About Pollock
GERALD O'CONNELL
continues to outstrip his overall contribution to art (if that's not a
contradiction in these contentious times).
I too visited his current show at the Tate. I was amazed by the
hamfistedness of his early work, but equally amazed at the fierce, energetic
beauty of later work like Lavender Mist. Seeing his whole career laid out
chronologically I couldn't help thinking that he was ultimately a one-trick
pony: the Lavender Mist trick is certainly a great trick, but his only real
breakthrough. His contemporaneous attempts to open new avenues and avoid
being typecast demonstrate that he was painfully aware of the problem, but
unable to do anything about it.
A final point: many of his later drawings and smaller works on paper
surprised me by their high quality. I suspect that he might have been under
too much (self-imposed ?) pressure to paint in the grand manner to have the
time to fall back, dig deep and actually deliver as an ongoing innovator.
There was something special there, but he just didn't have the depth of
technique and craft to be able to excavate fully and securely the minefield
of his own ambition.....
Gerald O'Connell
http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk
A.A. Raimes
many criticisms by people who have. They appear to be unhappy with the
*sameness* of the show. I can't help feeling that the hype that
accompanied Pollock while he worked inevitably prevented him from
progressing further than the drip paintings... of course his death
didn't help either ! I can't help feeling that the Abstract
Expressionists lived lives more like film stars rather than artists.
Pollock was like the star who made a multi-oscar winning performance and
then was scared to make another for fear of critics destroying him.
Talking of drip paintings btw - my work is up at Skylark Gallery down at
Gabriel's Wharf (next to the OXO tower) if you get a chance to go down.
Cheers ! Alison.
In article <924249656.10478.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, GERALD
O'CONNELL <g...@gacoc.demon.co.uk> writes
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Linda Thomas
I saw the show in New York. Although
I'm a long-time Pollack fan, the show advanced my understanding
considerably. It brought home, for me, the fact that
Pollack was not a one-trick pony, or in fact doing tricks at all - the
drip painting style evolved over a period of time, with false starts and
reversals, just as any other mature painting style. Also, seeing the the
actual work, many for the first time, was a wonderful experience in itself.
"GERALD O'CONNELL" <g...@gacoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Recent posts indicate that the man's ability to generate controversy
> continues to outstrip his overall contribution to art (if that's not a
> contradiction in these contentious times).
I think the controversy over abstract artists in general stems from the
general public's idea of what a painting *should* be (realistic landscapes
and portraits, a display of conventional skill, etc.), and what abstraction
offers. Most don't bother to learn about it.
Pollack's contribution was similar
to James Joyce's contribution to fiction - its influence spreads to nearly
every artist since, whether they know it or not.
> I too visited his current show at the Tate. I was amazed by the
> hamfistedness of his early work, but equally amazed at the fierce,
> energetic beauty of later work like Lavender Mist. Seeing his whole
> career laid out chronologically I couldn't help thinking that he was
> ultimately a one-trick pony: the Lavender Mist trick is certainly a great
> trick, but his only real
> breakthrough. His contemporaneous attempts to open new avenues and avoid
> being typecast demonstrate that he was painfully aware of the problem,
> but unable to do anything about it.
Calling Pollack's mature work a trick does him a disservice. As I noted
above, it is the result of a considerable evolution. A trick or gimmick
would appear quickly. His work is very different from anything that came
before it, and I think this is what people try to explain away as tricks.
> A final point: many of his later drawings and smaller works on paper
> surprised me by their high quality. I suspect that he might have been
> under too much (self-imposed ?) pressure to paint in the grand manner to
> have the time to fall back, dig deep and actually deliver as an ongoing
> innovator. There was something special there, but he just didn't have the
> depth of technique and craft to be able to excavate fully and securely
> the minefield of his own ambition.....
Perhaps. But his alcoholism unfortunately put a stop to his development.
Then it helped end his life. Whether or not he would've continued to
innovate if he'd managed to stay sober is anybody's guess.
Linda
>
> Gerald O'Connell
> http://www.gacoc.demon.co.uk
--
-------------------- http://www.metronet.Com/ --------------------
April Showers
g...@gacoc.demon.co.uk says...
>
>Recent posts indicate that the man's ability to generate controversy
>continues to outstrip his overall contribution to art (if that's not a
>contradiction in these contentious times).
>
One MUST see these artists who were innovators in their
time IN CONTEXT. You can't look at them today with the
same eye that someone in the 1940's did. You MUST look
at them through the eyes of the art historian or the
art critic who wrote about them in their own times. It
is a pointless exercise to critique them against nearly
a half-century of successors/imitators/lampooners.
For example, the critic Barbara Rose wrote the following
about Pollock in 1967, and he was long gone by then:
"...one may interpret Pollock's drip paintings as the
first significant change in pictorial space since Cubism."
And that's just one tidbit of what was written in the
days shortly after Pollocks ascension and flame-out.
It has long been an acknowledged fact that Pollock,
like DeKoonig, had a career-long problem with figuration.
That's why it's amazing that they were able to construct
the myths around themselves and their art that they did.
Or one might argue that the critics did it for them. Still,
it is amazing when one looks back through 'those' eyes.
mark webber
> >Recent posts indicate that the man's ability to generate controversy
> >continues to outstrip his overall contribution to art (if that's not a
> >contradiction in these contentious times).
> >
>
> One MUST see these artists who were innovators in their
> time IN CONTEXT. You can't look at them today with the
> same eye that someone in the 1940's did. You MUST look
> at them through the eyes of the art historian or the
> art critic who wrote about them in their own times. It
> is a pointless exercise to critique them against nearly
> a half-century of successors/imitators/lampooners.
>
> For example, the critic Barbara Rose wrote the following
> about Pollock in 1967, and he was long gone by then:
>
> "...one may interpret Pollock's drip paintings as the
> first significant change in pictorial space since Cubism."
>
> And that's just one tidbit of what was written in the
> days shortly after Pollocks ascension and flame-out.
>
> It has long been an acknowledged fact that Pollock,
> like DeKoonig, had a career-long problem with figuration.
> That's why it's amazing that they were able to construct
> the myths around themselves and their art that they did.
> Or one might argue that the critics did it for them. Still,
> it is amazing when one looks back through 'those' eyes.
>
>
>
First, I'd like to point out that the initial poster seems to feel that
because *he* sees nothing more to Pollock than gimmick that is fair to say
the controversy is more significant than the work. I disagree, but I also
don't see any point to arguing with someone who isn't looking beyond
controversy.
But April, the reason I'm replying is I'm wondering what you mean by
"It has long been an acknowledged fact that Pollock, like DeKoonig, had a
career-long problem with figuration."
regards,
Mark
Linda Thomas
nom...@aintnonesuch.com (April Showers) wrote:
> In article <924249656.10478.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> g...@gacoc.demon.co.uk says...
> >
> >Recent posts indicate that the man's ability to generate controversy
> >continues to outstrip his overall contribution to art (if that's not a
> >contradiction in these contentious times).
> >
> >I too visited his current show at the Tate.
>
> One MUST see these artists who were innovators in their
> time IN CONTEXT. You can't look at them today with the
> same eye that someone in the 1940's did. You MUST look
> at them through the eyes of the art historian or the
> art critic who wrote about them in their own times. It
> is a pointless exercise to critique them against nearly
> a half-century of successors/imitators/lampooners.
An excellent point. A thorough knowledge of art history is essential
to the understanding of any artist and his work. For me, the power of
the best of them is a very moving force today - but I don't know to what
extent
this appreciation is informed by my knowledge of art history.
>
> For example, the critic Barbara Rose wrote the following
> about Pollock in 1967, and he was long gone by then:
>
> "...one may interpret Pollock's drip paintings as the
> first significant change in pictorial space since Cubism."
>
> And that's just one tidbit of what was written in the
> days shortly after Pollocks ascension and flame-out.
>
> It has long been an acknowledged fact that Pollock,
> like DeKoonig, had a career-long problem with figuration.
> That's why it's amazing that they were able to construct
> the myths around themselves and their art that they did.
> Or one might argue that the critics did it for them. Still,
> it is amazing when one looks back through 'those' eyes.
I think that's a valid comment in Pollack's case. DeKooning, however, could
draw like an angel - see his early portraits of homeless men, and of
Elaine. I'd like to have his problem with figuration! But I don't
understand your statement that a problem with figuration should've affected
the myths surrounding them. Could you explain?
Regards,
Linda
John Haber
can't even speak of those simple black enamel drawings on huge bare
canvas in the same sentence as the dense, colorful room with Lavander
Mist. And it's a lot of tricks to compress into a short life. I'm
still in awe.
But hey, one trick is enough to make history. Monet pursued his trick
all his life, and wow what variety and history it made.
The ranking game is silly anyway. After all those decades of art
after Abstract Expressionism and all the words written about Pollock,
I'm afraid it's too distant from studying art to complain. If you've
something else you like, that's nice. Go ahead and talk about it.
jh
April Showers
>
>Hi, April -
>I think that's a valid comment in Pollack's case. DeKooning, however, could
>draw like an angel - see his early portraits of homeless men, and of
>Elaine. I'd like to have his problem with figuration! But I don't
>understand your statement that a problem with figuration should've affected
>the myths surrounding them. Could you explain?
There are some who would disagree about DeKooning's drawing
abilities. I intensely dislike DeKoonings works, but that is
a very personal thing. Since I did not personally know either artist,
I can only quote what others have said about them as far
as figuration being problematic for them. I've read a number of
articles/essays/critiques over the years discussing Pollock's
problems, especially in his student years when he was being
mentored by Thos. Benton. So I assume it's a well-established
known that Pollock never developed his drawing skills.
I included DeKooning in there because I was quoting Barbara
Rose -- the art critic/historian -- who made the comparison.
GERALD O'CONNELL
cynic might suggest that JP's alcoholism was in large part caused by the
pain of knowing that he could not live up to his own reputation and
publicity.
I did not intend to denigrate him with the word 'trick' incidentally, just a
shorthand way of pointing out the technical limitations that forced him into
a corner as an innovator. I would argue that, once in that corner, he did as
well as any artist has ever done in a corner. The big difference is that
others have been able to break out when they wanted to simply because they
had more technique to fall back on. JP's drawings suggest that he had the
will and the ideas, but couldn't translate them into paint on canvas to
match the impact and quality of the drip masterpieces....
