Realism
Ulrich Osterloh
A photorealistic painting is actually a lot closer to the way a camera
'experiences' the physical world, the human eye looks and moves over this
world very differently. 'Reality' happens on many levels, and the majority
of these levels are not physical, just like the greater part of existence
isn't physical, but spiritual. Art is there to make something visible, in
the physical world but also beyond.
The element of magic is very important in a work of art, and it's not a
question of figuration or abstraction if a work of art has a special magic.
All that matters in visual art is the 'presence' a piece possesses, and this
is where it differs from graphic art, fantasy art and illustration etc.
Ulrich Osterloh
but by the degree it moves us
Tracy Miller
It's called:
"The Spiritual in Art: Abstract Painting 1890 - 1985"
It's a big fat expensive book, but it's interesting.
You can't get it from the museum where the exhibit was held, but you
can order it from Amazon.
Ulrich Osterloh
any of your own work on-line?
Brian Shapiro
is refered to as 'good art', there has not been a time in the last
half-millenia in which art was judged primarily or soley on how much the
image looked as if it were real. The closest movement to fit this
description was Realism, but which emphasized texture in a way to prevent
their paintings from looking photographic and responded to idealizing
tendencies in previous movements. And in photorealism, the value was not in
that the picture approached photographic accuracy, but in the concept behind
producing works which accomplished that.
Millie Nary
thesh...@earthlink.net says...
>there has not been a time in the last
>half-millenia in which art was judged primarily or soley on how much the
>image looked as if it were real. The closest movement to fit this
>description was Realism
That's an absurd statement. Ever heard of PHOTOREALISM?
It's still around in the works of Estes, Flack, et al.
Brian Shapiro
I did mention photorealism:
"And in photorealism, the value was not in
that the picture approached photographic accuracy, but in the concept behind
producing works which accomplished that."
What the photorealists were doing was mimicking the accuracy of the
photograph, but their art wasn't valued for their accomplishment in doing
that, but in the theory that was behind it.
--Brian
"Millie Nary" <mil...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3ac9e...@oracle.zianet.com...
> In article <pday6.20153$aP5.1896
8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Millie Nary
thesh...@earthlink.net says...
>What the photorealists were doing was mimicking the accuracy of the
>photograph, but their art wasn't valued for their accomplishment in doing
>that, but in the theory that was behind it.
Well, I'll just admit to being confounded by
your explanations then and we can let it
go at that since you say you did mention
photorealism.
Talk about circumlocutory talk! Sheesh!
Tracy Miller
On 3 Apr 2001 15:21:00 -0700, mn...@noemailever.com (Millie Nary)
wrote:
Andrew D
<Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
+It's strange how some people call a more photographic image more 'artistic'.
+A photorealistic painting is actually a lot closer to the way a camera
+'experiences' the physical world, the human eye looks and moves over this
+world very differently. 'Reality' happens on many levels, and the majority
+of these levels are not physical, just like the greater part of existence
+isn't physical, but spiritual. Art is there to make something visible, in
+the physical world but also beyond.
+The element of magic is very important in a work of art, and it's not a
+question of figuration or abstraction if a work of art has a special magic.
+All that matters in visual art is the 'presence' a piece possesses, and this
+is where it differs from graphic art, fantasy art and illustration etc.
"Presence" may be all that matters to some people, however many people
look for skill and other attributes too. If mere "presence" was "all that
mattered", then literally everything would be art. Those things with more
"impact" (shock value or whatever) would be considered greater art, thus a
serial killer would be an accomplished "artist".
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
Nary) wrote:
+In article <Sgqy6.1617$rk1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
+thesh...@earthlink.net says...
+
+>What the photorealists were doing was mimicking the accuracy of the
+>photograph, but their art wasn't valued for their accomplishment in doing
+>that, but in the theory that was behind it.
+
+Well, I'll just admit to being confounded by
+your explanations then and we can let it
+go at that since you say you did mention
+photorealism.
+
+Talk about circumlocutory talk! Sheesh!
