistaken. Some
people feel that what Gorky took from Matta, Masson and Miro had a lot to
do with where things went too.
But I do see Hoffman as an under-rated figure. I've studied with a couple
of his students, and I'm very glad I did.
> Whether or not you like
> abstract expressionism if you study the roots of it you will find that as
> solomon so wisely said 'there is nothing new under the sun' hoffman just
> did nothing new extremely well :)
Right you are, on both counts.
>
> thanks for letting me put my 2 cents in
Thank you!
Marilyn
Ecclesiastes wrote, "nothing new under the sun."
Hoffman had his first exhibition in his mid-fifites
(maybe this accounts for his low profile).
and nothing like it had been seen before. Large
geometric planes of pure primary colours etc...
My $2 bucks worth (never under rate oneself)
M.
Marilyn
Clyfford Still has left the room!
M.
Kay Kane
(snip)
>But I'm glad to see someone else acknowlege that the "scene" really
>appears quite different now than fifty years ago. It seems quite a bit
>more shallow.
>
>Arguments welcome.
>
>Mark
Hi Mark,
I don't know if I am stepping into an argument at this point, but I am very
curious as to your *scene* referral... Are you speaking of the NYC art
*scene*, contemporary art *scene*, etc.? It could be more shallow at that,
but hasn't it truly always been shallow? This has aroused my curiosity and
interest but (to me) is, at present, a bit vague.
Intrigued,
Kay
___
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
Glenn Geist
>
>Well, I like to be fair - Schnable can't help it if he is more interested
>in being an art star than painting a good picture. Now I have friends who
>say they've seen good Schnables, but I haven't. It all looks gimmicky and
>affected to me.
>
To me too, for sure, but I prefer to ignore rather than make it a
crusade. THere really is a lot of interesting stuff out there,
despite the alleged death of art.
>
>>
>> >
>
>Shucks. I'm feeling so supported today. I may go read some Mani just to
>keep me humble. Nahhhh.
>
In a way, he makes most people look good.
>
>Oh they are/were twelve-year-olds, give or take. If he touches them he
>ought to go to prison - at least. But frankly, I don't want to know. I
>don't want to know what C.L.Dodgeson or Nabokov were really thinking
>either. I only want what they offer to us: the art.
>
I don't know enough about him to know whether it was all done from
imagination, or models, and certainly it isn't anything near
pornography. I don't think he abused anyone or that it's worse than
the naked babies in religious art.
>> >
>> Aluminum bats? How proletarian! How academic! How establishment!
>> No wood, no bat.
>
>No wood, no stain. Easier to clean. But ash does feel better in the hands.
>
>Ok, I'll go with wood.
Just as I thought - another artzy.
>Nose quill, no wart
>
mark webber
> Clyfford Still has left the room!
>
> M.
>
>
And I *still* respect your admiration for him. And I still don't see as
much in his work as that of some of his colleagues. But that won't inflame
us, right?
Mark
mark webber
> >Well, I like to be fair - Schnable can't help it if he is more interested
> >in being an art star than painting a good picture. Now I have friends who
> >say they've seen good Schnables, but I haven't. It all looks gimmicky and
> >affected to me.
> >
> To me too, for sure, but I prefer to ignore rather than make it a
> crusade. THere really is a lot of interesting stuff out there,
> despite the alleged death of art.
The better attitude, yes.
I will go out on a limb here. Not only is art not dead, but Modernism
isn't even dead. Pomo, I predict, will eventually prove itself to be
another feature of modernism, just as dada is.
And among the inevitable reactions to pomo will be neo-mo, neo-modernism.
(Nobody actually thinks that post-modernism is a final chapter without
reactionaries, do they?)
(on Balthus' models)
> >Oh they are/were twelve-year-olds, give or take. If he touches them he
> >ought to go to prison - at least. But frankly, I don't want to know. I
> >don't want to know what C.L.Dodgeson or Nabokov were really thinking
> >either. I only want what they offer to us: the art.
> >
> I don't know enough about him to know whether it was all done from
> imagination, or models, and certainly it isn't anything near
> pornography. I don't think he abused anyone or that it's worse than
> the naked babies in religious art.
He draws and does oil studies extensively from models - usually one model
for several years. The larger, more resolved works usually don't come from
direct observation. The models have usually been under 18, but, and I
don't know the details of this, but the parents of the models seem to give
full permission; are well aware that their daughters are modeling nude.