Linda Thomas wrote in message <19990416095751.315$x...@newsreader.com>...
>Gerald - Thanks for an interesting post.
>
>I saw the show in New York. Although
>I'm a long-time Pollack fan, the show advanced my understanding
>considerably. It brought home, for me, the fact that
>Pollack was not a one-trick pony, or in fact doing tricks at all - the
>drip painting style evolved over a period of time, with false starts and
>reversals, just as any other mature painting style. Also, seeing the the
>actual work, many for the first time, was a wonderful experience in itself.
>
>"GERALD O'CONNELL" <g...@gacoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Recent posts indicate that the man's ability to generate controversy
>> continues to outstrip his overall contribution to art (if that's not a
>> contradiction in these contentious times).
>
GERALD O'CONNELL
mark webber wrote in message ...
>First, I'd like to point out that the initial poster seems to feel that
>because *he* sees nothing more to Pollock than gimmick that is fair to say
>the controversy is more significant than the work.
Not my point at all. I was remarking on the longevity of the ability of JP's
work to generate of a particular type of controversy. A strong clue as to
its ultimate quality ? I am not sure, but it indicates some depth in the
work....
I disagree, but I also
>don't see any point to arguing with someone who isn't looking beyond
>controversy.
Well, that's OK, no need to argue. We don't HAVE to do that !
But you may have a view about my point about the lack of technical resource
on JP's part, and the resultant fact that only one of the various types of
thing he tried to do seems to have an ongoing strong resonance...
mark webber
>
> mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>
>
> >First, I'd like to point out that the initial poster seems to feel that
> >because *he* sees nothing more to Pollock than gimmick that is fair to say
> >the controversy is more significant than the work.
>
> Not my point at all. I was remarking on the longevity of the ability of JP's
> work to generate of a particular type of controversy. A strong clue as to
> its ultimate quality ? I am not sure, but it indicates some depth in the
> work....
>
After I posted my reply, it occurred to me that I may be misinterpreting
what you were saying, and I apologize; I think I see what you mean.
However, I still think there is a more important element to P.'s work than
the controversy, and it is, in fact, tied to the issue of quality. Seeing
Pollock as a painter who "just dripped paint" is akin to seeing Tintoretto
as a painter who "just rendered figures" - a rather limiting point of
view, which completely misses the dynamic, powerfully rhythmic compositions
both artists left behind.
> >I disagree, but I also
> >don't see any point to arguing with someone who isn't looking beyond
> >controversy.
>
> Well, that's OK, no need to argue. We don't HAVE to do that !
Again, I apologize for being snippy - I was out of line.
> But you may have a view about my point about the lack of technical resource
> on JP's part, and the resultant fact that only one of the various types of
> thing he tried to do seems to have an ongoing strong resonance...
I don't mean to quibble, but the above sentence is a little confusing to
me. I think I can reply best by saying that it is not a "fact" that only
one thing he tied to do has ongoing resonance - I, and many other people
are quite taken by pre-poured paintings like "Pasiphae", "The She-Wolf",
"Totem" as well as some of the automatic drawings (related to
Picasso's "Guernica".)
Nor is it a "fact" that Pollock had a "lack of technical resource." I
understand that many people will assume that because he wasn't interested
in rendering he was unable to render - but that is the sort of argument I
don't take the effort to involve myself in anymore. It goes on and on.
While I don't rush to see the poured work anymore, while I would rather
look at work by other artists, I still feel Pollock achieved some
really wonderful paintings at times, and I believe a big part of it was
because he had enormous ability to control the flow of the paint and make
it a demonstration of his sensibilty.
Again, sorry to have misinterpreted you, and thanks for contributing.
Mark
John Haber
....or that he did exactly what he was prepared to show, and that's why
he was good? A technique is, pretty much by definition, a means to an
end. "Pollock lacks sufficient technique" implies a shared
understanding of P's aims -- or at least a shared understanding of
aims to which P ought to aspire.
Like many critics and viewers at the retrospective, I was quite
dazzled by the technique -- that is, by the sheer variety of paint
handling, the ability to define sharply a space or form from whatever
means he chose, the ability one month to make a limited palette as
rich as when the High Renaissance largely abjured the acid color
effects that would return with Mannerism, the next month to make black
a tool of painting, like a color, rather than a tool of drawing, the
next month to make the sheen and texture and housepaint associaitions
of enamel a noticeable part of the color, and then the next month to
introduce colors seeping out of every pore of the work.
But that doesn't just mean we saw something you didn't. I've even
argued that reviews of the show avoided something magical and crucial
in Pollock by talking about technique. There's still the question of
what it's all about.
The early critics, such as Greenberg, and the painters themselves were
fascinated by technique, too. There's a famous quote from Barnett
Newman: "more blue is bluer than less blue." They asked one to look
at the old tools of painting and find something new in them, an end
apart from old goals of repesentation. In effect, they asked one to
think about what was going on when one paints. This could be done
with the more limited technique of Newman, in fact, or the chucking of
drawing entirely by Rothko but with a handling of color that's
awesome; with the treatment of paint as a stand-in for traditional
icons in Motherwell's totems; with Albers theoretical color schemes;
etc. etc. etc.
But I'm sick and tired of hearing about the failures of these artists.
The art world is on to something. If you don't care or respect it, or
if it's not relevant to your own art, super. But that's not what I
hear in these posts. I hear an anger born of wishing the world were
listening to ME as loudly as it does to Pollock. Sorry, but I can't
help you on that one. Buit just back off and leave them be. They're
dead anyhow; the art world also likes Titian more than you.
John
mark webber
(snip)
> >However, I still think there is a more important element to P.'s work than
> >the controversy, and it is, in fact, tied to the issue of quality. Seeing
> >Pollock as a painter who "just dripped paint" is akin to seeing Tintoretto
> >as a painter who "just rendered figures" - a rather limiting point of
> >view, which completely misses the dynamic, powerfully rhythmic compositions
> >both artists left behind.
>
> Good point. Whenever I see an artist dismissed as "merely" x, y or z, then I
> start to worry, it ususally indicates that somebody hasn't come to terms
> with what the artist is doing and wants to be able to pretend that it is
> irrelevant. Not helpful.
There we are: in agreement. I offer rec.arts.fine as evidence.
> Have you ever stopped to think what a bloody awful world it would be if we
> all agreed all the time ? I try to envisage that and similar states of
> affairs from time to time, but I always recoil from thinking it all the way
> through - too depressing !
Well, you certainly needn't worry too much.
(snip)
>
> I know what you mean. I was referring to disappointment on my part that such
> a full career retrospective should reveal such a restricted technical
> armoury. It may be that JP could do a lot more than he was prepared to show,
> but that just leads to other questions about why such restrictions should
> have been self-imposed....
I understand. On the other hand, Picasso has been accused of being a style
shopper. It is difficult to please everyone.
Look forward to more from you,
Mark
mark webber
(By the way, John, the new title has nothing to do with you - I like your
writing. It is a co-complaint to something you wrote.)
I have to say, it is rather fun focusing on Pollock for a while. I'm glad
everyone so enjoys him!
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, John Haber wrote:
(snipping a bit)
> But that doesn't just mean we saw something you didn't. I've even
> argued that reviews of the show avoided something magical and crucial
> in Pollock by talking about technique. There's still the question of
> what it's all about.
This is exactly what I find most curious. I have encountered a couple of
articles stressing the sensibility/form aspect to the work, but it's true
that the majority focus on the the technical which is doubly useless,
really: Folks like those here in R.A.F. who have never tried looking for
what Pollock shares with Tintoretto are left with the impression that what
is most important about the work is the technique.
Likewise, those who have already realized that, while anyone *can* throw
paint around, Pollock did it really, really well... these folks are
inevitably asking why the sensibility issue is rarely raised.
And of course the answer is that even some of today's best known critics
are oblivious. These same critics will be equally shy of feeling what is
really special about Tintoretto.
>
> The early critics, such as Greenberg, and the painters themselves were
> fascinated by technique, too.
Part of Greenberg's failure was that he was unable to say which were the
good Pollocks and which were weak. He was much more interested in the
illustrative aspect of Pollock: the flatness.
(I know I've said this before, but you know, every once and awhile we
return to our primary itches.)
> There's a famous quote from Barnett
> Newman: "more blue is bluer than less blue." They asked one to look
> at the old tools of painting and find something new in them, an end
> apart from old goals of repesentation. In effect, they asked one to
> think about what was going on when one paints. This could be done
> with the more limited technique of Newman, in fact, or the chucking of
> drawing entirely by Rothko but with a handling of color that's
> awesome; with the treatment of paint as a stand-in for traditional
> icons in Motherwell's totems; with Albers theoretical color schemes;
> etc. etc. etc.
This point still fails to address when the artist succeeds. Further, and
to my mind, more important, one can still work with pictorial ideas as
grand, as monumental, as the representational paintings of the
Renaissance, without representation.
The trap is set when one thinks of Renaissance painting as *simply*
representational.
One steps in the trap when one fails to ask "why are Raphael's Madonnas
more sublime than others?"
One cannot free oneself from this trap by questioning Pollock's skill. On
the contrary. The release mechanism is seeing the connection.
>
> But I'm sick and tired of hearing about the failures of these artists.
> The art world is on to something. If you don't care or respect it, or
> if it's not relevant to your own art, super. But that's not what I
> hear in these posts. I hear an anger born of wishing the world were
> listening to ME as loudly as it does to Pollock. Sorry, but I can't
> help you on that one.
Right on.
> Buit just back off and leave them be. They're
> dead anyhow; the art world also likes Titian more than you.
>
> John
Exactly.
Mark
Linda Thomas
<snip>
> > But that doesn't just mean we saw something you didn't. I've even
> > argued that reviews of the show avoided something magical and crucial
> > in Pollock by talking about technique. There's still the question of
> > what it's all about.
