Picasso's drawing inabilities
picasso89p
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Gordon Matheson
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:38fd157a...@news.psi.ca...
>
> From my book, A Skeptical View of Modern Art:
> Picasso, unable to correct these errors, leaves them as they are. It
> is interesting to see how the states show no improvements and get
> progressively dirtier looking. There is no evidence of advance here,
> just floundering around. To those who would attribute these errors to
> genius rather than a lack of skill one need only point to student
> drawings. Critics rarely compare great work to that of students. But
> if they paid more attention to student's work, they would soon realize
> that either their pet geniuses are not what they are cracked up to be
> or students are highly under-rated.
Maybe ,just maybe, you highly overrate drawing as a critical component of
modern art. Did the art world change and you can't stand it? Bummer.
I think I understand your objection to some lousy 18th century religious
artists who couldn't uphold your strict standards, but if Picasso held
himself to your standard you would have never heard of him. You'd probably
like that. Maybe you may have read of some minor talent who did some blue
painting. Maybe he was drawing left-handed on purpose. Why is it important
to you? Obviously, what Picasso had to offer the world didn't depend on his
classical drawing ability.
I know an artist who spends 6 month on a super realistic drawing. His work
is unbelievable and beautiful (and some are in the Met), but I bet his
brain can't conceive (much less draw) a geometrically incorrect face like
Picasso painted. And that's probably as it should be.
You're entitled to your own opinion of course, but it's so off kilter that
it may even be Picasso-like opinion/criticism. Wouldn't that be ironic? You
might be a "modern critic" who can't reason straight much like Picasso
couldn't draw straight.
On the other hand, when it comes to anti-artspeak I think you are the soul
of reason IMO. I have to consider the possibility I may be wrong about that.
G. - wondering if my idol Hans Hoffman could draw as good as DeKooning and
Rothko
Ken Bradford
to be in error.
Would mdeli like to chat with someone, who is, at least on the
philosophical side of the table in the same neighborhood, or just
continue to purvey his views without any feedback?
<http://bahama-q.com> ...or <bah...@one.net>
mdeli wrote:
> From my book, A Skeptical View of Modern Art:
>
> A good example of Picasso's graphic work is the etching
> "Minotauromachy." (illustrate) Here Picasso combines many of his
> famous subjects: figures, bulls, clunky nudes and even a cubic lump
> in the background that looks like flatened Bauhaus architecture of the
> period. The print exists in many states showing its progress from
> beginning to end.
>
> It is interesting to follow the evolution of this piece as it
> illustrates Picasso's working procedure. The picture starts as the
> tracings of a series of unrelated outline drawings combined to make up
> a scene. The drawing errors look less apparent as the picture is
> linear and looks far neater at this stage than the finished result. On
> the left side are two figures, a girl holding some flowers and a
> candle and farther left is a man on a ladder. The girl is drawn in
> proportion in the early state but as the states progressed, Picasso
> attempted more detail and the girl got dirtier. In the final result
> she is skinnier because Picasso let the outside shading encroach on
> the figure. But her head now seems to have grown too large because it
> has been left at its original size and the shading has gotten very
> dirty. The figure on the ladder was in trouble right from the start
> because Picasso probably drew it directly instead of using a
> reference. One leg is coming out of nothing and bangs into the picture
> border, and the head was misplaced from the beginning. One hand is
> also squashed into the corner.
>
> Picasso, unable to correct these errors, leaves them as they are. It
> is interesting to see how the states show no improvements and get
> progressively dirtier looking. There is no evidence of advance here,
> just floundering around. To those who would attribute these errors to
> genius rather than a lack of skill one need only point to student
> drawings. Critics rarely compare great work to that of students. But
> if they paid more attention to student's work, they would soon realize
> that either their pet geniuses are not what they are cracked up to be
> or students are highly under-rated.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
Gordon Matheson
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message >
WHat I was trying
> to point out is the fact that I believe the subject matter is mostly
> nonsense in no way reduces its value.
Are you referring to your book on Modern Art? You weren't pointing that out
in your post. That would be true though if you are referring to the
present time. There is a lot of nonsense passing for art. All of it can't
be brought and stored in warehouses by museums. Maybe that's a good plan
for a new museum. The London Museum of Nonsense Art. That has a nice ring
to it. There has to be some old warehouses down by the Thames that would be
perfect.
Now if we could just find someone in London who likes the stuff, could be
the museum director and who knows a little about advertising.
G. - would pay to get in.
Henry
research on the subject.
His work from his early teens demonstrates remarkable facility and talent that
bested, then as well as today, many accomplished artists who were/are well into
their adult careers.
I offer in my (and his) defense, the many examples of his work present in:
A Life of Picasso (Vol. 1 & 2) by John Richardson
If you doubt what he was doing later on in his career you are doing so via
ignorance by self determination or a sincere lack of enlightenment to his work
overall.
Picasso is hard for rabid realists to discredit because he demonstrated
FORMIDABLE realists skills during his career.
Picasso dashed western thinking of art on the rocks and along with photography
minimized the importance of realism in art forever.
Later in his career he stated that he was always trying to draw more like a
child.
With his life's work he heightened the importance of view, symbolism, self and
creativity in art and lessened the importance academically achieved technical
skills in the same.
That is not to say that realism is not important in art today, just that the
supreme importance it once held in art is no longer acceptable and it has
ceased to be the standard of artistic excellence that it may have been up to
1900.
History has proved witness to all of this for the past 100 years and will
continue to do so into the future.
"...no skill no art"
Skill is relative to a belief system.
--Henry
Wishing you warm offshore winds, clean waves and ono grinds afterward.
Marilyn Welch
Picasso has been defended here for years, not that he
needs any defense. It was good to read a post with
clarity and references to challenge the
"Picasso couldn't draw" school of thought.
From reading several books on the man, I feel
that he got bored with his own highly skilled
and precocious drawing ability and he had to
break free.
The discussions here wander off from personal
aesthetics to judgment on skill. I think there are
very few artists who make it into art history
books who have NO skill. Not that I believe everything
I read, but I do give credit to 3 generations of
artists/writers/& curators who believed that Picasso
was a genius. Then there is looking at the work itself.
That, on top of looking at the work from my own point
of view.
Marilyn
mdeli
<GO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>mdeli wrote
>> Picasso, unable to correct these errors, leaves them as they are. It
>> is interesting to see how the states show no improvements and get
>> progressively dirtier looking. There is no evidence of advance here,
>> just floundering around. To those who would attribute these errors to
>> genius rather than a lack of skill one need only point to student
>> drawings. Critics rarely compare great work to that of students. But
>> if they paid more attention to student's work, they would soon realize
>> that either their pet geniuses are not what they are cracked up to be
>> or students are highly under-rated.
>
>Maybe ,just maybe, you highly overrate drawing as a critical component of
>modern art.
Perhaps I do, but it doesn't make Picasso's drawing any better.
>Did the art world change and you can't stand it? Bummer.
If artzy fartzies would look at the finest modern artwork which is
kept out of museums they would recognize the change that has taken
place since the demise of Dada in 1923. Art has always changed.
>
> I think I understand your objection to some lousy 18th century religious
>artists who couldn't uphold your strict standards,
WHat objection was that ? I have nothing against religious art.