A recent monograph has a photo of Balthus with his most recent model. He
looks directly at the camera, but the model is slyly eyeing him, with what
appears to be a knowing little grin.
>
> Just as I thought - another artzy.
On the money.
mark webber
> >But I'm glad to see someone else acknowlege that the "scene" really
> >appears quite different now than fifty years ago. It seems quite a bit
> >more shallow.
> >
> >Arguments welcome.
> >
> >Mark
>
>
> Hi Mark,
> I don't know if I am stepping into an argument at this point, but I am very
> curious as to your *scene* referral... Are you speaking of the NYC art
> *scene*, contemporary art *scene*, etc.?
In that particular case I was contrasting the New York art world of the
forties (which was to my understanding, pretty well-informed and
energized by an authentic desire to deal with Paris, confront Picasso,
Matisse, etc...) and the New York art world of today which is peopled by,
for example, Sarrah Lawrence graduates with a lot of dad's dough and a
desire to be part of something they haven't really absorbed (art history,
to be specific) so they open up a gallery and show stuff that has emediate
shock appeal but is often without any visual interest.
Of course I generalize hugely, and there are still some terrific galleries
in NYC, and some very sharp writers and believe it or not, some terrific
painters. How ever, it isn't very fashionable to exhibit terrific
paintings right now.
(And I don't know if my worthy opponent is out climbing these days or not,
but I will add that fashion is fleeting and great art is not fleeting. He
knows what I mean. When he wants to come back and wrestle, he will.)
> It could be more shallow at that,
> but hasn't it truly always been shallow?
Nope. I don't think so. I could be accused of romanticizing the New York
scene but so could the folks who so desperately want to be a part of it.
There was some really brilliant, authentic art being made in NYC a few
decades back - and it was the brilliant stuff that was getting the
attention. And the writing about it was often pretty sharp too.
I don't think the brilliant stuff is getting the attention now, and that's
why I think there is a difference.
> This has aroused my curiosity and
> interest but (to me) is, at present, a bit vague.
> Intrigued,
> Kay
Hope I've clarified my view (and of course it is only my view.)
Mark
A.A. Raimes
>Nose quill, no wart
ROFL !!! nice one Mark.
May Flowers
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>But I'm glad to see someone else acknowlege that the "scene" really
>appears quite different now than fifty years ago. It seems quite a bit
>more shallow.
It's a point I've tried to make any number of times
in this forum. Someone just coming on the art scene
can't compare the impact of art done fifty years
ago with today's sensibilities. The only way to get a
handle on what the art meant IN ITS OWN TIME is to
read all of the reviews written about it AT THAT TIME.
Reading a review of the current Pollock retrospective
written by someone who may not have even been alive
in Pollock's time needs some filtering through salt
grains or something.
Marilyn
I just like to use that phrase, it brings up such a nice
image, of the ghosts of these painters getting up and
leaving the room.
I'm objective about the works of these artists;
loving or disdaining their works won't affect our
lives that much will it?
regards,
M.
Glenn Geist
>On Thu, 6 May 1999, Glenn Geist wrote:
>
>> >Well, I like to be fair - Schnable can't help it if he is more interested
>> >in being an art star than painting a good picture. Now I have friends who
>> >say they've seen good Schnables, but I haven't. It all looks gimmicky and
>> >affected to me.
>> >
>> To me too, for sure, but I prefer to ignore rather than make it a
>> crusade. THere really is a lot of interesting stuff out there,
>> despite the alleged death of art.
>
>The better attitude, yes.
Those Jihads do get tiring.
>
>I will go out on a limb here. Not only is art not dead, but Modernism
>isn't even dead. Pomo, I predict, will eventually prove itself to be
>another feature of modernism, just as dada is.
>
>And among the inevitable reactions to pomo will be neo-mo, neo-modernism.
>
>(Nobody actually thinks that post-modernism is a final chapter without
>reactionaries, do they?)
>
>
Has there ever been a final chapter? Some chapters may be long - too
long, but it' s not over. The only fault I find with your observation
is that I didn't say it first. <s> But let's keep it to monosylables
and use lots of excretory references so we don't sound to Artzy for
the Ayatollah of Art.
>(on Balthus' models)
>> >Oh they are/were twelve-year-olds, give or take. If he touches them he
>> >ought to go to prison - at least. But frankly, I don't want to know. I
>> >don't want to know what C.L.Dodgeson or Nabokov were really thinking
>> >either. I only want what they offer to us: the art.