>
> This is exactly what I find most curious. I have encountered a couple of
> articles stressing the sensibility/form aspect to the work, but it's true
> that the majority focus on the the technical which is doubly useless,
> really: Folks like those here in R.A.F. who have never tried looking for
> what Pollock shares with Tintoretto are left with the impression that
> what is most important about the work is the technique.
Indeed. Vladimir Nabokov said that a writer should be an enchanter. I think
the same goes for painters. Pollack's best work provides that tingling in
the spine that I look for in any art form.
--
Linda Thomas
*Time is never wasted when you're wasted all the time.
--Catherine Zandonella*
Marilyn
>
>
>
> I have to say, it is rather fun focusing on Pollock for a while. I'm glad
> everyone so enjoys him!
>
About Pollock,
I enjoyed the critiques in
"Modern Painters" Spring 1999.
In particular "Mural" 9' x 20'.
"Painted with a brush done in one frantic day & night session. It
has a great deal of dancing energy - visceral force of the largest
drip paintings. It is astonishing - a dionysiac release, a thrilling
change of gear, as one stepped out of rooms of earlier works and manic
productivity. It was the cause of one of his most agonizing periods of
creative inertia [beforehand], done as a commission & executed at the
last moment."
Pollock called it a stampeed. He painted that
frenetic energy and rhythmic turmoil.
M.
mark webber
> > This is exactly what I find most curious. I have encountered a couple of
> > articles stressing the sensibility/form aspect to the work, but it's true
> > that the majority focus on the the technical which is doubly useless,
> > really: Folks like those here in R.A.F. who have never tried looking for
> > what Pollock shares with Tintoretto are left with the impression that
> > what is most important about the work is the technique.
>
>
> Indeed. Vladimir Nabokov said that a writer should be an enchanter. I think
> the same goes for painters. Pollack's best work provides that tingling in
> the spine that I look for in any art form.
>
> --
> Linda Thomas
Hi Linda,
Yes, Nabokov said something else about art that I like even better. He
once threatened to spend the time tracking down the first fool who
said art should be simple and true - I think to do some sort of violence
to the man.
Nabokov's feeling, and I couldn't agree more, was that great art really
was very complex and very deceptive.
It is, too, and God help those who want to see it otherwise.
Happy belated birthday, Vivian Darkbloom.
Mark
Wynn Kramarsky
Haber) wrote:
> > It may be that JP could do a lot more than he was prepared to show
>
> ....or that he did exactly what he was prepared to show, and that's why
> he was good? A technique is, pretty much by definition, a means to an
> end. "Pollock lacks sufficient technique" implies a shared
> understanding of P's aims -- or at least a shared understanding of
> aims to which P ought to aspire.
>
> Like many critics and viewers at the retrospective, I was quite
> dazzled by the technique -- that is, by the sheer variety of paint
> handling, the ability to define sharply a space or form from whatever
> means he chose, the ability one month to make a limited palette as
> rich as when the High Renaissance largely abjured the acid color
> effects that would return with Mannerism, the next month to make black
> a tool of painting, like a color, rather than a tool of drawing, the
> next month to make the sheen and texture and housepaint associaitions
> of enamel a noticeable part of the color, and then the next month to
> introduce colors seeping out of every pore of the work.
>
> But that doesn't just mean we saw something you didn't. I've even
> argued that reviews of the show avoided something magical and crucial
> in Pollock by talking about technique. There's still the question of
> what it's all about.
>
> The early critics, such as Greenberg, and the painters themselves were
> fascinated by technique, too. There's a famous quote from Barnett
> Newman: "more blue is bluer than less blue." They asked one to look
> at the old tools of painting and find something new in them, an end
> apart from old goals of repesentation. In effect, they asked one to
> think about what was going on when one paints. This could be done
> with the more limited technique of Newman, in fact, or the chucking of
> drawing entirely by Rothko but with a handling of color that's
> awesome; with the treatment of paint as a stand-in for traditional
> icons in Motherwell's totems; with Albers theoretical color schemes;
> etc. etc. etc.
>
> But I'm sick and tired of hearing about the failures of these artists.
> The art world is on to something. If you don't care or respect it, or
> if it's not relevant to your own art, super. But that's not what I
> hear in these posts. I hear an anger born of wishing the world were
> listening to ME as loudly as it does to Pollock. Sorry, but I can't
> help you on that one. Buit just back off and leave them be. They're
> dead anyhow; the art world also likes Titian more than you.
>
> John
One of your best posts ever!
mark webber
> About Pollock,
>
> I enjoyed the critiques in
>
> "Modern Painters" Spring 1999.
That is one of the better magazines around, now, I think.
What is (pop star) David Bowie's current role? Does he actually own the
magazine? I remember reading his interview with Balthus, and thinking,
"well, nothing new here."
(I was hoping for new information because, as we all know, Balthus is the
greatest painter alive.)
Mark
Marilyn Welch
Your "sick & tired" paragraph sums it up quite nicely
and it brought to mind "Gulliver's Travels" immediately.
regards,
Marilyn
Marilyn
On Balthus: But of course!
I think you are merging two magazines
"Modern Painters" slick brit mag
"Coagula" LA Art Journal (on recycled paper using veg ink, Ha!)
There is a interview with David Bowie in "Coagula."
Wanta a copy?
Marilyn
John Haber
_Gulliver's Travels_?
jh
Marilyn
In the land of Lilliput, they couldn't bear the existence
of giants.
M.
mark webber
(snip)
> > What is (pop star) David Bowie's current role? Does he actually own the
> > magazine? I remember reading his interview with Balthus, and thinking,
> > "well, nothing new here."
> >
> > (I was hoping for new information because, as we all know, Balthus is the
> > greatest painter alive.)
> >
> > Mark
>
>
>
> On Balthus: But of course!
>
> I think you are merging two magazines
> "Modern Painters" slick brit mag
> "Coagula" LA Art Journal (on recycled paper using veg ink, Ha!)
I'm pretty sure Bowie is involved with Modern Painter. I don't have a copy
handy (What an expensive magazine - I know a writer for it who even thinks
so!) but check the masthead - I think he's part owner or something.
Haven't ever looked at Coagula. I think you're aware of my West Coast
prejudice.
>
> There is a interview with David Bowie in "Coagula."
> Wanta a copy?
Thanks very much - I know you'd mail one if I said yes, but I'll have a
look at the library. Kind of you though.
saluts,
Mark
A.A. Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>
>I'm pretty sure Bowie is involved with Modern Painter. I don't have a copy
>handy (What an expensive magazine - I know a writer for it who even thinks
>so!) but check the masthead - I think he's part owner or something.
He's on the editorial board, Mark - nine dollars for a quarterly
magazine expensive ?????
Cheers.
mark webber
> >I'm pretty sure Bowie is involved with Modern Painter. I don't have a copy
> >handy (What an expensive magazine - I know a writer for it who even thinks
> >so!) but check the masthead - I think he's part owner or something.
>
> He's on the editorial board, Mark - nine dollars for a quarterly
> magazine expensive ?????
>
I think it may be twelve here in the colonies - not sure (I wind up
reading friends' copies - sorry if I come cross as stingy. Your right, in
the end it is worth it.)
So, what do you think of Ziggy Stardust directing the currents of
contemporary art?
I think it's evening where you are, but it is a perfectly gorgeous
afternoon here, and a little 1968 two seater (representing the finest in
20th century British design) beckons.
cheerio,
Mark
A.A. Raimes
>I think it may be twelve here in the colonies - not sure (I wind up
>reading friends' copies - sorry if I come cross as stingy. Your right, in
>the end it is worth it.)
The colonies ??? Do you also get Contemporary Visual Arts (monthly);
Third Text; Art Review; and of course, World Art ?
>
>So, what do you think of Ziggy Stardust directing the currents of
>contemporary art?
Didn't he originally graduate in Fine Art ? I will have to go look it up
but I am sure he paints and that he has had an exhibition recently ....
cogs churning here ....
>
>I think it's evening where you are, but it is a perfectly gorgeous
>afternoon here, and a little 1968 two seater (representing the finest in
>20th century British design) beckons.
>
Beautiful evening here .... the police sirens are sheer music and the
blockades a delight .... but the British spirit lives on ! A '68 eh ?
I've got a 1972 GT rotting away in my landlady's drive waiting for a
buyer ... those were the days ... enjoy !
John Haber
this month at Borders and at Barnes and Noble: read art magazines
without buying them!
John
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> (By the way, John, the new title has nothing to do with you - I like your
> writing. It is a co-complaint to something you wrote.)
>
> everyone so enjoys him!
>
>
> (snipping a bit)
>
> > argued that reviews of the show avoided something magical and crucial
> > in Pollock by talking about technique. There's still the question of
> > what it's all about.
>
> articles stressing the sensibility/form aspect to the work, but it's true
> that the majority focus on the the technical which is doubly useless,
> really: Folks like those here in R.A.F. who have never tried looking for
> what Pollock shares with Tintoretto are left with the impression that what
> is most important about the work is the technique.
>
> paint around, Pollock did it really, really well... these folks are
> inevitably asking why the sensibility issue is rarely raised.
>
> And of course the answer is that even some of today's best known critics
> are oblivious. These same critics will be equally shy of feeling what is
> really special about Tintoretto.
>
> >
> > fascinated by technique, too.
>
> good Pollocks and which were weak. He was much more interested in the
> illustrative aspect of Pollock: the flatness.
>
> (I know I've said this before, but you know, every once and awhile we
> return to our primary itches.)
>
> > Newman: "more blue is bluer than less blue." They asked one to look
> > at the old tools of painting and find something new in them, an end
> > apart from old goals of repesentation. In effect, they asked one to
> > think about what was going on when one paints. This could be done
> > with the more limited technique of Newman, in fact, or the chucking of
> > drawing entirely by Rothko but with a handling of color that's
> > awesome; with the treatment of paint as a stand-in for traditional
> > icons in Motherwell's totems; with Albers theoretical color schemes;
> > etc. etc. etc.
>
> to my mind, more important, one can still work with pictorial ideas as
> grand, as monumental, as the representational paintings of the
> Renaissance, without representation.
>
> The trap is set when one thinks of Renaissance painting as *simply*
> representational.
>
> One steps in the trap when one fails to ask "why are Raphael's Madonnas
> more sublime than others?"
