Art is also mathematical
John Ng
why Art is objective and mathematical.
In the TV documentary "Faces" hosted by John (Monty Pyton) Cleese, he
explains that faces are beautiful because they are mathematical
because beautiful faces can be fragmented into little triangles which
the Greeks maintained as mathematically correct
This point illustrates what I have been trying to say earlier using
Meg Ryan (Cleese uses Elizabeth Hurley). The bottom line in this
documentary is that beauty is more mathematical then you think!
The second point is that if you use Photoshop, there is a feature call
auto-contrast where it mathematically calculates the contrast of the
image so that it is pleasing to the eye. It doesn't always gets the
image right but quite often so.
I am not suggesting that art is ALL mathematics and therefore
objective, but surely art is extremely so... in all cultures.
John
ART RENEWALIST
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
myself. Art is about the artist experiencing a feeling through the use of
visual intelligence and all they can do is talk about is the viewer seeing -
who the hell knows what - little triangles. Now they quote Monty Python's
comedy skit as the authority on art. I bet he would roll over laughing at
this. I can hear him now - "it's not my fault: they don't deserve to know
anything":
Unbelievable: keith
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02011...@posting.google.com...
Lauri Levanto
many mathematicians appreciate the *beauty* of mathematics.
-lauri
Peter H.M. Brooks
Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
> Or is it the other way round?
> many mathematicians appreciate the *beauty* of mathematics.
>
delight in the aesthetics of mathematics is closer, though, to the
enjoyment of a piece of Bach than to a piece of Vivaldi - a point
brilliantly explored, with many others by Hofstadter in his 'Godel,
Escher, Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid'.
--
"I became tuned in on the network of neurological signals and cellular
wisdoms that radiate
hundreds and millions per second" - Timothy Leary
Lauri Levanto
-lauri
Edward
These laws and canons of harmony can be easily to described and anylized
with different mathematic systems.
(And it was done already and not once).
Beauty <-- Harmony <-- Mathematics
It has been known for some couple thousands years.
So what is this all about?
------
Edward
P.S. However when you try to build some some model based on mathematics
you'll fail.
If somebody does not know why - it can be too heavy explaination for
usenet
(some extensive reading and studies will be more appropriate).
John Ng
> I shed a tear when I read your post. They will never get it: I said to
> myself. Art is about the artist experiencing a feeling through the use of
> visual intelligence and all they can do is talk about is the viewer seeing -
> who the hell knows what - little triangles.
I really think you don't get it at all. Why does a music sound
pleasant? Why does an image look pleasant? Harmony, mathematics...
things that have been formulated since the Greek.
Anyway, little triangles and squares are just some of the things
exploited by art since the Greek... again, and taken to ridiculous
simplicity by degenerated art form such as Mondrian whose paintings
consists of nothing except these "little triangles" (in this case
squares) that you see so lowly.
Art is not just about "visual intelligence". Art is beauty.
> Now they quote Monty Python's
> comedy skit as the authority on art. I bet he would roll over laughing at
> this. I can hear him now - "it's not my fault: they don't deserve to know
> anything"
I knew your simplistic mind would come to this. So Cleese is in Monty
Python, but this is a documentary!
John Ng
> Or is it the other way round?
> many mathematicians appreciate the *beauty* of mathematics.
> -lauri
Yeah, just like the earth was created for Man.
John
mdeli
>John, you still haven't responded to my question: what is your art
>education? Can it be that you have none and therefore won't answer? That's
>my guess.
>
Fox, what the hell is the difference whether he went to this or that
school or any school at all?
I've met many twits like Fox in my time. The first thing they ask if
you disagree with them is your background. They hope to find what they
feel is a flaw to digress on. If you haven't a pedigree like Fox,
well then it lets him imagine that he can forget about what you say.
When he finds that he can not answer your points he will continually
try to point out that you are not qualified to say anything and are
ill informed.