Religious art is among the finest work of all times. WHat I was trying
to point out is the fact that I believe the subject matter is mostly
nonsense in no way reduces its value.
> Obviously, what Picasso had to offer the world didn't depend on his
>classical drawing ability.
Right, it depends on continuous hyping of a third rate cartoonist
because of economic investment.
Tooloose Lowtec
> himself to your standard you would have never heard of him. You'd probably
> like that. Maybe you may have read of some minor talent who did some blue
> painting.
> Maybe he was drawing left-handed on purpose. Why is it important
> to you? Obviously, what Picasso had to offer the world didn't depend on his
> classical drawing ability.
Picasso gave us a new way to SEE the WORLD, which is hardly a trivial
achievement. And he did it not just once, but several times during a
long & amazingly productive career. So he gives us new ways to see the
world & deli wants to cut him down because he didn't want to do it the
old way. Huh? Does he write his posts with a quill?
>
> I know an artist who spends 6 month on a super realistic drawing. His work
> is unbelievable and beautiful (and some are in the Met), but I bet his
> brain can't conceive (much less draw) a geometrically incorrect face like
> Picasso painted. And that's probably as it should be.
>
> You're entitled to your own opinion of course, but it's so off kilter that
> it may even be Picasso-like opinion/criticism. Wouldn't that be ironic? You
> might be a "modern critic" who can't reason straight much like Picasso
> couldn't draw straight.
That's marvellous.
>
> On the other hand, when it comes to anti-artspeak I think you are the soul
> of reason IMO. I have to consider the possibility I may be wrong about that.
>
> G. - wondering if my idol Hans Hoffman could draw as good as DeKooning and
> Rothko
I'm not familiar with any of Hofmann's drawings but I admire his
paintings and he was *incredibly* influential as a teacher. He really
helped shape the whole NY school generation.
--
Tooloose Lowtec
painting a blue streak
Jaxart
wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
>Picasso has been defended here for years
And as long as Deli keeps regurgitating the same
old bile all the time, the discussion/defense
will continue -- endlessly, no doubt.
>I think there are
>very few artists who make it into art history
>books who have NO skill.
Here again the notion of what constitutes 'skill' becomes
arguable. Pollock never claimed to have any great drawing
skills, and I don't know of a single critic who would
disagree with that assessment. But Pollock made it into the
history books and will be in the history books of future
generations, no doubt. Others have brought up Hans Hoffman's
works in this regard. An analysis of his better-known
works reveals that he was dealing with a lot of other issues
besides drawing skills -- he was the penultimate colorist to
say nothing of his 'gooey' paint textures that must be seen
to be appreciated. No history book reproduction can do them
justice, just as reproductions fall far short of conveying
all of the details in any artist's works.
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
picasso89p
<a
href=http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso/28650005.jpg>Portrait
of Max Jacob</a>
Of course Mani will foolishly state, "But look, it isn't even
finished!"
Seriously though, Picasso possessed the utmost quality in
draftmanship. Unlike Ingres, and all the other great draftmans,
Picasso never used lenses to aid in his drawing. (read Hockney's
writings on the use of lenses throughout art history)
Picasso also possessed a photographic memory, so often times he
would see a person once and be able to draw them exactly, in
years later. He became so at ease in drawing that he often
unconsciously mixed together different people's features in one
portrait.
His line drawings are the most extraordinary. He would begin at
one point and draw the figure, without picking up the pencil
from the paper. His line drawings create depth without using
shading (he would make none of the lines parallel to accomplish
this)
Picasso's most important contribution to art is that he created
a new type of beauty, founded not upon the imitation of reality,
but upon the evocation of reality.
Some of Picasso's ideas are so interesting. Such as, he once
said, if you take a classical painting of Mary and paint a beard
on her, she then becomes St. John.
He admired the skill in realistic art, but realized that
ultimately it is just a fabrication of a real thing. As he said,
all art is either "more or less convincing lies."
The Mona Lisa is not a real person-- it is a painting combining
abstract shapes to look like a person. True or False? When you
break it down, realist art combines shapes which give a somewhat
accurate appearance of reality. (except the fact that a whole
DIMENSION is absent)
Art idealists sometimes miss the big picture by becoming pre-
occupied with technique. Think about it: why did artists have to
learn realism in the past? Maybe because that was the only way
to capture a likeness?
One can EASILY make the argument. It is interesting how once the
camera was developed, artists strayed further and further away
from realism.
In my opinion, this was when true art began. Artists developed
their own vocabulary, and threw away the regurgitated
traditional modes of creating. Artists became visionaries
instead of craftmans.
Long Live Picasso!
picasso89p
Craftmanship is for carpenters
People like to say, "So-and-so sucks- anyone can paint that!"
For example, if you criticize Basquiat, then YOU create a
painting like Basquiat. Try to capture the rawness and intensity
and flashiness and refined primitiveness. Try to use words in
the context of visual art to create poetry. Incorporate all the
vsrious styles and influences he used in his art. Most
important, try to impact others to the degree that his work has
impacted people. EVEN if you are able to do it, you would only
be copying-- he created a style all his own.
Realists mock abstractionists just like republicans mock
democrats- because "I am RIGHT and you are WRONG."
Just like religions, all forms of art embodies certain
fundamental aspects. Everything else is subjective.
picasso89p
do so by visiting this URL:
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso
Some love it. Some hate it.
picasso89p
seems to be opposed to religion.
This is very ironic since his ideas about art are similiar to
modern day religionists- they fail to realize the reasons that
religion first began (e.g., as an explanation of the forces of
nature.)
Even more importantly, Mani seemingly does not understand the
true meaning of the word "artist." A person can never create
anything and still be a great artist. The final product is the
least important aspect of the creative process-- everything else
that went into is what makes it meaningful.
If Van Gogh painted nothing but crap, he would still be a great
artist.
Long Live the True Artists!
picasso89p
HTML!
Once again, the lovely drawing by Picasso:
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso/28650005.jpg
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> ART does not equal CRAFTMANSHIP
>
> Craftmanship is for carpenters
>
> People like to say, "So-and-so sucks- anyone can paint that!"
> For example, if you criticize Basquiat, then YOU create a
> painting like Basquiat. Try to capture the rawness and intensity
> and flashiness and refined primitiveness. Try to use words in
> the context of visual art to create poetry. Incorporate all the
> vsrious styles and influences he used in his art. Most
> important, try to impact others to the degree that his work has
> impacted people. EVEN if you are able to do it, you would only
> be copying-- he created a style all his own.
>
> Realists mock abstractionists just like republicans mock
> democrats- because "I am RIGHT and you are WRONG."
Part of the problem is the trap of completely polarized thinking - so
you have not only "I am RIGHT and you are WRONG." but it also plays on
personal insecurities, and extends to "... because if *YOU* are right,
then *I* am wrong!" and they CAN'T let THAT happen. I can hardly believe
that in a time of such vast diversity people can still argue that there
is only ONE Correct Position. Baffling.
>
> Just like religions, all forms of art embodies certain
> fundamental aspects. Everything else is subjective.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
Tooloose Lowtec
painting a puzzled streak
mdeli
>Anyone who has any doubt of Picasso's drawing skills has not done even minimal
>research on the subject.