>
> One cannot free oneself from this trap by questioning Pollock's skill. On
> the contrary. The release mechanism is seeing the connection.
>
> >
> > The art world is on to something. If you don't care or respect it, or
> > if it's not relevant to your own art, super. But that's not what I
> > hear in these posts. I hear an anger born of wishing the world were
> > listening to ME as loudly as it does to Pollock. Sorry, but I can't
> > help you on that one.
>
>
> > Buit just back off and leave them be. They're
> > dead anyhow; the art world also likes Titian more than you.
> >
> > John
>
>
> Mark
>
I had to go all the way up this thread to find out who coined this title "The
discreet ineptitude..." I just wanted to say, pointlessly, that it sounds
like the title of a new Milan Kundera novel. Very goood.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mark webber
Alright, John - you are now officially responsible for keeping track of
what is worth looking at in the magazines.
Seriously, though, who wrote well this month?
Mark
mark webber
> >I think it may be twelve here in the colonies - not sure (I wind up
> >reading friends' copies - sorry if I come cross as stingy. Your right, in
> >the end it is worth it.)
>
> The colonies ??? Do you also get Contemporary Visual Arts (monthly);
> Third Text; Art Review; and of course, World Art ?
I suppose they are available, but to be truthful I haven't read any of
them. Are they significantly different than ArtForum or Art News? (these
are two examples of what I think of as mainstream art press. An
alternative that I do look at from time to time is New Criterion.)
>
> >
> >So, what do you think of Ziggy Stardust directing the currents of
> >contemporary art?
>
> Didn't he originally graduate in Fine Art ? I will have to go look it up
> but I am sure he paints and that he has had an exhibition recently ....
> cogs churning here ....
Somehow the fact that he spent a couple of decades focused on entertaining
teenagers seems to detract, for me, from his seriousness about painting. I
think he's a very bright, articulate guy, but members of the Beatles, the
Stones, the Talking Heads, and countless other rock bands went to art
school.
In fact, this goes directly to what we were discussing in another thread -
that outsiders and rebels call themselves artists for lack of a more
suitable appellation. The fact that they haven't put the years of inquiry
into it doesn't get in their way.
Now I haven't seen Bowie's paintings, and I'l be happy to eat crow if they
are fine, felt works, but I have seen drawings and paintings by Lennon,
Captain Beefheart, Tony Bennet, Anthony Quinn and various other pop stars.
Their work was available for me to see simply because they were pop stars.
And it wasn't really outstanding work.
> Beautiful evening here .... the police sirens are sheer music and the
> blockades a delight .... but the British spirit lives on !
I'm very sorry to hear about your proximity to the blast. I'm very sorry
to hear about the bombing at all. Terrible news that can't be treated with
enough seriousness in the usenet.
> A '68 eh ?
> I've got a 1972 GT rotting away in my landlady's drive waiting for a
> buyer ... those were the days ... enjoy !
>
> Alison A Raimes
Did you just guess I meant an MG, or do you agree that they are the best
looking cars in the world and I couldn't have meant any other marque?
Best wishes,
Mark
mark webber
>
> I had to go all the way up this thread to find out who coined this title "The
> discreet ineptitude..." I just wanted to say, pointlessly, that it sounds
> like the title of a new Milan Kundera novel. Very goood.
>
> Erik Mattila
Oh thanks, but I think my debt is to Bunuel.
warmly,
Mark
Marilyn
>
> On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Marilyn wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > > What is (pop star) David Bowie's current role? Does he actually own the
> > > magazine? I remember reading his interview with Balthus, and thinking,
> > > "well, nothing new here."
> > >
> > > (I was hoping for new information because, as we all know, Balthus is the
> > > greatest painter alive.)
> > >
> > > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > On Balthus: But of course!
> >
> > I think you are merging two magazines
> > "Modern Painters" slick brit mag
> > "Coagula" LA Art Journal (on recycled paper using veg ink, Ha!)
>
> handy (What an expensive magazine - I know a writer for it who even thinks
> so!) but check the masthead - I think he's part owner or something.
>
> prejudice.
>
> >
> > There is a interview with David Bowie in "Coagula."
> > Wanta a copy?
>
> Thanks very much - I know you'd mail one if I said yes, but I'll have a
> look at the library. Kind of you though.
>
> saluts,
>
> Mark
Mark,
You can read these magazines without buying them.
David Bowie is more than a "pop star" as you put it.
I haven't read the interview in Coagula so I'm not
sure whether he is even a painter. Let's say
cultural icon, for now.
I don't know how you feel about West Coast Art.
Coagua covers NYC as well, even midwestern art,
and sometimes exceeds the boundries of the
great United States of America.
Marilyn
M.
Marilyn
>
> I saw Modern Painters for $9 today, but I have to admit I did my usual
> this month at Borders and at Barnes and Noble: read art magazines
> without buying them!
>
> John
Exactly.
Tried "New Art Examiner?"
M.
Overlord
I agree that the nine bucks seems steep - but since discovering Modern
Painters I've subscribed (They ship it direct from the UK for the same
price). Also I'm dropping my subscriptions to the other art mags because
they can't hold a candle to MP. I'll read THEM in Borders!
Enjoyed your latest posts enormously.
Regards,
The Overlord
mark webber
Hi Marilyn,
>
> Mark,
>
> You can read these magazines without buying them.
> David Bowie is more than a "pop star" as you put it.
Several of my remarks in that last post were intended lightly; you once
pointed out to me, rightly, that I didn't have much humor in my writing.
I'm not a hilarious guy, but I was trying to lighten things a bit for you.
Bowie is(was?) a fine musician and there is much pop music that I find
very beautiful. However, his role in the world of visual arts is still in
question for me, as is that of a retired tennis champion turned gallery
director.
I just don't think these guys should be handed unquestioning respect when
others whose contributions are very great go unnoticed. (I'm thinking of
the late Leland Bell, for example.)
> I haven't read the interview in Coagula so I'm not
> sure whether he is even a painter. Let's say
> cultural icon, for now.
Fair enough. He has made widely influential contributions within the field
of music.
>
> I don't know how you feel about West Coast Art.
That was more kidding. I was born on the west coast, but haven't been back
since. I was thinking mostly of the CalArts positions that BT (whatever
happened to BT!) so eloquently voiced here in R.A.F. some months back, and
how hard I worked at keeping up with him.
But hopefully I don't seriously come across as someone capable of
dismissing the art of a region.
> Coagua covers NYC as well, even midwestern art,
> and sometimes exceeds the boundries of the
> great United States of America.
Again, I want to be among those who smile at the bloated self
importance of New York, the East and the U.S. in general.
with respect,
Mark
Marilyn
Okay Mark,
I won't delete your posts before I read them.
I'm reading that millenium article by Baudrillard.
Borges would ask "Why are you people so obsessed with
the decimal?"
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Of Course, how could I be so dense (slapping forehead)? That gives the idea
much more teeth.
Erik
mark webber
> Okay Mark,
> I won't delete your posts before I read them.
Thanks for your patience!
> I'm reading that millenium article by Baudrillard.
I haven't read it - I'm busy enough with five or sic people here. But
please let us know what you think.
> Borges would ask "Why are you people so obsessed with
> the decimal?"
>
> Marilyn
>
>
Good question. Why does February 28 take so long to come? And by May 1 who
cares about Feb. 28?
John Haber
Actually, can't place it.
John
A.A. Raimes
>them. Are they significantly different than ArtForum or Art News? (these
>are two examples of what I think of as mainstream art press. An
>alternative that I do look at from time to time is New Criterion.)
No different Mark, I think all these magazines are pretty much along the
same avenue though even if they often tend to be regionally biased. I
don't know _New Criterion_, thanks for the reference.
I would highly recommend _Third Text: Third World Perspectives on
Contemporary Art and Culture_ which is a quarterly journal, cost 10
dollars. It has actually ceased to be *just* a Third World perspective
but now includes art from UK and North America, as well as Australia,
New Zealand etc. It is available through Bernard DeBoer Inc, 113 East
Center Street, Nuttley, NJ 07110 and there does seem to be a link though
I haven't checked it out:
http://www.livjm.ac.uk/~mccscubi/3Tintro.html
>Now I haven't seen Bowie's paintings, and I'l be happy to eat crow if they
>are fine, felt works, but I have seen drawings and paintings by Lennon,
>Captain Beefheart, Tony Bennet, Anthony Quinn and various other pop stars.
I can't stand with my hand on my heart about this but I do seem to
remember that he had a show and that, if my memory serves me, they were
ok ! Let me do my famous research on this one.
>I'm very sorry to hear about your proximity to the blast. I'm very sorry
>to hear about the bombing at all. Terrible news that can't be treated with
>enough seriousness in the usenet.
*News* today is full of tragedy and pointless deaths. Bombings follow
me, so maybe there is message there ? I was two hundred yards away from
the Manchester bomb - safely encased in British Gas explosion proof
offices I am glad to say. The recent nail bombings are particularly
nasty because they illustrate, alongside the Stephen Lawrence murder,
that Britain has some serious racial problems, just when it seemed we
were making headway. The tension in London is very unpleasant and
knowing that we are more than likely about to suffer an onslaught of
racially motivated attacks is more than alarming. The tragic shooting,
yesterday, of Jill Dando is also going to cause some serious tension,
especially if it is related to the work she does for crime protection or
for the Kosovan refugee crisis. Along with the recent news in the USA
one wonders where our societies are heading and what sort of monsters we
are breeding.
Look after that MG - beautiful objects are becoming extinct ...
apparently ... on that note, off I go to make my contribution to the
failure of that prospect.
Cheers !
John Haber
>what is worth looking at in the magazines.
lol. Maybe I should. I'm limping too much to get to a museum or
gallery.
john
mark webber
> No different Mark, I think all these magazines are pretty much along the
> same avenue though even if they often tend to be regionally biased. I
> don't know _New Criterion_, thanks for the reference.
Yes, I think that's the one I'm thinking of. Jed Perl writes for it
sometimes - he also writes for Modern Painter. I like his stuff. He sounds
like a painter when he writes.