Fox has a prestigious pedigree. All who are impressed need only look
on the miserable quality of his work which is hardly even able to ape
the latest incompetent fashion.
I suspect Fox is unable to AK those with have even more prestigious
pedigrees and connections and this leave him with the rank of only a
small time charlatan. Big time charlatans don't bother with criticism.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Nicolai Czempin
> why Art is objective and mathematical.
>
> In the TV documentary "Faces" hosted by John (Monty Pyton) Cleese, he
> explains that faces are beautiful because they are mathematical
> because beautiful faces can be fragmented into little triangles which
> the Greeks maintained as mathematically correct
I don't understand this. Are you saying that anything that can be fragmented
into little triangles is beautiful? Because *anything* can be fragmented
into little triangles, just ask any 3d modeller.
Faces are actually quite un-mathematical in that they are asymmetric.
Symmetric faces would be very creepy.
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
Well, the earth was created to support plants,
the plants were created to nourish animals,
and the animals were created for man to eat.
The man, then was created to feed the mosquito
-lauri
mdeli
>n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>
>> Fox, what the hell is the difference whether he went to this or that
>> school or any school at all?
>
>It seems strange to have to point this out, but there may be young people
>here wondering if you really need an education to be an artist.
That's not the point of my statement. All my messages imply that it is
necessary to learn the rote of the craft. That is precisely what is
not longer taught in most schools.
>
>You do.
I do not.
>Being a fine artist without a formal education is possible (Francis
>Bacon did it), but highly unlikely. Without a thorough foundation in
>technique and a grounding in art history, you are in the same position as a
>amateur musician or dancer. Engineers and accountants are required to have
>a formal education; artists can do no less.
One gets hardly any technical knowledge in most art schools. As to art
history one gets a superficial distorted view from art schools. The
library fills this in. I took art history in various schools including
university. Worthless compared to what I learned on my own.
>Mdeli maintains that those who go to art school are 'failures,' whatever
>that means (financial? aesthethic?).
I maintain no such thing. I have said that there are some good art
schools where a student can learn more than the usual Artspeak creed
and ding-dong drawing. Certainly the majority of art schools today
produce failures in all respects because they no longer teach a craft
and are run by teachers as incompetent as Fox.
>Some certainly are not successful by
>any measure.
Most are total failures by any measure.
>So are some musicians, accountants, and writers. This does not
>negate the necessity of an education.
Education is imperative and to suggest that I advocate or have
advocated anything else is your sort of double-talk.
>Probably mdeli is getting hyper because I specifically asked John Ng about
>his education - this is because he puts down art education.
He puts down the sort of art education you advocate. And if he tells
you what school he went to it would do nothing to support your
position in the debate here?
> So, the
>question is, does he know what he's talking about - from going through art
>school? Or is he just blowing hot air out of his ass? I suspect the latter.
In other words your position is that if he talks about his impression
of most art schools but didn't go to art school or went to one you
don't approve of he's blowing hot air out of his ass. Of course in
your mind this negates you from answering his points.
Perhaps that is among the many reasons here why I consider you an
rather ordinary jerk.
>
>[At least Mdeli admits he was kicked out of art school - which explains his
>bitterness toward art education.]
At least Dan Fox got his pedigree and allows all here to see the
drivel which resulted from his Modern Academic education. Dan is under
the illusion that his education is the only kind and anything else
amounts to no education.
I repeat, I went to two art schools one which to some extent taught me
my craft and a Bauhaus Academy which taught me a great deal about
charlatans like Fox. Even miseducation has a value if you get a chance
to catch up.
Anyone here can read the hilarious reasons how and why I was dismissed
from the Bauhaus academy in my book. I'm sure it will help those young
people here who are wondering whether you really need an education
like Dan's to be an artist.
mdeli
<ncze...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>Faces are actually quite un-mathematical in that they are asymmetric.
>Symmetric faces would be very creepy.
>
What's unmathematical about asymmetry?
Check out my portrait of Marilyn (Picassoholica) on my website for
asymmetry.