Circumlocution? He wrote a whole sentence dealing explictly with
photorealism. You snipped it then condemned him for not mentioning it.
When he points out your error you respond with "since you say you did
mention photorealism" as if you still have your doubts then accuse him of
circumlocution. It seems this is more a case of circum-comprehension.
Sheesh!
Andy
bennett
I think that Ulrich hit the nail on the head when he mentioned "presence" as
the key to "What is Art?" That is, if I am correct in reading his meaning.
Think of "presence" in terms of "star quality" in a performing artist. You
cannot define it, but you sure know it when you see it. It is an apt, if
not particularly gracious partner to the remark of a member of Congress some
years back during a debate on pornography: "I can't define it, but I sure
as blazes know it when I see it!"
In the military, "command presence" is well known and highly prized. But it
exists also in civilian life. "Command Presence" is that attribute of
personality that makes conversation halt for a brief second when a person
with it, enters a room. You just know that somebody who is somebody just
arrived.
Think of Ulrich's "presence" reference in that light. No matter what the
period, no matter what the style, no matter what the subject, no matter what
the "school," when you see a piece of work that just takes your breath
away, you are looking at "art."
And narrow definitions of skill, technique, era, and whatnot are utterly
irrelevant to the determination of "What is Art?" My opinion.
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-10040...@i003-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
bennett
Further to the "presence" discussion, and please pardon me because I had
intended to include this thought, but it slipped my mind:
My statement that such narrow definitions and arguments over skill, etc.,
are irrelevant to the determination of what is art do not, repeat not,
include basic craftsmanship, without which nothing exists, not art, not
illustration, not anything we use in our lives. Somebody with craftsmanship
must be at the bottom of it, or it doesn't exist.
But the debates in this group regarding skill are very different from
craftsmanship. This is what I meant by "narrow definitions," the idea that
how "well" you draw, which means how closely you mimic the object, is
"skill." Well, it might be, for all I know. But how well you draw is not
the litmus test for an artist, although I do deplore the sad state of
drawing today, and the fact that contemporary art teachers -- heaven save us
from all of them -- actually tell impressionable students that drawing no
longer is worth thinking about.
Some of the most absolutely skillful painters, and some sculptors as well,
are producing pretty decorations that will be forgotten as quickly as the
living room decor is changed. They reek of skill, and display an absolute
vacuum of creative imagination, but they make pretty things that sell well
and provide a comfortable living.
Even they, have to have some basic levels of craftsmanship. But their work
has no "presence."
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-10040...@i003-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
Sharon Barcone
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010410121926.4579C-100000@vtn1...
> Presence, essence, je ne sais quoi, magic. You have hit on something very
> hard to define but I think I understand what you mean.
>
> But the propaganda we are discussing here is not just skill in drawing or
> rendering to get a likeness, it must also have a 3D quality on a flat
> picture plane. Why should chiaroscuro and perspective which are TECHNIQUES
> be considered necessary SKILLS.
Oh no Marilyn, you are starting to sound like Alison here. But actually it
is a valid question, isn't it? And one that never really gets answered to
anyone's satisfaction around here. But I wonder, why would any artist not
want to have as broad a knowledge base about art as possible. How does one
know that one will never want to use perspective in one's art? Why would any
artist limit their work by what they don't know. These are not brain surgery
techniques we are talking about but foundational building blocks of art.
>This 3D drawing is good for
> architects but why should it be an absolute criteria for painters in the
> year 2001.
Isn't all progress built on the knowledge of what came before? If an artist
would actually want to make a lasting impression on the art world, where
many say "It's all been done before." wouldn't that artist need a strong
foundation in art to be able to move art forward with a really meaningful
work?
>That doesn't mean that there should be a law against it. They
> are just not essential, that is, they have nothing to do with the
> "essence" of the work.
The "essence of the work"? And just what is that? I tend to think this
really implies "the psychological impact" of the work. And that is another
whole line is study in itself. As a visual artist, the more building blocks
you have in your bag of tricks, the more you know of where visual art has
come from and tried to go, the more your own creative energies are
influenced and stimulated to produce. But how can anyone be convinced by
what they don't know?