>
> I would highly recommend _Third Text: Third World Perspectives on
> Contemporary Art and Culture_ which is a quarterly journal, cost 10
> dollars. It has actually ceased to be *just* a Third World perspective
> but now includes art from UK and North America, as well as Australia,
> New Zealand etc. It is available through Bernard DeBoer Inc, 113 East
> Center Street, Nuttley, NJ 07110 and there does seem to be a link though
> I haven't checked it out:
>
> http://www.livjm.ac.uk/~mccscubi/3Tintro.html
Thanks, I will have a look.
>
> >Now I haven't seen Bowie's paintings, and I'l be happy to eat crow if they
> >are fine, felt works, but I have seen drawings and paintings by Lennon,
> >Captain Beefheart, Tony Bennet, Anthony Quinn and various other pop stars.
>
> I can't stand with my hand on my heart about this but I do seem to
> remember that he had a show and that, if my memory serves me, they were
> ok ! Let me do my famous research on this one.
Looking forward to more on this.
(snip)
> ...Along with the recent news in the USA
> one wonders where our societies are heading and what sort of monsters we
> are breeding.
Again, I won't even try to offer anything valuable on this very sad topic
because it is too serious for what I see as a very light forum. Very
tragic and incomprehensible.
>
> Look after that MG - beautiful objects are becoming extinct ...
> apparently ... on that note, off I go to make my contribution to the
> failure of that prospect.
I'm taking her on her maiden rally this Saturday. I'm very excited, like a
little boy.
regards,
Mark
Ariane
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Marilyn wrote:
=== !!!!!
A.
mdeli
Webber wrote
>However, I still think there is a more important element to P.'s work than
>the controversy, and it is, in fact, tied to the issue of quality. Seeing
>Pollock as a painter who "just dripped paint" is akin to seeing Tintoretto
>as a painter who "just rendered figures" - a rather limiting point of
>view, which completely misses the dynamic, powerfully rhythmic compositions
>both artists left behind.
Tintoretto among other things, did just "render figures." He did it
with skill, ideas and superior technique. If his work turned out to be
by another artist it would not diminish its aesthetic value.
Pollock "just dripped paint." If a Pollock turned out to be by
another artist it would be worthless. It wouldn't even interest the
fashionable Weber.
Now I believe that if a painting by Webber were signed Pollock it
would also be fairly worthless.
Webber can draw somewhat better than Pollock and his work is
conventional no-skill-realism. He doesn't realize that Pollock's
drawing and technique is so bad that it conforms to the put-on quality
necessary for successful Modern Academic Art. Webber without really
knowing it, is somewhat intrigued by the technical aspects of
Tintoretto. Little does Webber realize that his Furniture Store
Realism won't get him beyond teaching the next generation of verbose
Know-nothings and that this is no way to impress any Artzy Fartzy who
wields any power.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>However, I still think there is a more important element to P.'s work than
>the controversy, and it is, in fact, tied to the issue of quality. Seeing
>Pollock as a painter who "just dripped paint" is akin to seeing Tintoretto
>as a painter who "just rendered figures" - a rather limiting point of
>view, which completely misses the dynamic, powerfully rhythmic compositions
>both artists left behind.
Tintoretto did among other things, just "render figures." He did it
with skill, ideas and superior technique. If his work turned out to be
by another artist it would not diminish its aesthetic value.
Pollock "just dripped paint." If a Pollock turned out to be by
another artist it would be worthless. It wouldn't even interest the
fashionable Weber.
Now I believe that if a painting by Webber were signed Pollock it
would also be fairly worthless.
Webber can draw somewhat better than Pollock and his work is
conventional no-skill-realism. He doesn't realize that Pollock's
drawing and technique is so bad that it conforms to the put-on quality
necessary for successful Modern Academic Art. Webber without really
knowing it, is somewhat intrigued by the technical aspects of
Tintoretto. Little does Webber realize that Furniture Store Realism
won't get him beyond teaching the next generation of verbose
Know-nothings and that this is no way to impress any Artzy Fartzy who
wields any power.
> I, and many other people
>are quite taken by pre-poured paintings like "Pasiphae", "The She-Wolf",
>"Totem" as well as some of the automatic drawings (related to
>Picasso's "Guernica".)
Look at Webber's paintings and you will see why he is "taken," with
Pollock etc.
>Nor is it a "fact" that Pollock had a "lack of technical resource." I
>understand that many people will assume that because he wasn't interested
>in rendering he was unable to render
Interested or not, he couldn't draw.
>- but that is the sort of argument I
>don't take the effort to involve myself in anymore.
Because you can't.
>While I don't rush to see the poured work anymore, while I would rather
>look at work by other artists, I still feel Pollock achieved some
>really wonderful paintings at times, and I believe a big part of it was
>because he had enormous ability to control the flow of the paint and make
>it a demonstration of his sensibilty.
What "sensibility? (Weber's favorite Artspeak word)
Marilyn
It's available in your country.
M.
John Haber
John
Over...@orion.com
> Oops, found it. Read Donald Kuspit's article and a couple of others.
>
> John
Donald Kuspit - the Antichrist! Last thing I read of his was a short
article that claimed that Duchamp created his work solely to dupe the
wealthy but gullible Hirshorns into buying it. He also called Marie
Laurencin (sp) a *psychopath*, etc.
I attended a seminar at Tufts University in Boston last year on modern art;
Kuspit was there, along with Frank Stella, Kenny Sharf, and others. When
confronted with artists face-to-face, Kuspit (a dignified-looking gent) was
reduced to snarling *fuck off! fuck off!* after a few rounds of questions.
His danger and power lie in the fact that he is an incredibly good writer -
it's just that the content is twisted. Mani Deli without the lobotomy, you
might say.
How'd I get into writing about Kuspit? Oh, well.
Cheers,
The Overlord
myfan...@my-dejanews.com
wy...@aol.com (Wynn Kramarsky) wrote:
> One of your best posts ever!
One of your worst, I swear with my browser it strets and
frets to download this stuff, maybe even logging off , but
definitely spending time I could use elsewhere...
One of my pet peaves on newsgroups has become including a repost
with a completely unconstructive nonresponse. John who you are'
responding to does the other where He responds to a post without
including the post or the name of the author, ...simply you must
know from threading or none at all...
Bryn (stalking phil) Ayers
mark webber
> Oops, found it. Read Donald Kuspit's article and a couple of others.
>
>
> John
>
>
Hi John - you found what? You know, very frequently it is hard to know who
you are talking to. Maybe you could leave part of the post you are
replying to so we can follow you. And I think a lot of us want to follow
your thoughts. I don't mean to be rude, just trying to help.
Mark
John Haber
boring. :)
John
Bryn_Ayers
> Webber wrote
> >However, I still think there is a more important element to P.'s work than
> >the controversy, and it is, in fact, tied to the issue of quality. Seeing
> >Pollock as a painter who "just dripped paint" is akin to seeing Tintoretto
> >as a painter who "just rendered figures"
Pollack(ock) did not just drip paint, he was part of a an art movement
involving surrealists who were really bad realists. Since (less
interesting than oriental rug) Abstraction had moved to the canvas
they started to DADA' and automaticism this. If you look at Pollacks
early drawings they closely resemble the drawings and drips of Dali,
and to a lesser degree Picasso, and moreso the line work of Miro. His
drawings and sur (failed surRealism) paintings where his best work. Fame
and the monotonous mess of creating visualy psuedo granit Wallpaper for
pretentious modern Academic art museums, ruined whatever pollack had.
As a later abstract artist Pollacks compositions were purely monotonous.
His art failed to reach the depths of Motherwell(who admittedly had no
real for his sur) or even Rothko(in his genre).
*However* Pollack(ock) fits the sentimental bourgoise portrait of a
dripper to a T. On appearance a rowdy, fake genius, and a cowboy(Bob).
Because of this most art know nothings latch on to him as some sort
of Artist they remember like, Rembrant or Van Gogh, ... Which has
nothing to do with real artistic value.
If Tintoretto had simply mixed his pallet with turpentine and splashed
away with his sense of composition... In my opinion he would have outdone
Pollack Easy- Who's ability as a colorist(late work) seemed to be
limited to black and cheesy housepaints.(thank god housepaints come
in Black)
The intelligencia, who seem to believe that expensive bourgoise
stereotypes are good taste, will not tire of the stereotypic
Pollack soon (if ever).
Pollacks divinity is no more real than the pleasure of a corky bottle
of Dom Perignon 1985... With Canned caviar from that year!
So far Pollack stands as another one of Modernisms sub-geniuses who
are at least, they hope, not Bougereau!
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Glenn Geist
>So far Pollack stands as another one of Modernisms sub-geniuses who
>are at least, they hope, not Bougereau!
>
>
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
>Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
>////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
Such self-confidence - truly of Ozymandian proportions. For what
it's worth, it seems "senseless man" now has the ability to make, if
not a worm, at least a bacterium from labarotory chemicals. The one
thing that holds him back it the vain moral certainty of the
conservatives. They don't like it, so it shouldn't be done. Hilarious
that you close these proclamations with such mockery of human vanity!
Well at least you're not arguing it's all a symptom of moral decay -
just the supremacy of your taste. For what it's worth, I think
Michaelangelo was a millieu - the product of promoters, of bourgeois
taste and aristocratic sentiment and not an artist if your line of
reasoning holds true - which it doesn't. All you are saying is that
you don't like Pollock. I used to laugh at Pollock - now I like him.
Shall I tell you *my opinion is more valid? Perhaps because I'm
working class or of the aristocracy (take your pick)
I look upon your words and despair
Glenn
Andrew Stewart
<webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>What is (pop star) David Bowie's current role? Does he actually own the
>magazine?
No, but he's on the editorial board.
He is one of the owners of the art publisher, 21, though, along with
several of the other principals.
(np: Best Of Bowie 69/74)
____________________________
Free money! $20 a month for doing what you're doing right now - check out http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=BMX577
To join 1300 fans receiving a free monthly BOWIE newsletter, send a message
to bowie...@hotmail.com with the subject "Subscribe"
For copies of back issues, check out http://www.angelfire.com/al/bowienews/
Andrew Stewart
<webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
>> Didn't he originally graduate in Fine Art ? I will have to go look it up
>> but I am sure he paints and that he has had an exhibition recently ....