Ask yourself if the faces which I criticized in Picasso’s Damoiselles
were actually painted by Joe Schmo would anyone consider them
important, influential, beautiful or valuable?
Although Picasso painted considerably better than most of what
followed as supposedly great art, he just doesn’t rank as the great
artist critics make him out to be. At his best his draftsmanship is
ordinary. It is his most realistic work which fetches the highest
prices. I believe this occurs because those richies enamored with
Picasso have gotten so used to Picasso’s brand of incompetent ugliness
that when they sense even a touch of beauty from their idol they shell
out the cash. The ordinary every day mass produced common Picasso
trash feeds the slum dweller class of the poorer rich.
Picasso’s great influence mainly inspired later generations of art
hacks to ever increasing degrees of incompetence. Even Picasso was
wary of Abstract Expressionism. The present results are twits the
likes of Twombly, Rothko and de Kooning.
>His work from his early teens demonstrates remarkable facility and talent that
>bested, then as well as today, many accomplished artists who were/are well into
>their adult careers.
His early work is nothing special. He never lived up to the talent he
is credited with as a draftsman. One need only compare it to the fine
work of the period.
OBJohn
That is the power of the painted canvas. Although Picasso never stole
my heart thousands have been moved.
You remind me of Nick from Donald Marguluies' delightful play "Sight
Unseen" who has similar tastes to yours.
"My idea of art, Patricia, begins and ends with the renaissance.
Everything before was ceremonial arts and crafts, hardy art really, and
everything since has been utter rubbish, one long exercise to reinvent
what had already been perfected by a handful of Italians centuries
ago."
Like an evangelical Christian, frustrated by the those who dare to
display the unbridled gush of life, you are driven to attack an
historic figure of art history with pointless cliches about technical
skill. I looked up your web page and saw that you also chose to attack
Matisse and Warhol. The design choices in web page itself display a
similar confined imagination. Mani, you need to get out more.
Endless essays abound in narrow literary channels slamming Darwin for
his view by those who never chose to read or understand it. Yet the
critics want their views to be regarded as important merely because
they seem to support a popular theme. In your case the theme is "my
twelve year old can draw better than that." Not really a revolutionary
position. OBJohn
In article <38fd157a...@news.psi.ca>,
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
> From my book, A Skeptical View of Modern Art:
>
> A good example of Picasso's graphic work is the etching
> "Minotauromachy." (illustrate) Here Picasso combines many of his
> famous subjects: figures, bulls, clunky nudes and even a cubic lump
> in the background that looks like flatened Bauhaus architecture of the
> period. The print exists in many states showing its progress from
> beginning to end.
>
> It is interesting to follow the evolution of this piece
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Marilyn Welch
born again in your own defense?
When the camera came into widespread use, one of the impressionists,
said he was relieved, "Now we can paint poetry."
It's true there is no such thing as realism in painting,
it is only a reflection of what the painter sees and
then puts forth into the visible world. As Klee said, we don't
paint the visible, we make the invisible apparent.
Yo Picasso!
Marilyn
wq...@victoria.tc.ca
Victoria BC Canada
picasso89p
meaningless. At least I am saying that your belief in it's
supremacy is..well, ignorant.
Visual artists are the only type of artists who have
historically been compelled to work realistically. Compelled
might not be the right word-- perhaps "forced by the mass
concensus' opinion" is a better way to put it.
I doubt Rembrandt would have created the same type of work if
the camera was around during his life. In fact, I will make the
bold statement, that if the camera had been around since the
beginnings of art, abstract art would have first appeared LONG
before.
Also, you forget the role artists' played during most of history-
they were mainly craftsman either working for the Church or
royalty. The Church would want frescoes, murals, altar-pieces,
etc. The royalty would want their divine image captured for
future generations. Usually, whole teams of artists would work
on a painting or fresco. Is this really true Art? Being a whore
for the Church or leaders? I would rather be a gallery whore- at
least I have more freedom working with a gallery.
We like to idealize the past. For example, by today's standards,
Velazquez would not be considered a real artist-- he was most
like an Andy Warhol of the 17th century. He was a lazy ass who
only worked when it was necessary- he enjoyed being
a 'gentleman' and living a good life. Even some hack modern
artist is held in higher esteem by me, at least if this hack was
committed to his art and lived for creating his art.
Back to Picasso-- he realized that perspective and lighting were
only subjective. If you think about it, un-biasedly, a pure
Cubist painting is more "realistic" than even a photograph.
Mani, you are really making yourself seem like a mental midget.
And not because you like realistic art. Or not even because you
hate "Modern Academic Art." But because you are so fascist and
dogmatic about your "little safety and comfort zone", which is
realistic art. It is much easier to create when following
guidelines some masters established centuries ago-- it is much
easier representing an object realistically than metaphysically.
Realist art is your comfort zone.
Typical of society, things will go full circle, and *all* modern
art will be labelled as crap, perhaps. From one extreme to the
other. But if this happens, do not become too excited-- the
pendulum always swings back to the other side.
As a favorite song of mine goes, "I once could see but now at
last I am blind."
Long live the blindness of the modern artist!
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso
picasso89p
trying to say is that there are various kinds of technique and
skill. And to place one above the other makes no sense.
It is okay that you like realist art. Consequently, you will
value technical skills bent toward realistic depiction.
And Mani, whether or not you think my art sucks, I like it and
make a living from it. For example this drawing,
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso/power.html
was sold for $5,000 to a collector in Milan, Italy, through
Giorgio Milan Gallery (Boston). In his words, he "fell in love
with it the moment he saw it." A collector like him thinks
traditional is crap-- and I mean that in the full sense of the
word. They view it as decoration and purely academic.
picasso89p
religion. If anything unexpected, confusing, or difficult
arises, he always has his Bible to fall back on. Religion serves
as his comfort zone from which to live his life.
Mani has technique and skill to always fall back on, because it
serves as his comfort zone in art. For him, only way to create
exists-- HIS way.
I have an interesting question for Mani (I doubt he will answer
it though):
Suppose an artist wishes to represent something intangible, such
as mood changes (which was what Rothko was partly doing in his
work, depicting subtle mood changes), how does the artist
represent this unless working in abstraction? We all know how
colors corresponds to moods, so an abstract painting seems the
best, and an effective, way to go about doing this.
Is an artist not allowed to portay his subjective perception of
moods, emotions, states of mind, and feelings-- is this not
valid subject matter, Mani? Isn't this subject matter we can ALL
relate to? Isn't this the most meaningful and personal choice
for subject matter???
Mani may consider the work of Pollock as just splattered paint,
but in essense Pollock truly revolutionized the concept of the
line. His lines would flare out, narrow, blot- or end, then
continue again. There was a process behind his work. BUT, a
person must be open-minded, BEFORE viewing the art.
This might shock you, but I like ALL art- realist, abstraction,
impressionism, religious, comics, cartoons, conceptual,
assemblance, installation. Zurbaran and Dali are some of my
favorite artists! But, so are Picasso, and Basquiat!
Amazing, Huh?
mdeli
>Picasso gave us a new way to SEE the WORLD, which is hardly a trivial
>achievement.
Apparently this guy now sees the world differently. Whatever that
means
>And he did it not just once, but several times during a
>long & amazingly productive career. So he gives us new ways to see the
>world & deli wants to cut him down because he didn't want to do it the
>old way. Huh? Does he write his posts with a quill?