>
> Check out Cezanne who first insisted that the picture plane is flat.
Actually, the Egyptians did a pretty good number on a flat plane a bit
earlier. To me, Cezanne in that respect went a step backwards. On the other
hand Cezanne's work does provide some psychological impact.
>
> Marilyn
Obviously it is true that a painter may have skill in the basic fundamentals
of art and not be able to paint a memorable work of art, not have the
creative energy. This is no reason to decry the uselessness of these skills.
For one who has both the creativity and basic skills the possibilities
should be limitless.
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
mdeli
>Check out Cezanne who first insisted that the picture plane is flat.
>
Cezanne is by quotes and the usual praise. They don't dare take a
painting and criticize it. Previously I've mentioned three paintings
and made some points about them.
The result was an idiotic message saying that I'm insulting the
intelligence of those who inhabit this conference and that I'm bitter.
Can anyone here defend the works of artists they like? I challenge
them to defend the Cezanne's I mentioned.
Tell us what's great the fabulous draftsmanship in his conformist
"Bathers."
Tell us about the great
draftsmanship in "Card-players, Especially the hands and the drapery
and the novel color of the table cloth and the well fitted hat on the
conehead on the left.
In reference to his 1880 Self-portrait. Tell us about the
drawing and color in the jacket and why the eyes stare in two
directions.
Also don't fail to tell us about the marvelous depth and color in the
background.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
bennett
You are absolutely right about chiaroscuro and perspective. But who here
ever contended that they are "necessary skills?" One would not need
chiaroscuro unless wanting to paint as Rembrandt et al. One would not need
a sense of perspective, unless he wanted to paint more realistically than
Cezanne.
My whole point was that these "narrowly defined" so-called skills/techniques
have value in themselves when called upon, but are irrelevant to the
creation of a work of art, if the artistic purpose can be well-served
without them. Very little that is being done today requires anything even
remotely approaching traditional "skills/techniques." Much of it is junk,
probably most of it, but out there in the midst of the garbage are some
pieces that simply root you too the spot until you recover your senses.
Like I said, "I can't define art, but I sure and hell know it when I see
it."
It has "presence."
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010410121926.4579C-100000@vtn1...
> Presence, essence, je ne sais quoi, magic. You have hit on something very
> hard to define but I think I understand what you mean.
>
> But the propaganda we are discussing here is not just skill in drawing or
> rendering to get a likeness, it must also have a 3D quality on a flat
> picture plane. Why should chiaroscuro and perspective which are TECHNIQUES
> be considered necessary SKILLS. This 3D drawing is good for
> architects but why should it be an absolute criteria for painters in the
> year 2001. That doesn't mean that there should be a law against it. They
Marilyn Welch
I wrote:
> >That doesn't mean that there should be a law against it. They
> > are just not essential, that is, they have nothing to do with the
> > "essence" of the work.
>
> The "essence of the work"? And just what is that? I tend to think this
> really implies "the psychological impact" of the work. And that is another
> whole line is study in itself. As a visual artist, the more building blocks
> you have in your bag of tricks, the more you know of where visual art has
> come from and tried to go, the more your own creative energies are
> influenced and stimulated to produce. But how can anyone be convinced by
> what they don't know?
"Tricks" you got that right, chiaroscuro & perspective are only tricks.
>
> >
> > Check out Cezanne who first insisted that the picture plane is flat.
>
> Actually, the Egyptians did a pretty good number on a flat plane a bit
> earlier. To me, Cezanne in that respect went a step backwards. On the other
> hand Cezanne's work does provide some psychological impact.
Right. The tricks were invented during the Renaissance.
Asian art used overlapping to imply depth and still does.
Does their lack of these western tricks diminish their art. NO.
> Obviously it is true that a painter may have skill in the basic fundamentals
> of art and not be able to paint a memorable work of art, not have the
> creative energy. This is no reason to decry the uselessness of these skills.