>> cogs churning here ....
>
>Somehow the fact that he spent a couple of decades focused on entertaining
>teenagers seems to detract, for me, from his seriousness about painting. I
>think he's a very bright, articulate guy, but members of the Beatles, the
>Stones, the Talking Heads, and countless other rock bands went to art
>school.
>
>In fact, this goes directly to what we were discussing in another thread -
>that outsiders and rebels call themselves artists for lack of a more
>suitable appellation. The fact that they haven't put the years of inquiry
>into it doesn't get in their way.
>
>Now I haven't seen Bowie's paintings, and I'l be happy to eat crow if they
>are fine, felt works, but I have seen drawings and paintings by Lennon,
>Captain Beefheart, Tony Bennet, Anthony Quinn and various other pop stars.
>
>Their work was available for me to see simply because they were pop stars.
>And it wasn't really outstanding work.
I see your point. IMO, Bowie's work is well above the level of the
other "pop stars dabbling in painting" you mentioned, but I wouldn't
go so far as to call him a major talent. It's a bit like his acting -
he does it as well as most actors, and better than other rock stars,
but if it was the only thing he was good at, we wouldn't even be
discussing him.
The most striking things about Bowie's art is how all over the place
it is both stylistically and in terms of quality. His best work (like
"Child In Berlin") is excellent and deserves the high prices art
museums and collectors like Saatchi have paid for it, but he's done
some awful work too.
(np: David Bowie - The Buddha Of Suburbia)
Andrew Stewart
<webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>So, what do you think of Ziggy Stardust directing the currents of
>contemporary art?
Bowie's always been very interested in art. He was an art school kid,
and a painter before he was a singer. He once said that if he'd been a
better painter, he'd never have gone into music.
He's been a big collector since he started making srious money from
his music career. In recent years, he's been devoting more and more
time to his art interests. You can see some of his art at
http://www.bowieart.com/
(np: David Bowie - Earthling)
Andrew Stewart
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>>So, what do you think of Ziggy Stardust directing the currents of
>>contemporary art?
>
>Didn't he originally graduate in Fine Art ? I will have to go look it up
>but I am sure he paints and that he has had an exhibition recently ....
>cogs churning here ....
Yeah, he had one in Italy recently, and one in Switzerland shortly
before that. He's had over 2 dozen of them so far.
Marilyn Welch
about those who confidently speak the Truth
Oh confident man!
David Suzuki, Canadian environmentalist tells us
that if we humans vanished from the planet, the
earth would continue, but if ants were wiped out,
the planet would be doomed.
Oh confident man, who has found the truth and possesses
it so tightly, are you greater than an ant?
Marilyn
We have a place called "The Truth Centre" on Fort St.
if anyone is still searching for it.
John Haber
>that if we humans vanished from the planet, the
>earth would continue, but if ants were wiped out,
>the planet would be doomed. Oh confident man,
>who has found the truth and possesses it so tightly,
>are you greater than an ant?
Sometime I'll have to tell you how I got fired from editing Suzuki's
best-selling textbook. So see, there really are people with better
ideas than mine.
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
Glenn Geist
>To Glen,
>about those who confidently speak the Truth
>
>Oh confident man!
>
>David Suzuki, Canadian environmentalist tells us
>that if we humans vanished from the planet, the
>earth would continue, but if ants were wiped out,
>the planet would be doomed.
>Oh confident man, who has found the truth and possesses
>it so tightly, are you greater than an ant?
>
>Marilyn
>
>We have a place called "The Truth Centre" on Fort St.
>if anyone is still searching for it.
>
>
All life could vanish and the earth go on, but I'll put my money on
the ants for durability. I just wish they'd leave my lawn alone.
Truth center? Does the truth come with a guarantee? Drive train only
or bumper to bumper?
Glenn
zi...@interport.net
another overrated bourgeouis wordsmith.
Who rates him, I don't. His words show confidence where thereshould
be none. If you can compare Michelangelo and Pollock and find
Michelangelo wanting, that is a measure of your abilities and
failings, not of Michelangelo's. It also shows howprovincial you are
to the past. Being provincal is something which happens not only in
space, but also in time.
When I was 32, I agreed with Annibale' Carracci's criticism of the
Sistine chapel, and preferred his answer to it in the Farnese Palace.
Now, with the cleaned Michelangelo's, closer to what he actually saw,
his opinion seems wrong headed.
Michelangelo produced the singlemost important work of painting and
the most important works of sculpture of an entire period. He also
designed and produced the most influential works of architecture and
city planning. His Campidoglio buildings and the original plan for St
Peter's. From where I sit, if we can find some one working on that
level in the 20th century, it certainly wasn't Pollock. Of course, I
also despise Pollock as an artifact of his period rather than a
transformer of it. A failed transformer who was a meal ticket for
crickets, now tranmogrified into the votaries of POMO. Probably the
most wrongheaded step during the tailend of modernism.
If you truly feel so comfortable with your society and its culture of
war, trickle down economics and art to satisfy the nouveau riche, then
love one of its two most unquestionable icons to pieces. And tear
down everything which came before. After all aren't you guys supposed
to be reveling in the death of art? Two of your number with the big
chairs at Harvard and Columbia believe that is what is going on.
Pollock is part of that death.
Gabriel
On Sat, 01 May 1999 18:33:41 GMT, grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist)
\\
May Pohl
says...
>All life could vanish and the earth go on, but I'll put my money on
>the ants for durability. I just wish they'd leave my lawn alone.
I always thought that it was the cockroaches that
were the most durable survivors. Whatever...
I haven't seen either ants or cockroaches capable of
stretching canvas yet.
Marilyn
>
> >David Suzuki, Canadian environmentalist tells us
> >that if we humans vanished from the planet, the
> >earth would continue, but if ants were wiped out,
> >the planet would be doomed. Oh confident man,
> >who has found the truth and possesses it so tightly,
> >are you greater than an ant?
>
> best-selling textbook. So see, there really are people with better
> ideas than mine.
>
> John (jha...@haberarts.com)
Well the ant story was scripted for him on "The Nature of Things"
CBC. You might find it on their web site, cbc.toronto.ca
or something like that.
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
> wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
>
> >To Glen,
> >about those who confidently speak the Truth
> >
> >Oh confident man!
> >
> >that if we humans vanished from the planet, the
> >earth would continue, but if ants were wiped out,
> >the planet would be doomed.
> >Oh confident man, who has found the truth and possesses
> >it so tightly, are you greater than an ant?
> >
> >
> >We have a place called "The Truth Centre" on Fort St.
> >if anyone is still searching for it.
> >
> >
>
> the ants for durability. I just wish they'd leave my lawn alone.
>
> or bumper to bumper?
>
> Glenn
Probably does have a guarantee once you sign away your free will.
I've never been inside the place but just knowing that it exists
so close by is so reassuring. In the meantime, I doggedly keep on
my individual search, silly me.
Marilyn
Marilyn
> >the ants for durability. I just wish they'd leave my lawn alone.
>
> were the most durable survivors. Whatever...
> I haven't seen either ants or cockroaches capable of
> stretching canvas yet.
No, why would they want to? But I'll tell you cockroaches
love linseed oil, so watch out. Sherwin Williams had
millions of them invade their linseed storage room.
M.
Kay Kane
collections of art and respect most of his choices. His art is just as
*kitsch* as Tony Curtis, et. al. though I wouldn't condemn all art school
grads who went into another creative medium (didn't Alfred Hitchcock
graduate with a fine arts degree?) Bowie (my opinion only) has good
sensibilities that may develop into powerful works if he devotes a great
deal of time (years) into it. At least he won't have to worry about money
for art supplies...
--
Kay
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
Andrew Stewart wrote in message <372b577b...@news.iol.ie>...
>On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 12:50:39 EDT, mark webber
><webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>>So, what do you think of Ziggy Stardust directing the currents of
>>contemporary art?
>
>Bowie's always been very interested in art. He was an art school kid,
>and a painter before he was a singer. He once said that if he'd been a
>better painter, he'd never have gone into music.
>
>He's been a big collector since he started making srious money from
>his music career. In recent years, he's been devoting more and more
>time to his art interests. You can see some of his art at
>http://www.bowieart.com/
>
emat...@tomatoweb.com
The cucarachas down here are big enough to stretch canvas. I just tripped
over one a little while ago. They attack, too. Oh, they're euphemistically
called 'palmetto bugs' but that don't fool me.
Erik
John Haber
You may wish to quote more or otherwise indicate to whom you're
referring there. Same criticism that's been, properly, leveled at me.
>If you can compare Michelangelo and Pollock and find
>Michelangelo wanting, that is a measure of your abilities and
>failings, not of Michelangelo's.
If you can read me as asserting that, then you don't take other
people's words seriously, at least when they involve irony, reference
to historical context, or judgments differing from yours.
In effect, I'm saying that's crucial: you shouldn't be so arrogantly
judgmental about critics and artists until you're prepared to take
what both do seriously enough to see what they have in mind. It may
turn out not to have the least to do with your own "standards." Or it
may very closely involve your own ideals, only developing in ways you
haven't felt worth exploring.
Either way, the interaction between seeing and judging is something
one can't undertake until one's willing to put oneself at risk --
one's emotions, judgments, and even the bedrock of perception. And if
there's one answer to the question of how come modern arts so damn
good, that's it.
Anyhow, tata. You've exhausted my patience, clearly indicating you
don't care for other people's views, so don't expect a continued
argument from me. Pontificate to whomever else you like. It's a free
news group.
John
mark webber
>
> I see your point. IMO, Bowie's work is well above the level of the
> other "pop stars dabbling in painting" you mentioned, but I wouldn't
> go so far as to call him a major talent. It's a bit like his acting -
> he does it as well as most actors, and better than other rock stars,
> but if it was the only thing he was good at, we wouldn't even be
> discussing him.
I don't object at all to Bowie making paintings; I think that's just
wonderful. My only concern is that his fame and cash have given him access
that he may not merit.
>
> The most striking things about Bowie's art is how all over the place
> it is both stylistically and in terms of quality. His best work (like
> "Child In Berlin") is excellent and deserves the high prices art
> museums and collectors like Saatchi have paid for it, but he's done
> some awful work too.