He did do it the old way, only not well.
Notice that all the answers to my challenge amount to little more than
art school platitudes. No one mentioned anything about the painting or
drawings I mentioned.
The fact is that these narrow minded boobs know little more about art
than slanted Modern Academic Art mythology and aren't familiar with
anything out of bounds of the modern sections of museums. They have
totaly missed out on 90% of the art of this century. They imagine that
anything other than what they admire is a repitition of the past.
>I'm not familiar with any of Hofmann's drawings but I admire his
>paintings and he was *incredibly* influential as a teacher.
I doubt that you are familiar with much of anything.
>He really
>helped shape the whole NY school generation.
>Tooloose Lowtec
>
> painting a blue streak
Try getting beyond a blue streak. Its been done.
mdeli
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1000419115058.12789A-100000@vtn1>,
>wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
>
>>Picasso has been defended here for years
So has Santa Claus. So what?
>
>Here again the notion of what constitutes 'skill' becomes
>arguable. Pollock never claimed to have any great drawing
>skills, and I don't know of a single critic who would
>disagree with that assessment.
Wrong.
> But Pollock made it into the
>history books and will be in the history books of future
>generations, no doubt.
I doubt it.
> Others have brought up Hans Hoffman's
>works in this regard. An analysis of his better-known
>works reveals that he was dealing with a lot of other issues
>besides drawing skills -- he was the penultimate colorist to
>say nothing of his 'gooey' paint textures that must be seen
>to be appreciated.
Seen them. Its the usual crap. Not even original. A good horse blanket
has better color.
> No history book reproduction can do them
>justice, just as reproductions fall far short of conveying
>all of the details in any artist's works.
True, they look even worse in the original.
mdeli
<picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>An Example of Picasso's Superior Draftmanship:
>
><a
>href=http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso/28650005.jpg>Portrait
>of Max Jacob</a>
Seen it. It's ordinary nothing-special.
If Picasso didn't do it nobody would give a damn. Take a look at the
thousands of drawings by AL Hirshfield for line, llikeness,
abstraction, composition etc. Picasso couldn't design a comic book
page.
>
>Of course Mani will foolishly state, "But look, it isn't even
>finished!"
>
>Seriously though, Picasso possessed the utmost quality in
>draftsmanship. Unlike Ingres, and all the other great draft mans,
>Picasso never used lenses to aid in his drawing. (read Hockney's
>writings on the use of lenses throughout art history)
This of course is pure baloney. Picasso used Photos and projectors. Of
course they don't dare tell you that in art school. Ingres didn't use
aids.
>Picasso also possessed a photographic memory, so often times he
>would see a person once and be able to draw them exactly, in
>years later.
Also baloney. His sitters sat for long periods. His painted portraits
are mostly off photos.
>He became so at ease in drawing that he often
>unconsciously mixed together different people's features in one
>portrait.
He could hardly draw a portrait without photographic aid.
>His line drawings are the most extraordinary. He would begin at
>one point and draw the figure, without picking up the pencil
>from the paper. His line drawings create depth without using
>shading (he would make none of the lines parallel to accomplish
>this)
Big deal, so do many average cartoonists
>
>Picasso's most important contribution to art is that he created
>a new type of beauty, founded not upon the imitation of reality,
>but upon the evocation of reality.
Artspeak.
>
>Some of Picasso's ideas are so interesting. Such as, he once
>said, if you take a classical painting of Mary and paint a beard
>on her, she then becomes St. John.
Doesn't take much to impress this boob.
>
>He admired the skill in realistic art, but realized that
>ultimately it is just a fabrication of a real thing. As he said,
>all art is either "more or less convincing lies."
>Art idealists sometimes miss the big picture by becoming pre-
>occupied with technique. Think about it: why did artists have to
>learn realism in the past? Maybe because that was the only way
>to capture a likeness?
Hope you avoid technique. The greater allegience to ignorance people
like you posess the more work for those who know their craft.
>
>One can EASILY make the argument. It is interesting how once the
>camera was developed, artists strayed further and further away
>from realism.
Name three great paintings that anyone would mistake for photographs.
>
>In my opinion, this was when true art began.
Tell us when FALSE ART ended.
> Artists developed
>their own vocabulary, and threw away the regurgitated
>traditional modes of creating. Artists became visionaries
>instead of craftmans.
Visionary patzers.
Self expression without skill and craft is self delusion.
mdeli
>Mani, You floor me. Painters like Picasso changed the way we see.
>That is the power of the painted canvas. Although Picasso never stole
>my heart thousands have been moved.
Touching isn't it? He now sees differently. Whatever that means.
>
>You remind me of Nick from Donald Marguluies' delightful play "Sight
>Unseen" who has similar tastes to yours.
>
>"My idea of art, Patricia, begins and ends with the renaissance.
That's not my idea. This is modern art school mythology. The average
art school boob thinks there are only two types of art Renaissance and
Modern.
>Like an evangelical Christian, frustrated by the those who dare to
>display the unbridled gush of life, you are driven to attack an
>historic figure of art history with pointless cliches about technical
>skill.
I hope you are carefully avoiding technical skill. Most here have gone
to art school for years learning to avoid this hazard.
>I looked up your web page and saw that you also chose to attack
>Matisse and Warhol.
---and Picasso. Cezanne, de Kooning Pollock etc.
>The design choices in web page itself display a
>similar confined imagination. Mani, you need to get out more.
Check it out.
>
>Endless essays abound in narrow literary channels slamming Darwin for
>his view by those who never chose to read or understand it.
Has nothing to do with the subject.
>
>
>In article <38fd157a...@news.psi.ca>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>
>> From my book, A Skeptical View of Modern Art:
>>
>> A good example of Picasso's graphic work is the etching
>> "Minotauromachy." (illustrate) Here Picasso combines many of his
>> famous subjects: figures, bulls, clunky nudes and even a cubic lump
>> in the background that looks like flatened Bauhaus architecture of the
>> period. The print exists in many states showing its progress from
>> beginning to end.
>>
>> It is interesting to follow the evolution of this piece
Notice, like the other artzy fartzies here he doesn't address the
subject.
mdeli
<picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Additionally, I also checked out Mani's other postings, and he
>seems to be opposed to religion.
>
>This is very ironic since his ideas about art are similiar to
>modern day religionists- they fail to realize the reasons that
>religion first began (e.g., as an explanation of the forces of
>nature.)
>
>Even more importantly, Mani seemingly does not understand the
>true meaning of the word "artist."
And what is the TRUE MEANING OF THE WORD ARTIST?
I bet he never answers this.
>A person can never create
>anything and still be a great artist.
???
>The final product is the
>least important aspect of the creative process-- everything else
>that went into is what makes it meaningful.
Right.
Its not the painting on the wall that counts for much its the
bullshit about the work that counts for an Artzy Fartzy like you.
>If Van Gogh painted nothing but crap, he would still be a great
>artist.
>
>Long Live the True Artists!
I can't wait to find out what a TRUE artist is as opposed to a fake
artist.
I'm sure that all here need this piece of vital imformation.