> For one who has both the creativity and basic skills the possibilities
> should be limitless.
>
"decry the uselessness of these skills"
I'm not decrying their usefulness, I'm saying they are not absolutely
necessary to a painting. I'm saying that rendering a likeness and 3D are
not essential to a painting.
Marilyn
Marilyn Welch
> Marilyn...
> You are absolutely right about chiaroscuro and perspective. But who here
> ever contended that they are "necessary skills?" One would not need
> chiaroscuro unless wanting to paint as Rembrandt et al. One would not need
> a sense of perspective, unless he wanted to paint more realistically than
> Cezanne.
Who here? I guess you have filtered Mani Deli. It's his battle cry.
>
> My whole point was that these "narrowly defined" so-called skills/techniques
> have value in themselves when called upon, but are irrelevant to the
> creation of a work of art, if the artistic purpose can be well-served
> without them. Very little that is being done today requires anything even
> remotely approaching traditional "skills/techniques." Much of it is junk,
> probably most of it, but out there in the midst of the garbage are some
> pieces that simply root you too the spot until you recover your senses.
>
> Like I said, "I can't define art, but I sure and hell know it when I see
> it."
>
> It has "presence."
>
Like it says in the book "Most Art Sucks." www.coagula.com
But for me it's:
"I know a lot about art, but I don't know what I like."
Marilyn
Brian Shapiro
By the time Bouguereau was in artistic maturity, he was able to improvise
textures perfectly in paint that he had not seen before his rendering of
them. The reason I am mentioning this is not to drag out Bouguereau's name
for laudation but to make a point about the 'techniques' used in the
creation of three-dimensional imagery... Once mastered, chiaroscuro,
perspective, texture replication, etc. become second hand to the painter and
understood intuitively---it is then no longer necessary to draw out
perspective lines in order to create a scene which has realistic
perspective, or measure or consider shading to have that seem realistic. In
other words, just as practicing drawing, practicing these three-dimensional
painting techniques give the individual skills in visual perception,
thinking, and coordination that can prove to have utility when creating
artworks that don't involve 3d images. Likewise, practicing techniques that
arose in modernism, such as abstraction and spontenaiety, can also have
utility when creating paintings with 3d images. I am not trying to
suggest -necessity- of all of these skills, just that mastery of them will
tend to lead to more sophisticated visual thinking, and as such they can be
considered didactic excercises.
--Brian
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010410121926.4579C-100000@vtn1...
> Presence, essence, je ne sais quoi, magic. You have hit on something very
> hard to define but I think I understand what you mean.
>
> But the propaganda we are discussing here is not just skill in drawing or
> rendering to get a likeness, it must also have a 3D quality on a flat
> picture plane. Why should chiaroscuro and perspective which are TECHNIQUES
> be considered necessary SKILLS. This 3D drawing is good for
> architects but why should it be an absolute criteria for painters in the
> year 2001. That doesn't mean that there should be a law against it. They
> are just not essential, that is, they have nothing to do with the
> "essence" of the work.
>
> Check out Cezanne who first insisted that the picture plane is flat.
>
> Marilyn
>
>
>
> wq...@victoria.tc.ca
> Victoria BC Canada
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, bennett wrote:
>
mdeli
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>"Tricks" you got that right, chiaroscuro & perspective are only tricks.
>Right. The tricks were invented during the Renaissance.
This is the sort of ignorance taught in art school classes labeled
drawing. The result is lots of dirty paper which people like Marilyn
call drawing and fill art school garbage cans and propably Marilyn's
closets. You also sometimes see them in art shows attended by the
artist's relatives.
>Asian art used overlapping to imply depth and still does.
>Does their lack of these western tricks diminish their art. NO.
Asian art is as dependent on drawing skills as is any art.
>I'm not decrying their usefulness, I'm saying they are not absolutely
>necessary to a painting. I'm saying that rendering a likeness and 3D are
>not essential to a painting.
Nor are they essential to schmiering.
RBrac53660
>earlier. To me, Cezanne in that respect went a step backwards. On the other
>hand Cezanne's work does provide some psychological impact.