>
> (np: David Bowie - The Buddha Of Suburbia)
I'm afraid to ask what his prices are like. You don't feel they may be a
bit inflated?
Mark
mark webber
(snip)
>
> Michelangelo produced the singlemost important work of painting and
> the most important works of sculpture of an entire period. He also
> designed and produced the most influential works of architecture and
> city planning. His Campidoglio buildings and the original plan for St
> Peter's. From where I sit, if we can find some one working on that
> level in the 20th century, it certainly wasn't Pollock.
Of course this is hard to argue with. I don't see anyone - not just in the
20th century, but since Michelangelo - equal to this achievement.
> Of course, I
> also despise Pollock as an artifact of his period rather than a
> transformer of it. A failed transformer who was a meal ticket for
> crickets, now tranmogrified into the votaries of POMO. Probably the
> most wrongheaded step during the tailend of modernism.
This sentiment I still respectfully disagree with - in part.
>
> If you truly feel so comfortable with your society and its culture of
> war, trickle down economics and art to satisfy the nouveau riche, then
> love one of its two most unquestionable icons to pieces. And tear
> down everything which came before. After all aren't you guys supposed
> to be reveling in the death of art? Two of your number with the big
> chairs at Harvard and Columbia believe that is what is going on.
>
> Pollock is part of that death.
>
> Gabriel
Again, the idea that Pollock's contribution means different things to
different people is significant enough to repeat here, I think.
For me, Pollock is not as important as some of his contemporaries; he
isn't the the most significant contributor to AE; he isn't a painter I
rush to see.
Like you, I prefer Balthus. But comparing them seems rather odd to me, and
I can't deny there is a presense in some of the best Pollocks that I find
powerfully rhythmic.
For me, Pollock is not part of a death that I don't believe is occurring.
But the need to use Pollock as a departure point, the need to see him as a
radical - these types of needs are part of what has fed the lazy,
commerce-oriented aspect of art that you and I have little interest and
less respect for.
(I hope I understand your view correctly)
Mark
May Flowers
>>But I'll tell you cockroaches
>> love linseed oil, so watch out. Sherwin Williams had
>> millions of them invade their linseed storage room.
>>
>> M.
>
>The cucarachas down here are big enough to stretch canvas. I just tripped
>over one a little while ago. They attack, too. Oh, they're euphemistically
>called 'palmetto bugs' but that don't fool me.
The reason they are such survivors is because they
have such undiscriminating palates (not palettes)
as I understand it. Those Florida-grown ones can
fly around the world without refueling, I've heard.
Must be the palm wine!
Glenn Geist
>In article <372b7f55...@news.earthlink.net>, grg...@earthlink.net
>says...
>
>>All life could vanish and the earth go on, but I'll put my money on
>>the ants for durability. I just wish they'd leave my lawn alone.
>
>I always thought that it was the cockroaches that
>were the most durable survivors. Whatever...
>I haven't seen either ants or cockroaches capable of
>stretching canvas yet.
>
Surely there are more important things ( to us anyway) than mere
durability. <s> I prefer to be human, or as close to human as I can
get. (for are we not men?)
As George Orwell would have said if he were me:
Two legs good,
Four legs bad,
Six legs, disgusting.
Dr. Moreau
Glenn Geist
>The cucarachas down here are big enough to stretch canvas. I just tripped
>over one a little while ago. They attack, too. Oh, they're euphemistically
>called 'palmetto bugs' but that don't fool me.
>
>Erik
I've seen those things - you can round 'em up, drive them to Omaha,
snip off two legs and pass them off as Longhorns.
Glenn Geist
>
>If you truly feel so comfortable with your society and its culture of
>war, trickle down economics and art to satisfy the nouveau riche, then
>love one of its two most unquestionable icons to pieces. And tear
>down everything which came before. After all aren't you guys supposed
>to be reveling in the death of art? Two of your number with the big
>chairs at Harvard and Columbia believe that is what is going on.
>
>Pollock is part of that death.
>
>Gabriel
>
You guys? I think you've revealed your hand here. Is it that you
have only several boxes to put ideas into and you're going to stuff me
into one as soon as possible so you won't have to listen to me? Don't
be so quick - it only reveals your pet angers and you don't know
anything about who I am.
I revere Michaelangelo, but, as you well know, his era was one of
war, extreme trickle down economics and he damn well produced art for
the Nouveau riche. He was more a prisoner of his millieu and had
fewer creative choices than Pollock. That was my point and you're
missing it.
I was refuting your "reasons" for portraying Pollock as a fraud. If
those reasons condemn him, they condemn nearly every artist, Jeff the
Cro-Magnon to Jeff Koons. Art didn't die in the cinquicento or stop
reflecting the values of the people who support the arts. Art didn't
die in the 20th century.
Instead of bitching about the fall from grace, you could buy some art,
like I do. It's a time honored way of supporting the arts and
displaying the kind of taste you prefer.
Death of art my ass, and Harvard wouldn't let me in the door.
(although I once went to a party at Columbia). Don't flatter me like
that! You're the one preaching the Death of Art, - you just said it -
and it's you who should stop confusing change with death. Pollock is
dead, the type of art he produced isn't done any more, the shows and
galleries are filling up with representational and 'realistic' art.
Art is always, always, always changing, conservatives are always
miserable because of it, and if there's a difference between
conservatism and egoism, it's arbitrarily small.
Take the long view. Ars longa, vita brevis.
Glenn Geist
>Probably does have a guarantee once you sign away your free will.
Oh - *THAT* kind of Truth!
>I've never been inside the place but just knowing that it exists
>so close by is so reassuring. In the meantime, I doggedly keep on
>my individual search, silly me.
It's safer that way I've heard that truth seekers check in but they
don't check out.
>Marilyn
Andrew Stewart
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>Bowie was a success in his musical aspirations. I have read about his
>collections of art and respect most of his choices. His art is just as
>*kitsch* as Tony Curtis, et. al. though I wouldn't condemn all art school
>grads who went into another creative medium (didn't Alfred Hitchcock
>graduate with a fine arts degree?) Bowie (my opinion only) has good
>sensibilities that may develop into powerful works if he devotes a great
>deal of time (years) into it.
Interesting point. It may also be pertinent that no other major talent
in the area of rock n roll/pop music ever had as long and difficult a
gestation period as Bowie. Most other comparable talents developed
much more quickly (or in some cases were innate), whereas the first 6
years of Bowie's recorded output are pretty dreadful, of interest only
to confirmed fans, and even confirmed fans don't make any claims that
it even hints at greatness. Yet Bowie persevered and was eventually
writing hit records, and later still, records than not only inspired
generations of pop musicians, but also inspired classical composer
Philip Glass to base symphonies on Bowie's work.
However, speaking selfishly as a fan of Bowie's music, I'd have to say
I wish he'd just stick to music.
(np: David Bowie - The Rise And Fall Of Ziggy Stardust And The
Spiders From Mars)
emat...@tomatoweb.com
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> To Glen,
> about those who confidently speak the Truth
>
> Oh confident man!
>
> David Suzuki, Canadian environmentalist tells us
> that if we humans vanished from the planet, the
> earth would continue, but if ants were wiped out,
> the planet would be doomed.
The "environmentalists" have been saying a lot of things
for a number of years. Many of which were subsequently
proved false.
A wonderful recent example is the recent multi-legged/deformed
frog being a sign being the "canary in the coal-mine". Turned
out that the problem was caused by a several million year old
critter infecting the frog.
Not to be deterred by reality, the "environmentalists" then
claimed that man-made environmental toxins had permitted the
critter to infect the frog. Wouldn't want to lose a good poster
child, would we?
Methinks the "environmentalists" credibility might do with a
bit of polish.
(...)_
Andrew Stewart
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 May 1999, Andrew Stewart wrote:
>I'm afraid to ask what his prices are like.
They go from a few thousand up to 6 figures.
>You don't feel they may be a
>bit inflated?
Oh I do, I do. Even a print of his stuff will set you back a few
hundred.
Then again, I think most art is over-inflated these days. Bring back
time and materials, I say ;-)
(np: Best Of Bowie 69/74)
Bryn_Ayers
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> Bryn_Ayers <br...@wralaw.com> wrote:
> >So far Pollack stands as another one of Modernisms sub-geniuses who
> >are at least, they hope, not Bougereau!
> >////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
> >Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
> >////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Such self-confidence - truly of Ozymandian proportions. For what
> it's worth, it seems "senseless man" now has the ability to make, if
> not a worm, at least a bacterium from labarotory chemicals.
One reason I selected this quote, it's age, and another is that it shows
the truly ad-hoc, and quotable nature of Montaigne; I imagine that
collectively we will be able to make a technological worm someday...
But the real point is that collectively or individually we tend to
say a lot about the totality but cannot even form the details of
things considered beneath us...
The quote might as well say for artists 'senseless painter who cannot
even paint a worm but paints gods and Mandras by the dozen'...
> The one
> thing that holds him back it the vain moral certainty of the
> conservatives. They don't like it, so it shouldn't be done. Hilarious
> that you close these proclamations with such mockery of human vanity!
> Well at least you're not arguing it's all a symptom of moral decay -
> just the supremacy of your taste. For what it's worth, I think
> Michaelangelo was a millieu - the product of promoters, of bourgeois
> taste and aristocratic sentiment and not an artist if your line of
> reasoning holds true -
I never stated that any of the 'bourgoise' fantasies are not artists...
My comments are directed at acedemia(intelligencia)- who's prejudicial
judgements have impeached themselves...
This is more Neitzchian contradiction than a statement of my opinions.
Acedemia is only anti-bourgoise in name... Ask why do you not like
artist X' (like say Bougereau<the inventor of Picasso>?).
The hope is that accurately sub-genius artists are not Beaugereau...
Or at least if they intend to they cant -Cezanne Matisse-;
> which it doesn't. All you are saying is that
> you don't like Pollock. I used to laugh at Pollock - now I like him.
Then you do understand where 'his' critics are comming from.
> Shall I tell you *my opinion is more valid? Perhaps because I'm
> working class or of the aristocracy (take your pick)
I think this comment shows that you know social class is not a final
justification.