Is Norman Rockwell a Fake artist?
mdeli
>By the way, if anyone wants to view my degenerate art, you can
>do so by visiting this URL:
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso
All should have a look,
This guy hopes that some idiot museum curator will recognize that he
can produce a work almost as bad as a below average 6 year old. If
he's lucky he'll make a fortune and become very obnoxious. If not
he'll be working at McDonalds and grumble about why the world doesn't
understand him.
It is easy to see why he hates skill and technique.
He also wrote some really stupid reasons why one should be
anti-abortion.
mdeli
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>When the camera came into widespread use, one of the impressionists,
>said he was relieved, "Now we can paint poetry."
>It's true there is no such thing as realism in painting,
>it is only a reflection of what the painter sees and
>then puts forth into the visible world. As Klee said, we don't
>paint the visible, we make the invisible apparent.
>
>Yo Picasso!
>
Sure, probably no Modern Academic artist used phohotographs more than
Picasso.
br...@wralaw.com
"Gordon Matheson" <GO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> artists who couldn't uphold your strict standards, but if Picasso held
> himself to your standard you would have never heard of him.
So you concede the point that Picasso never could have made it as
an intricate and completive artist?
Dali did, even Jerome Bosch, Pashke... There are many examples of
artists who's work took more than a few hours to complete that reveal
more than profane conformity! Could Picasso have made it that way?
> I know an artist who spends 6 month on a super realistic drawing.
His work
> is unbelievable and beautiful (and some are in the Met), but I bet
his
> brain can't conceive (much less draw) a geometrically incorrect face
like
> Picasso painted. And that's probably as it should be.
There is a finnish artist who does very realistic distortions but his
name escapes me right now.
Bryn Ayers
god...@my-deja.com
squea...@aol.com (Henry) wrote:
> Anyone who has any doubt of Picasso's drawing skills has not done
even minimal
> research on the subject.
I have visited two Picasso Museums in France (one in Paris and the
other???) ultimately Picasso's main appeal is that he is like
Rembrandt or Van Gogh, a household name for "artist."
Frankly I have always been more interested in his mystique than
anything he ever painted. There were thousands of better Modern
revolutionaries in Picasso's time. Look around at the Futurist,
Dadaist and surrealists movements and you'll see Picasso was doing
nothing more than what everyone else was.
> Picasso is hard for rabid realists to discredit because he
demonstrated
> FORMIDABLE realists skills during his career.
For a clearly "rabid realist" Picasso offers a thousand nothings!
> Picasso dashed western thinking of art on the rocks and along with
photography
> minimized the importance of realism in art forever.
Look at what was going on with the Futurists, Surrealists,
and Dadaists, Picasso lagged several years behind.
The Ego is what has diminished "realism"!
> Later in his career he stated that he was always trying to draw more
like a
> child.
Picasso has a lot of great epithets, unfortunately this isn't one of
them.
> That is not to say that realism is not important in art today, just
that the
> supreme importance it once held in art is no longer acceptable and it
has
> ceased to be the standard of artistic excellence that it may have
been up to
> 1900.
Again "ego" is still the greatest enemy of realism. Any artist can
immitate what just comes out of himself.
> History has proved witness to all of this for the past 100 years and
will
> continue to do so into the future.
> "...no skill no art"
> Skill is relative to a belief system.
A junky is born every second!
> --Henry
> Wishing you warm offshore winds, clean waves and ono grinds afterward.
I won't be sailing for a couple of Months.
god...@my-deja.com
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> I feel
> that he got bored with his own highly skilled
> and precocious drawing ability and he had to
> break free.
We only hope. But this plays into the ego thing a little bit.
I wouldn't be suprised to find that Picasso felt weighted down
by his highly acedemic early training, but lets face it his
skills weren't really that good to begin with. I do believe that
there is some anti-skill in his shlocking, but for the most part
other artists already were and had done this, including Cezanne.
To be honest Picasso could have painted circles around Cezanne
but didn't, but Picasso's subject matter did show average
creativity, whereas Cezannes did not.
> I read, but I do give credit to 3 generations of
> artists/writers/& curators who believed that Picasso
> was a genius.
You only need to look at two different religions to prove that
generations tend to hold false beliefs.
> Then there is looking at the work itself.
> That, on top of looking at the work from my own point
> of view.
You can only see a work from your own point of view, that is
unless you move, or borrow someone elses.
> Marilyn
god...@my-deja.com
do...@emailme.com (Jaxart) wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1000419115058.12789A-100000@vtn1>,
> wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
> arguable.
Of course but "arguable" only obscures the Idea itself. From the
most simplistic laymans terminology most modern artists are skill
deficient.
In highly deluded and introspective artistic theorizations skill
becomes an unknowable, intangable element, when faced with a
skeptical inquiry into the skill of the Moderns.
> Pollock never claimed to have any great drawing
> skills, and I don't know of a single critic who would
> disagree with that assessment. But Pollock made it into the
> history books and will be in the history books of future
> generations, no doubt. Others have brought up Hans Hoffman's
> works in this regard.
Interestingly I saw a HH yesterday. Next to it was an Abstract
Expressionist painting that was almost entirely brown and Black
except for a small speck of orange-red paint. Despite my better
judgement, I felt as though I kind of liked the effect of the
work, It was almost like the effect of a rising sun. That small
orange spek really did something. Next to that the Hans Hoffman
looked bland, it was covered in bright school girl colors, messy
but not nearly bad enough to be interesting. Strangely After
looking at it carefully I found the same exact color(a cadmium
orange-red probably) and noticed really how little power it had
when used by another artist.
> An analysis of his better-known
> works reveals that he was dealing with a lot of other issues
> besides drawing skills -- he was the penultimate colorist to
> say nothing of his 'gooey' paint textures that must be seen
> to be appreciated.
You won't find anyone who doesn't read too much that likes his
work -really! I'd bet any amount of money! "And I can't say
that about Picasso either."
> No history book reproduction can do them
> justice, just as reproductions fall far short of conveying
> all of the details in any artist's works.
Duh
br...@wralaw.com
picasso89p <picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> An Example of Picasso's Superior Draftmanship:
>a
> href=http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso/28650005.jpg>Portrait
> of Max Jacob</a>
Hey its not too bad really, I'd like a closer look though.
> Of course Mani will foolishly state, "But look, it isn't even
> finished!"
Well that is a good point though. Drawing isn't one thing its
many things.
> Seriously though, Picasso possessed the utmost quality in
> draftmanship. Unlike Ingres, and all the other great draftmans,
> Picasso never used lenses to aid in his drawing. (read Hockney's
> writings on the use of lenses throughout art history)
Your statement is twice false! First Picasso did use camera
techniques. And second you state "all other great draftsman
used lenses" Unless you are talking about the eye you could
not possibly know a Universal negative. Also Picasso is
documented as using camera techniques, lack of documentation
for another artist wouldn't conclusively prove anything...
However I'd guess many great draftsmen never bothered with
camera apperatus.
> Picasso also possessed a photographic memory, so often times he
> would see a person once and be able to draw them exactly, in
> years later.
All hearesay...
> Picasso's ideas are so interesting. Such as, he once
> said, if you take a classical painting of Mary and paint a beard
> on her, she then becomes St. John.