Zoe Beit
>The man, then was created to feed the mosquito
>
>-lauri
You forgot cockroaches.
John Ng
>
> >John, you still haven't responded to my question: what is your art
> >education? Can it be that you have none and therefore won't answer? That's
> >my guess.
Oh Dan, sorry I missed this post. I had studied under one of
Singapore’s most renowned artist and went on to study Graphics
Art and then to Engineering and is now a computer programmer. How
does art educational qualification matter as my life has been
“Art” every other word. In fact, the so-call art
education that I had is a total waste of time and I had to try so very
hard to undo all the bad habits that I have been taught when I paint.
Whoever heard of, "sketch using your brush and then paint what you
see"... what about positioning, thumbnails, preparation, preparation,
preparation...
I have to relearn the PROPER way from what I hear about some Victorian
painters did.
> (Mani) wrote:
> Fox, what the hell is the difference whether he went to this or that
> school or any school at all?
Yeah I agree. Like I said to Fox above, I think the modern teacher
can only teach you degenerated art form and inaccurate art history.
You would be better off not being taught.
The trouble with art infidels :-) is that Art must always have an
important name attached to it. Well good if it has but one
shouldn’t place too much emphasis on such things. I now live in
Australia and have been trying to buy paintings. Every time I asked
for Art, paintings will be shown to me but before it shown to me, long
strings of advertisements would precede it like, “by a famous
painter”, “has affiliation to”...
John Ng
> It has been known for some couple thousands years.
> So what is this all about?
It is all about Art being objective! Of course unless you are one of
those who think that Art<>Beauty. I am not a masochist and having a
Goya's painting like "Saturn eating his sons", (nor a doodle), in my
house is not exactly how I perceive art should be.
In my earlier post, I was trying to point out that very subjective art
such as Picasso is NOT art.
John
John Ng
> I don't understand this. Are you saying that anything that can be fragmented
> into little triangles is beautiful? Because *anything* can be fragmented
> into little triangles, just ask any 3d modeller.
It is not just any triangle but mathematically proportionate triangles
like the Golden Triangle. This is not my theory but the person
proposed his theory to John Cleese is a face-reconstruction/cosmetic
surgeon who used this technique in his surgery.
This is one of the reasons why most supermodels faces look somewhat
alike.
> Faces are actually quite un-mathematical in that they are asymmetric.
> Symmetric faces would be very creepy.
The theory does not go down to iotas. It merely takes the major part
of the face and break it down.
John
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
intelligent?
For if the eye be not intelligent then beauty is wasted on fools. Do the
taste buds not dance at great food? Is the intelligence in the taste buds
not equal to that of the eye? If I feel what I touch, then can I not feel
what I see? Are you so blind as not to feel and react to the stimulus in
your eyes as different than the imagination in your brain?
Can you conceive of an art that is based in body not mind? Are these
concepts that far beyond your intellectual resources?
Keith (the simplistic minded one)
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02011...@posting.google.com...
mdeli
> I do feel Mani's arguments about learning good
>technique have some merit; however there are many valid ways for a self-
>taught artist to acquire and develop the necessary technical skills. For
>instance, I would recommend in any combination working with an artist one
>admires in a master/apprentice relationship, reading and studying
>everything one can get one's hands on about art, going to museums
>regularly to look at art, and spending long hours of self-discipline and
>practice to learn one's craft. If it was good enough for the old masters,
>it should be good enough for anyone in this day and age too.
That is an ideal way but good artists rarely take on apprentices. The
point is that however you acquire it you have to learn how to master
the craft.
> What formal art education seems to produce is
>lots of art teachers, moreso than actual working artists, which I would
>define as people who can support themselves through sales and commissions
>without "having" to teach.
Formal Modern Academic education produces incompetent teachers who
produce incompetent students. The lucky ones just renew the cycle.