Cezanne was also about light and color and form
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
RBrac53660
>of art and not be able to paint a memorable work of art, not have the
>creative energy. This is no reason to decry the uselessness of these skills.
>For one who has both the creativity and basic skills the possibilities
>should be limitless.
>
It is the artist duty, obligation and servitude to have that creative energy
despite the obsticales
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
RBrac53660
>probably most of it
just like mani's book
Andrew D
<jcaben...@msn.com> wrote:
+Andy...
+
+I think that Ulrich hit the nail on the head when he mentioned "presence" as
+the key to "What is Art?" That is, if I am correct in reading his meaning.
+Think of "presence" in terms of "star quality" in a performing artist. You
+cannot define it, but you sure know it when you see it. It is an apt, if
+not particularly gracious partner to the remark of a member of Congress some
+years back during a debate on pornography: "I can't define it, but I sure
+as blazes know it when I see it!"
+In the military, "command presence" is well known and highly prized. But it
+exists also in civilian life. "Command Presence" is that attribute of
+personality that makes conversation halt for a brief second when a person
+with it, enters a room. You just know that somebody who is somebody just
+arrived.
+Think of Ulrich's "presence" reference in that light. No matter what the
+period, no matter what the style, no matter what the subject, no matter what
+the "school," when you see a piece of work that just takes your breath
+away, you are looking at "art."
+And narrow definitions of skill, technique, era, and whatnot are utterly
+irrelevant to the determination of "What is Art?" My opinion.
I can't exactly disagree. But that leaves me wondering why there is so
little "traditional" realist-type art in major museums - especially
contemporary stuff. Are there simply NO good
landscape/portrait/still-life/wildlife... artists left but heaps and heaps
of excellent abstractionists? I find that hard to believe.
I am certain there are more "artists" producing "traditional" style art
than there are producing "modern" art (for want of better terms) so the
inverse imbalance in major public galleries seems hard to justify unless
there is a perception among "the elite" (curators, professors etc...) that
"traditional" art isn't really art.
I recently attended a local public art exhibition here in Perth, W.
Australia. There were all sorts of work from students, hobbyists and
professionals. There were traditional, modern and abstract works. There
was more work which could be classified as "tradtitional" than there was
modern and abstract combined. Of the works that sold, most were from the
traditional group so presumably these works had the "wow" factor you refer
to. However, there was not one "traditional" piece among six official
award winners. That should be a concern to people who believe there is no
"logical" way to classify what is or is not art.
It's clear from the level of discussion here that there are many who share
this concern to greater and/or lesser degrees.
Andrew D
Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
+Presence, essence, je ne sais quoi, magic. You have hit on something very
+hard to define but I think I understand what you mean.
+But the propaganda we are discussing here is not just skill in drawing or
+rendering to get a likeness, it must also have a 3D quality on a flat
+picture plane. Why should chiaroscuro and perspective which are TECHNIQUES
+be considered necessary SKILLS. This 3D drawing is good for
+architects but why should it be an absolute criteria for painters in the
+year 2001. That doesn't mean that there should be a law against it. They
+are just not essential, that is, they have nothing to do with the
+"essence" of the work.
[snip]
I think the perception (rightly or wrongly) is that so far as public
galleries and teaching institutions are concerned, there just about IS a
law against traditional ideas of skill/technique/draughtsmanship.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-10040...@i003-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
> In article <99u0u6$5ji$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ulrich Osterloh"
> <Ulr...@uosterloh.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> +It's strange how some people call a more photographic image more
'artistic'.
Who has done that? A painting being more realistic does not make it better,
i dont think anyone mentioned it did.