An old spanish saying was "if it has a Beard it's Saint Anthony
if it doesn't its the Blessed Virgin" -this was about poorly
done art. There are many renditions of St. John where he has
no Beard, especially as an infant. I would say that a Murillo
or Caravaggio defaced in this way would end up looking like a
bearded lady since you can tell the gender, unlike some earlier
religious art.
> He admired the skill in realistic art, but realized that
> ultimately it is just a fabrication of a real thing. As he said,
> all art is either "more or less convincing lies."
> The Mona Lisa is not a real person-- it is a painting combining
> abstract shapes to look like a person. True or False?
True
> When you
> break it down, realist art combines shapes which give a somewhat
> accurate appearance of reality. (except the fact that a whole
> DIMENSION is absent)
But this is something that other primates haven't done as far as
we know.
> Art idealists sometimes miss the big picture by becoming pre-
> occupied with technique. Think about it: why did artists have to
> learn realism in the past? Maybe because that was the only way
> to capture a likeness?
The reason one "has" to learn realism in the present, is that one
is immersed in it.
> One can EASILY make the argument. It is interesting how once the
> camera was developed, artists strayed further and further away
> from realism.
> In my opinion, this was when true art began.
Art began prior to cave-dwelling, and there is both realistic and
abstract art that proves this.
> Artists developed
> their own vocabulary, and threw away the regurgitated
> traditional modes of creating. Artists became visionaries
> instead of craftmans.
Craftsmen are the true visionaries. The rest are on an ego
bing!
> Long Live Picasso!
Yes Long Live Picasso!
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
Bryn Ayers
br...@wralaw.com
picasso89p <picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> ART does not equal CRAFTMANSHIP
ART does in fact equal CRAFTSMANSHIP! Otherwise your just tripping
on bad bread!
> Craftmanship is for carpenters
Ego again! And putting down carpenters on good friday!
Jesus at least proves that some craftsmen can be spiritual
Soma stoners -with followers and a religion to boot!
"Remeber ergotism is a bad trip so at communion stay away
from the rye bread, and the wine just helps disolve the LSA
so more of it gets in your system, and some of those caucasion
wines have opium in them and the turks are even worse with
the datura and hashish"
> People like to say, "So-and-so sucks- anyone can paint that!"
> For example, if you criticize Basquiat, then YOU create a
> painting like Basquiat.
OK. Basquiat didn't have the best technique.
> Try to capture the rawness and intensity
> and flashiness and refined primitiveness. Try to use words in
> the context of visual art to create poetry. Incorporate all the
> vsrious styles and influences he used in his art.
> Most
> important, try to impact others to the degree that his work has
> impacted people.
Now this is where you are spaced-out!!! Basquiate is an attempt
to make up for the art establishments failure to the Black Race.
While PC modern art was able to allow minorities such as white
alcoholic males, white jewish males, and even some white
homosexual males to become rich for out Dadaing each other, There
has to be at least one Black Male in the entire history of new
free and equal history of Modern art, the one that overthrew the
old conservative art of Goya and Dali, or else it will be too obvious
... And there is! UnFortunately Basqiates drug overdose is too
negative so Modernism fails the liberal test. Remember there can
be Black celebrities just so long as there are no positive ones...
There have been thousands of women and minority artists this
century, who have been as bad if not worse than those who made
it! Some even produced great art!
> EVEN if you are able to do it, you would only
> be copying-- he created a style all his own.
> Realists mock abstractionists just like republicans mock
> democrats- because "I am RIGHT and you are WRONG."
And vice-versa!
Rich conservatives funded Abstract art in the 60's to cover up a
lot of sacreligious post-surrealist art,... The CIA and FBI
recognized that artschools were a hotbed for free-thinkers and
radicals in the 60's. There are documented letters of severe
panic and paranoia from these publicly funded angencies fearing
the spread of communism by LSD, sacrelidge, and protest, there is
convincing evidence that they saw the ambiguity of abstration as
a way to diffuse psychedelic and protest art, and the extremely
rich members of the ruling class "heads of industry" were made
aware of these concerns by these publicly funded angencies.
http://www.disinfo.com/disinfo?p=folder&title=Jackson+Pollock:+CIA+Stoog
e?
> Just like religions, all forms of art embodies certain
> fundamental aspects. Everything else is subjective.
Bryn Ayers
Gordon Matheson
<br...@wralaw.com> wrote in message news:8ds7qu$u38$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <ez3L4.22895$WF.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Gordon Matheson" <GO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > artists who couldn't uphold your strict standards, but if Picasso held
> > himself to your standard you would have never heard of him.
>
> So you concede the point that Picasso never could have made it as
> an intricate and completive artist?
I concede nothing of the sort. But I doubt if Mani approves of "intricate
and completive artists" either whatever the hell that means. It sounds
painful.
G. wondering who those "intricate and completive artists" are.
picasso89p
The first, created when he was 14 in 1895--
<a
href=http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/graphics/viejo.jpg>Picasso<
/a>
<a
href=http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/graphics/ballet1.jpg>Ballet
</a>
<a
href=http://www.tamu.edu/mocl/picasso/graphics/paul_har.jpg>Paul,
his son</a>
The last one is a favorite of mine. Such a sensitive rendering.
picasso89p
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> Rich conservatives funded Abstract art in the 60's to cover up a
> lot of sacreligious post-surrealist art,... The CIA and FBI
Pollock & the CIA??? You actually TRUST a source calling itself
'Disinformation'?? Or am I supposed to be looking for irony here too?
If not, I think it may be time to adjust your dosage.
mdeli
<picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Mani reminds me very much of an acquaintances' attitude toward
>religion. If anything unexpected, confusing, or difficult
>arises, he always has his Bible to fall back on. Religion serves
>as his comfort zone from which to live his life.
Funny, that's what you and artzy fartzies remind me of. Especially
when they spout factual absurdities and relate their slanted view of
art history.
>Mani has technique and skill to always fall back on, because it
>serves as his comfort zone in art.
>I have an interesting question for Mani (I doubt he will answer
>it though):
try me.
>Suppose an artist wishes to represent something intangible, such
>as mood changes (which was what Rothko was partly doing in his
>work, depicting subtle mood changes),
Baloney, you don't know what Rothko was trying to represent. If you do
just tell us in clear English. Frankly I don't believe it represents
anything.
> how does the artist
>represent this unless working in abstraction?
What does a necktie with an abstract pattern which is infinitely
superior to any big schmier by Rothko represent? Its pure abstraction.
> We all know how
>colors corresponds to moods,
More baloney. What mood does red represent? I'll bet you couldn't get
five people to agree. There a many very stupid books on the subject
which all say something different.
>so an abstract painting seems the
>best, and an effective, way to go about doing this.
If you want to see fine abstraction take a look at Persian Rugs. I
doubt that you or anyone else here can tell us anything about its mood
that makes any sense.
Of course what you are referring to is the abstraction, the only
abstraction that you and other artzy fartzies are familiar with,
namely the modern stuff in museums. However even that doesn't
represent what you say.
>
>Is an artist not allowed to portay his subjective perception of
>moods, emotions, states of mind, and feelings-- is this not
>valid subject matter, Mani?
Abstraction is as valid as any other subject matter. But no work has
merit solely because it is abstraction. There's plenty of good
abstraction to choose from throughout all art history.