>I don't think art education has had the objective evaluation and scrutiny
>it deserves. I think it is overvalued, it misleads aspiring artists into
>pursuing studies that do not develop their talents and discourages them
>from expressing themselves beyond a fairly rigid system of academic
>orthodoxy. It does not prepare aspiring artists in any way to embark on a
>professional career other than teaching art in an academic setting.
If you learn a creed instead of a craft you can give sermons to go
with the artwork that hardly anyone likes and if you have the right
connections you might get to teach the creed. However its rare for
most who have passed through this system to make a living at it
because they don't know their craft.
Self expression without knowledge of the craft is self delusion.
RBrac53660
so what is the difference btwn dali and the french academics?
since your so fuckin' smart
John Ng
> Beauty they say: is in the eye of the beholder but is the eye then not
> intelligent?
Yes, that is so but the eye is determined to a far extend by physical
laws. The theory doesn't intend to say that we are dominated by
instinct but seek to explain why we are in good agreement over beauty.
John
ejudy
> Self expression without knowledge of the craft is self delusion.
>
> ...no skill no art
>
Maybe there are points to look at
when taking this
as a creedo.
It probably depends on
how one's defines the specific craft
Maybe when we sit squarely
in a particular tradition we gain the security
of having the craft delineated for us.
Then you have your gauge for success or failure.
Its already come into being.
But ~if~ you want to aim your work at
pushing the people into new ways to see
maybe you must prod the tradition a bit?
Maybe to do that you have to sort thru
an ever expanding set of criteria and
choose a few to challenge. And folks who
do this most successfully seem to sense
the wave they are surfing. They don't
just hole up in their little ego cave
and say to heck with the world. Perhaps
they interact but with a _sense_ of what
is an interesting and useful direction
to move themselves and thereby their culture.
Maybe its like our modern american life where
an individual may live in twenty different
locations throughout their life compared to
the old homestead/one career setup.
Then they have to measure their achievement
in an expanded base of knowledge.
They have to know where they are and what they are doing.
The old criteria may no longer meet the demand
which their eclectic data base is presenting for them
to explore and the old criteria seem to
stifle and hold back their wave of inquiry.
ANd so i am not saying there's great art with no skill.
But i am saying the criteria of the craft
has changed and will constantly be changing
because it includes a wider conscious element.
Just like the rest of the culture. Its not just
physical/material but its in the language
of what is being said, and who we are.
The rest is clinging to the past nostalgically.
Problem with that clinging is that there
arises a strong set of rules and regulations
to enforce the staying away from newness.
Kills off the intellectuals and thinkers and
creative side of the society at its worst.
Its based on the belief that the old ways were better. But
the truth is the days change and become what one makes them.
The nostalgic clinging forgets it is our nature to
move and change and grow and we can never
ever really return to what we were.
That seems to be close to truth, then you let the art
lead us into the great unknown and have confidence in
our ability to meet the challenge. The art is our wave
connecting us to our roots and our future and it can be
a source and carry the collective spirit on in the dark.
Daredevils in front of course!
There you go. Hyper-religious preechy.
Feels nice to preech.
Like making something pretty.
ejudy
William Barkin
[snip]
> It seems strange to have to point this out, but there may be young people
You don't need a "college education" to be an artist...it's a life time of
self education or what I call "home schooling"...you should if it's
possible, study with an accomplished artist/master for a minimum of 5 years.
>
> You do. Being a fine artist without a formal education is possible
(Francis
> Bacon did it), but highly unlikely. Without a thorough foundation in
> technique and a grounding in art history, you are in the same position as
a
> amateur musician or dancer. Engineers and accountants are required to have
> a formal education; artists can do no less.
This is pure horseshit...engineers and accountants deal in an empirical
profession governed by laws of legality and licensing...the greatest jazz
musicians NEVER received a college education in music...yet they produced
quite an art form.
[the rest of the bullshit has been snipped also]
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
Monte Guerdis
Ng says: Because John Cleese, the Monty Python cast-member, read somebody's
script that said so, beauty is mathematical, and FURTHERMORE, because he
(Ng) doesn't know what Photoshop functions actually do, Cleese's position is
almost true.