>> >
>> I don't know enough about him to know whether it was all done from
>> imagination, or models, and certainly it isn't anything near
>> pornography. I don't think he abused anyone or that it's worse than
>> the naked babies in religious art.
>
>He draws and does oil studies extensively from models - usually one model
>for several years. The larger, more resolved works usually don't come from
>direct observation. The models have usually been under 18, but, and I
>don't know the details of this, but the parents of the models seem to give
>full permission; are well aware that their daughters are modeling nude.
>
>A recent monograph has a photo of Balthus with his most recent model. He
>looks directly at the camera, but the model is slyly eyeing him, with what
>appears to be a knowing little grin.
>
The knowing grin comes through in the paintings - I think those
ambiguous expressions may account for a large part of my interest in
him.
>>
>> Just as I thought - another artzy.
>
>On the money.
>
>Mark
>
>Nose quill, no wart
>
No soap, radio
>
>
>
>
>
Kay Kane
--
Mark,
Thanks for clarifying your statement. I have nothing to discuss because you
are right on the money! (Those of us who DON'T live in NYC have a pretty
clear view of what is happening too.) Officially, looking in Janson's
newest edition - painting and sculpture are dead. I doubt if the youngest
generation of students is less *talented* but it does seem futile to persue
an allegedly *dead* artform so I can understand, a bit, why it pales in
comparison to earlier years. Thanks for the in-depth explanation
Kay
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
mark webber wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 5 May 1999, Kay Kane wrote:
>
>> >But I'm glad to see someone else acknowlege that the "scene" really
>> >appears quite different now than fifty years ago. It seems quite a bit
>> >more shallow.
>> >
Glenn Geist
>
>It's a point I've tried to make any number of times
>in this forum. Someone just coming on the art scene
>can't compare the impact of art done fifty years
>ago with today's sensibilities. The only way to get a
>handle on what the art meant IN ITS OWN TIME is to
>read all of the reviews written about it AT THAT TIME.
>
>Reading a review of the current Pollock retrospective
>written by someone who may not have even been alive
>in Pollock's time needs some filtering through salt
>grains or something.
>
That's something worth thinking about - can we really see past art
through past eyes? And if we do acheive it, how do we know?
I wonder if art doesn't take on an entirely different meaning as time
goes by, and if one can say it's not legitimate because we're putting
something into it that wasn't intended. I think it's impossible not
to look at art without putting something into it even while the paint
is wet.
Glenn
mark webber
A repost, for my friend John, just in case he missd it.
On Tue, 4 May 1999, John Haber wrote:
mark webber
I know this is tantamount to harrasement, John, but there is the
possibility that you just haven't seen it...
I'll be offline for a few days, so a delayed reply might have a better
chance of turning up on my server when I return.
So with good intention:
On Tue, 4 May 1999, John Haber wrote:
>
John Haber
saying that you are like a student who just wrote an interpretation of
Pollock and got a low grade, that's all. I tried roughly to explain
why.
Now, anything can be useful in an interpretation. There's now way to
preclude the connection that will illuminate things. You can see may
reasons for that, but here are just two. First, every artist or
critic creates a genealogy, a valuation of the past, in the creative
and selective acts of the present. Second, any interpretation, like
metaphor, makes connections between what others are presumed to know
and what the writer presumes to bring.
So there's no strict rule, saying that some association isn't
relevant. One doesn't even have something psychological, the artist's
intent, as a baseline. When I trace Pollock's technique to Monet's
color theory and in contrast to Venetian color, I'm creating a
geneology of modernism, even though Pollock had no great personal
interest in Monet.
Writers may try hard to surprise: I certainly did often myself. For
example, I used the Rodchenko retrospective -- with all the stimulus
to art of the Soviet revolution and NEP, then the crushing of art
under Stalin -- to return to the question of the NEA and government
funding, and I compared the issue to shoppers in Herald Square. I
compared Chuck Close to the fish markets in Chinatown.
But you know well enough how tough it is to make an illuminating
connection. It's because that alone isn't an interpretation. Can you
see from my description how I'd argue for or against the NEA -- or
what I found challenging in Close? When I mention Money I mean to
help explain Pollock's technique, but then I can test the richness of
the connection by how far it takes me into style, imagery, and
meaning. Does it also point to affinities that others have noted and
puzzled over?