>Mani may consider the work of Pollock as just splattered paint,
>but in essense Pollock truly revolutionized the concept of the
>line. His lines would flare out, narrow, blot- or end, then
>continue again. There was a process behind his work. BUT, a
>person must be open-minded, BEFORE viewing the art.
Fine work doesn't require any particular state of mind to be admired.
Pollock requires an Artspeak lecture to keep most people from
laughting.
Pollock didn't revolutionize anything. His technique was prevalent on
floor covering and backgrounds. Nobody "revolutionized lines." I n
fact the phrase doesn't mean anything. Pollock's fame is totally
dependent on his signature and a steady stream of Artspeak bullshit.
If anything hanging in a museum turns out to be a fake Pollock it
would have little more value than garbage.
>This might shock you, but I like ALL art- realist, abstraction,
>impressionism, religious, comics, cartoons, conceptual,
>assemblance, installation. Zurbaran and Dali are some of my
>favorite artists! But, so are Picasso, and Basquiat!
Not at all. Even some of the most ardent arty fartzies who have a
modicum of sensitivity can't help admiring fine work which is founded
on superior skill and craft. Picasso admired comic books and the
classics. His comments seem to lament the fact that the best he could
was to caricature them.
Read Haber's comments on Ingres.
mdeli
I'll tell you as soon as you clearly explain what "intricate
and completive artists" are. Until such time I'd advise you not to
tell me what I supposedly approve of.
br...@wralaw.com
"Gordon Matheson" <GO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> <br...@wralaw.com> wrote in message news:8ds7qu$u38$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Gordon Matheson" <GO...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > artists who couldn't uphold your strict standards, but if Picasso
held
> > > himself to your standard you would have never heard of him.
> > So you concede the point that Picasso never could have made it as
> > an intricate and completive artist?
> I concede nothing of the sort.
You already did.
You so much as said that if Picasso lived up to certain standards
he wouldn't have been a popular artist.
> But I doubt if Mani approves of "intricate
> and completive artists" either whatever the hell that means.
So you maybe are getting a crush on Mani?
> It sounds
> painful.
> G. wondering who those "intricate and completive artists" are.
Intricate - small details, fine work (==the origin of fine art)
Completive- Complete, finished, all parts of the work are finished
as art, not as aesthetically cool laziness.
br...@wralaw.com
Tooloos...@DeleteThisnetscape.net wrote:
> !
> > Rich conservatives funded Abstract art in the 60's to cover up a
> > lot of sacreligious post-surrealist art,... The CIA and FBI
> > recognized that artschools were a hotbed for free-thinkers...
> [and so on]
And marginally out of context I might add...
> Pollock & the CIA??? You actually TRUST a source calling itself
> 'Disinformation'??
Yes I trust disinformation.org as much as "The Nation" or The New
Republic. They are a magazine/news organization offshoot of Mondo
2000, I believe, kind of like the Rolling Stones meets, Wired and
Mother Jones. I don't absolutely trust any news source obviously.
Besides the disinformation.org article is only the latest in this
series. The PostModernists have also pointed out a link between
Government Paranoia and the safe ambiguity of Abstract.
Either way Abstract Expressionism displaced the art of an
unprecedented time of revolution in American Alternative Culture.
I offered this view to refute the analogy that realism =republican
and Abstraction =democrat, it may be that in reality it is very
different. However outside of the swastika and american flag,
Abstraction is only apolitical, but realism can be very very
obvious.
Show me one work of pure abstraction that can be deemed politically
Leftists?
> Or am I supposed to be looking for irony
> here too?
Certainly. But you didn't address my point that Basquiate was
the "only" Modern Black artist. The reality is, without the
CIA or the G-men, that Modern art that Acedemia holds dear, is still
the art of the rulling class. Paranoia aside. I would also say
the Abstract Art made it simply because of its sterility and
innoffensive content, representational art of the 50's-60's was
either post-surrealist, protest art, psychedelic, pop-art or abstract
art. The two least offensive pop and abstract made it, It makes
you think.
> If not, I think it may be time to adjust your dosage.
Pot Kettle -Blue Streak?
Nice deletion job By the Way.
> Tooloose Lowtec
> painting a puzzled streak
Bryn Ayers
Marilyn Welch
Black collage/painting artist, definitely modern.
Marilyn
Tooloose Lowtec
>
[...]
>
> Intricate - small details, fine work (==the origin of fine art)
>
> Completive- Complete, finished, all parts of the work are finished
> as art, not as aesthetically cool laziness.
>
Work (and the mindset that generated it) is not 'contemplative' because
it is finished to high degree of polish. Quite the opposite. Look at
Zen brushwork, or the work of Mark Tobey who was influenced by it. THAT
is contemplative by definition.
You seem to be confusing 'contemplative' with 'anally-retentive'.
--
Tooloose Lowtec
painting a quiet streak
Henry
This is like watching a mad man yelling at a wall.
It is funny for a few moments, but it is boring eventually.
Why not all worship the camera, it is the ultimate expression of realism
without being real.
I refuse to indulge narrowminded limiting ignorance any further.
Removing this list from my newsgroups.
Ugh!
br...@wralaw.com
squea...@aol.com (Henry) wrote:
Yet another post fighting a war against the third-man!
> Realist zealots, how limiting.
Who are the realist Zealots? Is reality infinite? Where are
the reality trippers?
> This is like watching a mad man yelling at a wall.
>
> It is funny for a few moments, but it is boring eventually.
> Why not all worship the camera, it is the ultimate expression of
realism
> without being real.
What is TV?
> I refuse to indulge narrowminded limiting ignorance any further.
> Removing this list from my newsgroups.
You
> Ugh!
My statement on Picasso...
> >Frankly I have always been more interested in his mystique than
> >anything he ever painted. There were thousands of better Modern
> >revolutionaries in Picasso's time. Look around at the Futurist,
> >Dadaist and surrealists movements and you'll see Picasso was doing
> >nothing more than what everyone else was.
My statements on realism:
> >Again "ego" is still the greatest enemy of realism. Any artist can
> >immitate what just comes out of himself.
> Wishing you warm offshore winds, clean waves and ono grinds afterward.
Stiil too coold mann
br...@wralaw.com
Tooloos...@DeleteThisnetscape.net wrote:
More arguments against the third man@
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > Intricate - small details, fine work (==the origin of fine art)
> > Completive- Complete, finished, all parts of the work are finished
> > as art, not as aesthetically cool laziness.
For the casual reader I wrote "complete" not "contemplate." A standard
technique in political and Religious debates is to start talking
about something completely different when you think you've lost.
When this happens the "truth" is the first and only casualty. If
we are to ever find "truth" we must infact "complete" "contemplation."
> Work (and the mindset that generated it) is not 'contemplative'
because
> it is finished to high degree of polish
This has no basis whatsoever!
And this it is a red-herring to boot!
>
> Look at
> Zen brushwork,
Look at Tibetan Buddist tapestry and sand drawings. These are
considered to have deeper religious and spiritual meaning than
the whole of Mikkyo Calligraphy -they are in fact the Basis of
Buddism as we know it! And there are many tapestries and paintings
in and around the middle east that are (relatively speaking) complete.