Brilliant.
MG
Monte Guerdis
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c42613a...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> (Dan Pedigreed Fox) wrote:
>
> >John, you still haven't responded to my question: what is your art
> >education? Can it be that you have none and therefore won't answer?
That's
> >my guess.
> >
>
> Fox, what the hell is the difference whether he went to this or that
> school or any school at all?
It doesn't matter to you, for if it DID, you'd SURELY be exposed as a
con-man.
Those with no education have no position from which to credibly question the
validity of education.
"Art school is worthless because I got kicked out" is only your delusion,
not the truth.
MG
William Barkin
Education is not defined by one's formal schooling...paper credentials don't
necessarily imply one is "educated"... I have heard said many times that
"some of the most educated people in the world are the most
ignorant"...education does not start nor stop with formal schooling.
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Monte Guerdis" <gue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a25dfk$9ns$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
[snip]
mdeli
Hutto who is about twice as stupid as Marilyn, at least she can read,
says "Mdeli maintains that those who go to art school are 'failures,'
whatever that means (financial? aesthethic?).
I doubt that Hutto reads my messages here, however this former message
might just save someone the time and tuition which results in artwork
as incompetent as Fox's and Hutto's.
I wrote:
>> Fox, what the hell is the difference whether he went to this or that
>> school or any school at all?
>
>It doesn't matter to you, for if it DID, you'd SURELY be exposed as a
>con-man.
>Those with no education have no position from which to credibly question the
>validity of education.
All my messages imply that it is necessary to learn the rote of the
craft. That is precisely what is not longer taught in most schools.
Note, Hutto (MOST SCHOOLS)
One gets hardly any technical knowledge in most art schools. As to art
history one gets a superficial distorted view from art schools. The
library fills this in. I took art history in various schools including
university. Worthless compared to what I learned on my own.
>Mdeli maintains that those who go to art school are 'failures,' whatever
>that means (financial? aesthethic?).
I maintain no such thing. I have said that there are some good art
schools where a student can learn more than the usual Artspeak creed
and ding-dong drawing. Certainly the majority of art schools today
produce failures in all respects because they no longer teach a craft
and are run by teachers as incompetent as Fox.
Education is imperative and to suggest that I advocate or have
advocated anything else is your sort of double-talk.
>"Art school is worthless because I got kicked out" is only your delusion,
>not the truth.
>
I repeat, I went to two art schools one which to some extent taught me
my craft and a Bauhaus Academy which taught me a great deal about
charlatans like Fox. Even miseducation has a value if you get a chance
to catch up.
Anyone here can read the hilarious reasons how and why I was dismissed
from the Bauhaus academy in my book. I'm sure it will help those young
people here who are wondering whether you really need an education
like Dan's to be an artist.
...no skill no art
mdeli
Hutto who is about twice as stupid as Marilyn, at least she can read,
says "Mdeli maintains that those who go to art school are 'failures,'
whatever that means (financial? aesthethic?).
I doubt that Hutto reads my messages here, however this former message
might just save someone the time and tuition which results in artwork
as incompetent as Fox's and Hutto's.
I wrote:
>> Fox, what the hell is the difference whether he went to this or that
>> school or any school at all?
>
>It doesn't matter to you, for if it DID, you'd SURELY be exposed as a
>con-man.
>Those with no education have no position from which to credibly question the
>validity of education.
All my messages imply that it is necessary to learn the rote of the
craft. That is precisely what is not longer taught in most schools.
Note, Hutto (MOST SCHOOLS)
One gets hardly any technical knowledge in most art schools. As to art
history one gets a superficial distorted view from art schools. The
library fills this in. I took art history in various schools including
university. Worthless compared to what I learned on my own.
>Mdeli maintains that those who go to art school are 'failures,' whatever
>that means (financial? aesthethic?).