For example, I was lead to new questions such as these: What can it
mean that Monet's late work have tended to all-over painting, when his
late series were not "on the table" when Abstract Expressionism
developed? How has the notion of works in series, like Pollock's
numbered paintings, defined a certain kind of esthetic production in
late Modernism? To what extent is either painter recording a
landscape once he's retreated into a private domain, Pollock's shed
and Giverny? What's the relation between abstraction and perception
(or Monet's vision and his physical blindness)? These are just parts
of one interpration among others, and one can accept it or reject it;
but they take work.
Pollock makes you think of Titian, because they both have pretty
colors and nice rhythms. Great. Woopee. What does that say about
either one? What does it say about the origins of the work of art?
What's your interpretation.
All you've done is tell me you like them both. Grade C- in art
history, kid. Stick to painting. :)
John
John Haber
up only fairly for the freedom to interpret Pollock HIS way. We've
heard too much about "overinterpretation," and I've alread been really
grateful to the contingent here who finds some tough writers worth
reading. Ariane can even understand them. :)
I was having a drink with a friend last night who directs opera. She
was really enjoying the reviews she'd got on a project. Did it ever
get too elaborate? Well, she pointed out, worse can be, it'll be more
interesting than her work.
I also took a more careful look at Elkin's new book on why "pictures"
have become "puzzles," which I'd mentioned favorably, as well as to a
really sane review of it in Lingua Franca. In all fairness to art
historians, Elkin in practice goes off on a bit of a diatribe, with
chapters on particularly silly interpretations, including the shapes
one reads into clouds, Jesus's forehead, and so on. (One such reading
is actually a famous portion of Freud's essay on da Vinci.) When it
comes to the mainstream intricate reader of them all, Panofsky, he
gets chatty and meandering, just when you are desparate for the book's
narrative. Is it going to explain why iconography was necessary
historically and where it goes awry? Don't hold your breath. That's
for a better book by someone else.
So it lacks real bite and coherence. He also has trouble in that he
starts by worrying about know-it-all, definitive interpretations, like
his caricature anecdotes ... but then when he has to explain why tht
dislike extends to the mainstream theories of "ambiguity" or
"polysemy," he gets into a bit of double talk.
Anyhow, still admirable for a clearly written book as art history
goes, and his criticism of it made me avid to read an old, long Leo
Steinberg essay on da Vinci's Last Supper that somehow I missed (never
making it into book form).
John
emat...@tomatoweb.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> I wonder if art doesn't take on an entirely different meaning as time
> goes by, and if one can say it's not legitimate because we're putting
> something into it that wasn't intended. I think it's impossible not
> to look at art without putting something into it even while the paint
> is wet.
>
> Glenn
>
I can't imagine it being any other way. And not just art, but the bulk of our
ideas about the things of the world. This is the working of culture, the big
filter.
But here's a thought -- I'm just circulating this, which I picked up from a
posting of a listserver, Science as Culture:
"In each period there is a general forms of thought; and, like the air we
breathe, such a form is so translucent, and so pervading, and so seemingly
necessary, that only by extreme effort can we become aware of it. . . . The
intellectual strife of an age is mainly concerned with...questions of
secondary generality which conceal a general agreement upon first principles
almost too obvious to need expression, and almost too general to be capable
of expression. . . . This ultimate cosmology is only partly expressed, and
the details of such expression issue into derivative specialized questions of
secondary questions of violent controversy." --Alfred North Whitehead
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Glenn Geist
>>
>I can't imagine it being any other way. And not just art, but the bulk of our
>ideas about the things of the world. This is the working of culture, the big
>filter.
>
>But here's a thought -- I'm just circulating this, which I picked up from a
>posting of a listserver, Science as Culture:
>
>"In each period there is a general forms of thought; and, like the air we
>breathe, such a form is so translucent, and so pervading, and so seemingly
>necessary, that only by extreme effort can we become aware of it. . . . The
>intellectual strife of an age is mainly concerned with...questions of
>secondary generality which conceal a general agreement upon first principles
>almost too obvious to need expression, and almost too general to be capable
>of expression. . . . This ultimate cosmology is only partly expressed, and
>the details of such expression issue into derivative specialized questions of
>secondary questions of violent controversy." --Alfred North Whitehead
>
It's hard to improve on that!
Glenn