You won't convince the Mikkyo Buddists that Tibetan arts and Mandalas
are not an act of contemplation either, and I fully concure. A
finished Mandala is as much a part of Buddist meditation as a
Mikkyo calligraphy.
> or the work of Mark Tobey who was influenced by it. THAT
> is contemplative by definition.
I have grown skeptical of westerners claiming to be inheritors
of Buddism in art.
> You seem to be confusing 'contemplative' with 'anally-retentive'.
I never mentioned 'contemplative.' That is Wishfull thinking!
Besides this is evading the question -All sorts of Fallcies are
normal when a person would rather win a debate, than win a more
likely truth through continual and deep 'contemplation.'
Please don't add another irrelvant +word+ to throw into the
cauldron. Either Picasso could have been a sucessfull artist
or not if he had decided to live up to these standards.
I think that with Picasso the potential may have been there, I don't
think I'll ever know. It just seemed to me that when "Gordon
Matheson" said that Picasso's fame depended on "low"(Modern) standards
of craftsmenship that he was cutting his hero... Why is that?
> Tooloose Lowtec
> painting a quiet streak
Bryn Ayers
Gordon Matheson
<br...@wralaw.com> wrote in message >
> > > Completive- Complete, finished, all parts of the work are finished
> > > as art, not as aesthetically cool laziness.
>
> For the casual reader I wrote "complete" not "contemplate." A standard
> technique in political and Religious debates is to start talking
> about something completely different when you think you've lost.
> When this happens the "truth" is the first and only casualty. If
> we are to ever find "truth" we must infact "complete" "contemplation."
>
> > Work (and the mindset that generated it) is not 'contemplative'
> because
> > it is finished to high degree of polish
>
> This has no basis whatsoever!
>
> And this it is a red-herring to boot!
snippage
> Please don't add another irrelvant +word+ to throw into the
> cauldron. Either Picasso could have been a sucessfull artist
> or not if he had decided to live up to these standards.
>
> I think that with Picasso the potential may have been there, I don't
> think I'll ever know. It just seemed to me that when "Gordon
> Matheson" said that Picasso's fame depended on "low"(Modern) standards
> of craftsmenship that he was cutting his hero... Why is that?
Bryn is reading too much into what I wrote. I was merely wrote 1 sentence
as if I agreed with Mani to show it up for what it is. wrong.
The sentence was:
" I think I understand your objection to some lousy 18th century religious
artists who couldn't uphold your strict standards, but if Picasso held
himself to your standard you would have never heard of him."
You did not see the casual sarcasm which was intended? I'll have to write
clearer. Is there a face for sarcasm. I think this newsgroup is too
literate for that. ;-Q
Do you intend everything you write as 100% literal. By holding himself to
Mani's strict standards I theorize that Picasso would have had to give up
in despair. You interpreted that sentence as I believe that Picasso
couldn't have made it on his drawing ability.
[Your grasp of others using political and religious debate tactics(arguing
off subject, red herrings etc) seems pretty firm so it is ironic that you
seem to have been doing a bit of it yourself.]
For all I know Picasso could be in the Drawing Hall of Fame but I doubt it.
I do believe than in the Modern Art Hall of Fame membership in the Drawing
Hall of Fame is not required or needed IMO. What is needed would be an
interesting thread. In some areas of 17th and 18th century art, creativity
might have excluded you and drawing skills get you in even if you knew crap
about putting colors together.
I agree with some of what Mani says about some lousy modern art but on great
drawing skill I think he has been barking at the moon. He isn't going to
change his mind and neither are we so I'm in it for the light entertainment.
Did I ever say Picasso was my hero? Maybe, but I don't think so. I have
loved his blue period since the first time I visited the Picasso Museum in
Paris. The paintings look 10 times better to me in person that when I see
them in books. I abhor anything cubist but lately I have been drawn more to
his hacked up faces which had to be a natural outgrowth from his cubist
days. Part of this is because I love the color he used in the faces.
G - wondering where the Drawing Hall of Fame actually is? The Morgan
Library maybe? Mani's Garage?
raskolnikov
Picasso and many other modernists commenced is at least
partially wrong. To the best of my understanding Picasso
never strove for a mimetic reproduction of nature, and
hence what was essential wasn't necessarily his ability to
give the head the correct proportions and whatnot. Perhaps
Picasso really though that he solved the central problems
in his drawing without it looking much like a real person?
At the same time I don't see why we should assume, that
good artists must necessarily make masterpieces each and
every time they start out on something. Even the best of
painters have made poor works, and obviously the same thing
goes for Picasso. Perhaps this is just one of his poor
drawings? I can't imagine that you'd seriously mean that
Picasso didn't make at least some works that must be
classified as 'good', 'talented' or if you please 'genius'.
I guess I think that art could as easily be valued not on
its technical or even aesthetic value, but on it's
theoretical content. And here it's my belief that Picasso
excelled in the 1910s and '20s. His ability to investigate
the representational side of art - like how paint becomes a
sign or how wallpaper in a painting can alter to signify
'table-surface' or 'chair' -, and it's spatial
possibilities is in my eyes enough to accept Picasso as a
very talented and central artist of the 20th century - even
if much of this was already done in less systematic ways by
Cezanne.
"Right, it depends on continuous hyping of a third rate
cartoonist because of economic investment."
This is in my eyes a central part of the modernist
strategy. Artists since Courbet have been very focussed on
the marketing of their work, in order to secure a market
for their work. The strategies used would be alliances with
art critics creating their fame in newspapers (Apollonaire,
Baudelaire), artist groups, creating scandals, publishing
periodicals (eg. Minotaur), having theoretical
spokespersons - like Breton or Marinetti - and all of this
secures the primacy of the particular -ism, and hence
creates a market through popular knowledge of the painters.
This is in my eyes a crucial strategy amongst artist in a
liberal society, where the number of artists doesn't relate
to the demand for art. And hence many of the best artists
had to be not only good at making art, but also at
surviving in the modern society.
We might differ in our understanding of the "rate" of
Picassos abilities as a draftsman, I think Rembrandt was
surely better than Picasso. But this doesn't make up for
saying that Picasso was a two-bit con-artist that is hyped.
In the art after Courbet the craftsmanship isn't the only -
and surely not the most important - quality for a painter.
Recommendable literature on Picasso's marketing of his
career would be Michael Fitzgerald "The Making of
Modernism", and Harrison White et.al has written a splendid
book on the early modernist market called "Canvasses and
Careers".
Groetjes Raskolnikov
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
lake
thereabouts, marketing has taken over where patronage left off. If one
is to castigate Picasso for the hype surrounding him, one may as well
castigate Michelangelo for sucking up to the Pope.
- Lake
scottvdv
earliest 'academic' drawings are totally superb, everything he did after
that was completely a conscious choice. There was no inability of anything
as far as I can see.
anna t
Look, if Picasso doesn't do it for you, fine, but what
makes his art worth studying, in my mind, is his child-
like qualities. The man COULD draw very realistically,
and at some point he realized that that using only that
skill wasn't unique, or interesting. He abandons what
everyone else thinks is "good art," and starts to PLAY. He
draws little squiggles here, fat naked people there, maybe
a bull or two, and for those of us who care to look,
there is a rhythm inherent in his line and composition that
many people SIMPLY ENJOY, which was the WHOLE POINT.