I maintain no such thing. I have said that there are some good art
schools where a student can learn more than the usual Artspeak creed
and ding-dong drawing. Certainly the majority of art schools today
produce failures in all respects because they no longer teach a craft
and are run by teachers as incompetent as Fox.
Education is imperative and to suggest that I advocate or have
advocated anything else is your sort of double-talk.
>"Art school is worthless because I got kicked out" is only your delusion,
>not the truth.
>
I repeat, I went to two art schools one which to some extent taught me
my craft and a Bauhaus Academy which taught me a great deal about
charlatans like Fox. Even miseducation has a value if you get a chance
to catch up.
Anyone here can read the hilarious reasons how and why I was dismissed
from the Bauhaus academy in my book. I'm sure it will help those young
people here who are wondering whether you really need an education
like Dan's to be an artist.
...no skill no art
Monte Guerdis
"William Barkin" <wba...@bcn.net> wrote:
> Education is not defined by one's formal schooling...paper credentials
don't
> necessarily imply one is "educated"...
I would refine that to say 'paper credentials do not necessarily imply that
one has made the best of his or her education' - It still takes some effort
to earn a degree, even at schools that aren't so good.
> I have heard said many times that
> "some of the most educated people in the world are the most
> ignorant"...education does not start nor stop with formal schooling.
You are correct, of course. A degree does not grant anything more than proof
of completion of a set of requirements to graduate from a particular
institution.
The issue here is whether a person can credibly criticize formal art
education when that person has not gone through it? Furthermore, if a person
has gone through part or all of one program, can that person credibly speak
about ALL such programs in existence?
MG
Monte Guerdis
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote:
> I doubt that Hutto reads my messages here
Why should I? Have you said something new in the last few years?
> however this former message
> might just save someone the time and tuition which results in artwork
> as incompetent as Fox's and Hutto's.
You act like nobody's ever seen the fake art you try to pass off. You can't
even craft a human figure without a scanner, you poser.
> >It doesn't matter to you, for if it DID, you'd SURELY be exposed as a
> >con-man.
> >Those with no education have no position from which to credibly question
the
> >validity of education.
>
> All my messages imply that it is necessary to learn the rote of the
> craft. That is precisely what is not longer taught in most schools.
>
> Note, Hutto (MOST SCHOOLS)
You have not attended most schools, nor have you researched most schools, so
please, quit with the song and dance. Just because you were not gifted with
talent doesn't mean your teachers were incompetent, it just means you can't
get over it. I'm just glad you don't have political aspirations.
> One gets hardly any technical knowledge in most art schools. As to art
> history one gets a superficial distorted view from art schools. The
> library fills this in. I took art history in various schools including
> university. Worthless compared to what I learned on my own.
It's your fault if you fail to learn in school. A studio education
facilitates progress, but it is up to the student to make that progress. You
should come TO art school WITH technical skill. It does not exist to make
artists out of non-artists.
> I maintain no such thing. I have said that there are some good art
> schools where a student can learn more than the usual Artspeak creed
> and ding-dong drawing. Certainly the majority of art schools today
> produce failures in all respects because they no longer teach a craft
> and are run by teachers as incompetent as Fox.
No credibility. Bitter opinion.
> Education is imperative and to suggest that I advocate or have
> advocated anything else is your sort of double-talk.
Yet, teaching is for those who have failed to win the lottery...the
losers...those who gave up...Double talk? Me?
> I repeat, I went to two art schools one which to some extent taught me
> my craft and a Bauhaus Academy which taught me a great deal about
> charlatans like Fox. Even miseducation has a value if you get a chance
> to catch up.
What degree(s) did you earn?
> Anyone here can read the hilarious reasons how and why I was dismissed
> from the Bauhaus academy in my book. I'm sure it will help those young
> people here who are wondering whether you really need an education
> like Dan's to be an artist.
No credibility. Bitter opinion. Likely not entertaining writing.