> I look upon your words and despair
> Glenn
-- And I'm also lazy about changing my quotes -- since I have to log
on to some system thing to do it...
Ciao Raby
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
mdeli
wrote:
>In effect, I'm saying that's crucial: you shouldn't be so arrogantly
>judgmental about critics and artists until you're prepared to take
>what both do seriously enough to see what they have in mind.
.and what did Pollock "have in mind?"
>It may
>turn out not to have the least to do with your own "standards." Or it
>may very closely involve your own ideals, only developing in ways you
>haven't felt worth exploring.
>
We presume you HAVE explored it so tell us.
Looking forward to your usual convolutions.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>For me, Pollock is not part of a death that I don't believe is occurring.
>But the need to use Pollock as a departure point, the need to see him as a
>radical - these types of needs are part of what has fed the lazy,
>commerce-oriented aspect of art that you and I have little interest and
>less respect for.
>
SO why do you exhibit and try to sell "the lazy,
commerce-oriented aspect of your art?"
Your idea of commerce is art school fantasy.
mdeli
>
>I don't object at all to Bowie making paintings; I think that's just
>wonderful. My only concern is that his fame and cash have given him access
>that he may not merit.
>
money than you do because he is better connected.
mdeli
snip
> A technique is, pretty much by definition, a means to an
>end. "Pollock lacks sufficient technique" implies a shared
>understanding of P's aims -- or at least a shared understanding of
>aims to which P ought to aspire.
Right Haber, Pollock aspires to Shitty technique
>Like many critics and viewers at the retrospective, I was quite
>dazzled by the technique -- that is, by the sheer variety of paint
>handling,
Doesn't take much for Haber to get an orgasm.
> the ability to define sharply a space or form from whatever
>means he chose, the ability one month to make a limited palette as
>rich as when the High Renaissance largely abjured the acid color
>effects that would return with Mannerism, the next month to make black
>a tool of painting, like a color, rather than a tool of drawing, the
>next month to make the sheen and texture and housepaint associaitions
>of enamel a noticeable part of the color, and then the next month to
>introduce colors seeping out of every pore of the work.
Boy that requires real skill.
>
>But that doesn't just mean we saw something you didn't. I've even
>argued that reviews of the show avoided something magical and crucial
>in Pollock by talking about technique. There's still the question of
>what it's all about.
Lets face it Haber, there ain't no technique in Pollock. Its all about
a big put-on.
>The early critics, such as Greenberg, and the painters themselves were
>fascinated by technique, too.
Because they had none.
>There's a famous quote from Barnett
>Newman: "more blue is bluer than less blue."
This statment reeks with briliance. Haber please do explain its utter
profundity to us bourgeuos philistines here.
> They asked one to look
>at the old tools of painting and find something new in them, an end
>apart from old goals of repesentation. In effect, they asked one to
>think about what was going on when one paints. This could be done
>with the more limited technique of Newman, in fact, or the chucking of
>drawing entirely by Rothko but with a handling of color that's
>awesome; with the treatment of paint as a stand-in for traditional
>icons in Motherwell's totems; with Albers theoretical color schemes;
>etc. etc. etc.
Etc. etc. nice Artspeak!
>But I'm sick and tired of hearing about the failures of these artists.
>The art world is on to something.
The best thing for this sickness is a very large suppository in the
shape of a Moor sculpture and an alka-seltza at the museum cafateria.
Can't help you on the tiredness.
> If you don't care or respect it, or
>if it's not relevant to your own art, super. But that's not what I
>hear in these posts. I hear an anger born of wishing the world were
>listening to ME as loudly as it does to Pollock.
This is because when you hear dissagrement with what you believe its
ANGER in your limited mind.
Glenn Geist
>
>Methinks the "environmentalists" credibility might do with a
>bit of polish.
>
mych crying "wolf" and that goes for the Death of Art too. <s>
Personaly, I'm hoping for global warming in our time. I've got my eye
on some beach property on Lake Winnipeg. . . . .
Glenn Geist
>On Sat, 1 May 1999 zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
>(snip)
>>
>> Michelangelo produced the singlemost important work of painting and
>> the most important works of sculpture of an entire period. He also
>> designed and produced the most influential works of architecture and
>> city planning. His Campidoglio buildings and the original plan for St
>> Peter's. From where I sit, if we can find some one working on that
>> level in the 20th century, it certainly wasn't Pollock.
>
>Of course this is hard to argue with. I don't see anyone - not just in the
>20th century, but since Michelangelo - equal to this achievement.
>
All well stated - isn't it hard to filter out the magnifying effect of
time though? People get larger as they recede into the comfort of the
past. It's hard to separate individual greatness from the
opportunities of their times or the vitality of their times, or
perhaps even the tiny population of their times.
We absolutely cannot see Michaelangelos work with the eyes of a 15th
century conservative. As you know, his critics were many and as
convinced and intransigent as Mani and talked of the death of art.
Perhaps we should all wait a century or two before passing absolute
judgement on this one.
There won't be another Michaelangelo, or Bach or Newton or Washington,
or really anyone, but this can't invalidate the importance of someone
doing something completely different in a comletely different time.
Glenn Geist
>One reason I selected this quote, it's age, and another is that it shows
>the truly ad-hoc, and quotable nature of Montaigne; I imagine that
>collectively we will be able to make a technological worm someday...
>
But will it be art? Would skill play a part in the evaluation? Would
hte same conservative element grumble since it isn't the sort of thing
we used to do years ago in the Golden Age?
>But the real point is that collectively or individually we tend to
>say a lot about the totality but cannot even form the details of
>things considered beneath us...
>
>The quote might as well say for artists 'senseless painter who cannot
>even paint a worm but paints gods and Mandras by the dozen'...
>
I just distrust statements that depend on current technological limits
- they tend to become inoperative in time.
>I never stated that any of the 'bourgoise' fantasies are not artists...
>My comments are directed at acedemia(intelligencia)- who's prejudicial
>judgements have impeached themselves...
>
But just who are these academics? Mani rants about them, but his is a
fundamentally academic argument; "no art without skill" and that means
the skill he has or admires. Arguments about the limits of art also
get foolish around the edges, just as those about the limits of
knowledge or science or technology. You have to keep moving the
fences to keep your universe from expanding.
>This is more Neitzchian contradiction than a statement of my opinions.
>Acedemia is only anti-bourgoise in name... Ask why do you not like
>artist X' (like say Bougereau<the inventor of Picasso>?).
>
>The hope is that accurately sub-genius artists are not Beaugereau...
>Or at least if they intend to they cant -Cezanne Matisse-;
>
My only argument is more Heisenbergian than Nietzschean - the closer
you get to the artist and his time, the less easy it is to place him
anywhere. I'm arguing mostly for forbearance and restraint. For all
we know, thre hundred years from now there will be a Norman Rockwell
wing at the Louvre.
>
>Then you do understand where 'his' critics are comming from.
>
Exactamente - from ignorance and prejudice - When I was a child I saw
as a child, was blind but now I see.
>> Shall I tell you *my opinion is more valid? Perhaps because I'm
>> working class or of the aristocracy (take your pick)
>
>I think this comment shows that you know social class is not a final
>justification.
>
Yes, I agree, It's more often a way of dismissing something you have
no roght to dismiss - and yet it seems to have entered into the
Pollock argument. I don't understand how it pertains - whether or not
his promoters made it a factor.
>-- And I'm also lazy about changing my quotes -- since I have to log
>on to some system thing to do it...
>
Same thing here - I started with Shelly and had to end with Shelly to
keep it symmetrical. <s> I've been thinking about adding a tag line
too - let me try this one out
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Manchmal steh' ich auf mitten in der Nacht
und lass die Uhren alle, alle stehen - Hugo von Hoffmansthal
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Marilyn Welch
Listen up Glen, you better make it to BC before the mud slides
shift our geography to Washington State. Then you know what will
happen once your military/industrial complex gets a hold of it.
Marilyn
Glenn Geist
>
>Right Haber, Pollock aspires to Shitty technique
Just how old are you?
>
>
>Doesn't take much for Haber to get an orgasm.
Women dislike you Hughgod? I wonder why.
>
>
>Boy that requires real skill.
>
Tell us the definition of skill again - and remind us why nobody likes
your art.
>
>Lets face it Haber, there ain't no technique in Pollock. Its all about
>a big put-on.
Face it you're all technique and no content. You are big put-on.
>
>This statment reeks with briliance. Haber please do explain its utter
>profundity to us bourgeuos philistines here.
>
But first tell him how to spell bourgeois - he hasn't got it right yet
- and don't flatter yourself - the Philistines had a culture.
>Etc. etc. nice Artspeak!
>
Better than your grade-school vulgarity. You'll have to do better
than call each refutation Artspeak. Name calling isn't argument.
>The best thing for this sickness is a very large suppository in the
>shape of a Moor sculpture and an alka-seltza at the museum cafateria.
>Can't help you on the tiredness.
>
It's Moore - with an e at the end - but I forgot - people who actually
look at art are artsy and therefore don't know anything about art.
Love is hate,
War is Peace
And you accuse other people of convoluted argument?
>This is because when you hear dissagrement with what you believe its
>ANGER in your limited mind.
>
Forgive us all - we thought you actually meant something by the string
of foul mouthed insults. I should have known you're just trying out
for the Jerry Springer show. Sure, it's everone else with the angry
epithets, not old Mani the Buddha.
So what were *your SAT scores?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
adventavit asinus, pulcher et fortissimus
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ariane
Bourgeoise= female
Bourgeois= male
Another french lesson for Brynnie!
A.
Glenn Geist
>
>Listen up Glen, you better make it to BC before the mud slides
>shift our geography to Washington State. Then you know what will
>happen once your military/industrial complex gets a hold of it.
>
>Marilyn
The mud slides are a plot by militant abstract expressionists in
collaboration with Christo and the Academic Mafia.
Marilyn
Perhaps BC will become a spiral jetty in Puget Sound.
M.
Glenn Geist
>
>Perhaps BC will become a spiral jetty in Puget Sound.
>
And then wrapped by Christo, smeared with butter by Beuys and sold in
New York as pastry by malevolent Academics.
The end is nigh.
Glenn