MG
William Barkin
based on experience. May we criticize governments, militaries or any other
bureaucracies even though we have no "hands on experience" with them? Why
can I not critique a college level art curriculum if I can observe the
results or am familiar with the teaching methodology? Are there not critics
who perform no sport yet comment/write on them? Or for that matter art,
theatre, dance critics etc. If one does the research, than one can assert a
credible critique on any matter.
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Monte Guerdis" <gue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a2fhc7$slb$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Peter H.M. Brooks
William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
> In many cases, criticism based on observation is as viable as
criticism
> based on experience. May we criticize governments, militaries or any
other
> bureaucracies even though we have no "hands on experience" with them?
Why
> can I not critique a college level art curriculum if I can observe
the
> results or am familiar with the teaching methodology? Are there not
critics
> who perform no sport yet comment/write on them? Or for that matter
art,
> theatre, dance critics etc. If one does the research, than one can
assert a
> credible critique on any matter.
>
fashionable Russian suffix to offset the Epicure's 'Cur Non!') was
regarded as the greatest gourmet in France. He was famed not for his
cooking, though, but his eating - his criticism of a meal could make or
break a restaurant.
So, indeed a critic doesn't have to be able to do better at whatever is
criticised. However a critic does have to be a snob and be prepared to
defend aesthetic judgement against all comers with passion.
--
'Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?"
The Latest Decalogue - Arthur Hugh Clough
Monte Guerdis
> May we criticize governments, militaries or any other
> bureaucracies even though we have no "hands on experience" with them?
How did we learn about those governments? Education!
Surely you would agree with me that some of the loudest critics of
government have the least clues as to what the heck they're talking
about.
> Why can I not critique a college level art curriculum if I can observe the
> results or am familiar with the teaching methodology?
If you observe results and find them unfavorable: Why? Let's say you
see a picture of a naked man some out of a figure drawing class. If
you're one of many unschooled art-school critics, you might freak out
and demand that the school stop teaching such classes. Many people
have done exactly that before.
> Are there not critics
> who perform no sport yet comment/write on them?
Yes, and I can't stand them, either. Especially female football
commentators. As if, girly!
> Or for that matter art,
> theatre, dance critics etc.
Very few critics are credible.
> If one does the research, than one can assert a
> credible critique on any matter.
That's called "education" - And it still frequently is not as good as
personal experience.
MG
Monte Guerdis
> This is pure horseshit...engineers and accountants deal in an empirical
> profession governed by laws of legality and licensing...the greatest jazz
> musicians NEVER received a college education in music...yet they produced
> quite an art form.
"Formal" education in some cases does not meant "college" education.
In the case of the old-school jazz players, no education would have
been better than the mentors who taught the players the form. It
counts as a formal education, though. So would studying under a master
painter without going to school.
College is just the most accessible source.
MG
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Monte Guerdis" <gue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4c6a073f.02012...@posting.google.com...
Frank Vollbrecht
>On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:08:35 +0100, "Nicolai Czempin"
><ncze...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>>>Faces are actually quite un-mathematical in that they are asymmetric.
>>Symmetric faces would be very creepy.
>>
>What's unmathematical about asymmetry?
>
There are pictures which consist of pure mathematics. For example the
Op Art from the sixties. If you like to see some new animated OP Art
pictures, then have a look at:
Frank
Stewart
education. I have a BA in Art Education and the only thing about art I
learned was art history. Didn't learn anything about education until I
did my student teaching.
I have an MA in Art Studio and this was a valuable learning experience
even though someone here thinks that I [seem to regurgitate what
passed for thought in the 60's] As if I studied nothing since.
I can do realism with the very best of you, probably better, but
realism for realism's sake is a blind alley as far as I am concerned.
And if you're going to be Andrew Wyeth, who's going to be you?
Someone mentioned Op Art in this thread and I would compare Op to
Italian Fututrism. Both were interesting and short lived minor
movements that didn't have enough substance to them to attract
continued attention.
Stewart