> +A photorealistic painting is actually a lot closer to the way a camera
> +'experiences' the physical world,
A very realistic painter like Waterhouse or Bouguereau? I hardly think their
stuff is anyway near photographic, when you look at any of these guys
paintings you have to look at the color harmony, compositions, expressioon
etc.. A camera could never capture the depth that the human eye can.But then
again you mentioned Photorealism, i really dislike painitngs that are made
out to look like photos. Photos are so shitty
the human eye looks and moves over this
> +world very differently. 'Reality' happens on many levels, and the
majority
> +of these levels are not physical, just like the greater part of existence
> +isn't physical, but spiritual. Art is there to make something visible, in
> +the physical world but also beyond.
> +The element of magic is very important in a work of art, and it's not a
> +question of figuration or abstraction if a work of art has a special
magic.
> +All that matters in visual art is the 'presence' a piece possesses, and
this
> +is where it differs from graphic art, fantasy art and illustration etc.
>
The presence? Is that in any way like an odor?
> "Presence" may be all that matters to some people, however many people
> look for skill and other attributes too. If mere "presence" was "all that
> mattered", then literally everything would be art. Those things with more
> "impact" (shock value or whatever) would be considered greater art, thus a
> serial killer would be an accomplished "artist".
>
> Andy D.
>
Andy, art is a combination of everything. Not one particular aspect. If a
painting is good in composition and bad in another area, then its a inferior
work. Modrian was known for his lame compositions of color shapes and crap
like that, not only are they badly designed they are bad art. They say
nothing. Art has to have a meaning, and for that meaning to be meaningful it
has to show the public through skill.
Ricardo Pontes
Sharon Barcone
>
> I wrote:
> > >That doesn't mean that there should be a law against it. They
> > > are just not essential, that is, they have nothing to do with the
> > > "essence" of the work.
> >
> Sharon responded:
> > The "essence of the work"? And just what is that? I tend to think this
> > really implies "the psychological impact" of the work. And that is
another
> > whole line is study in itself. As a visual artist, the more building
blocks
> > you have in your bag of tricks, the more you know of where visual art
has
> > come from and tried to go, the more your own creative energies are
> > influenced and stimulated to produce. But how can anyone be convinced by
> > what they don't know?
>
> "Tricks" you got that right, chiaroscuro & perspective are only tricks.
Certainly they are tricks. Tricks for creating an image based on the science
of how the eye sees. But chiaroscuro (basically value study) and perspective
are only two aspects of traditional study. Would the say that the study of
line is just as unnecessary to the artist or the work? Even an abstract
expressionist could benefit from knowing the difference between a line and
an edge, and knowing the effect of each on the pictoral plane.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Check out Cezanne who first insisted that the picture plane is flat.
> >
> > Actually, the Egyptians did a pretty good number on a flat plane a bit
> > earlier. To me, Cezanne in that respect went a step backwards. On the
other
> > hand Cezanne's work does provide some psychological impact.
>
> Right. The tricks were invented during the Renaissance.
>
> Asian art used overlapping to imply depth and still does.
> Does their lack of these western tricks diminish their art. NO.
Still, even "overlapping" is a trick of the trade. It is one that many
western artists dabble in.
>
> > Obviously it is true that a painter may have skill in the basic
fundamentals
> > of art and not be able to paint a memorable work of art, not have the
> > creative energy. This is no reason to decry the uselessness of these
skills.
> > For one who has both the creativity and basic skills the possibilities
> > should be limitless.
> >
>
> "decry the uselessness of these skills"
>
>
> I'm not decrying their usefulness, I'm saying they are not absolutely
> necessary to a painting. I'm saying that rendering a likeness and 3D are
> not essential to a painting.
>
> Marilyn
>
And I believe while traditional elements may not be evident in all paintings
they are essencial to all artists as part of a knowledge base from which to
work. As art has ebbed and flowed through time, artists have often been
influence by each other and those who came before. See the bright, busy
patterns of flat plane in a Matisse which has inspired a certain group of
watercolorists to create bright, busy patterns mostly floral and textile in
watercolor with 3d effect. Think how a course in composition is basically a
study of abstract design with a bit on balance thrown in. The smaller the
knowledge base of the artist, the less likely that artist will be to capture
"essence" in the work. Look at the work of Paul Klee in "On Modern Art"
(that little book you recommended to me). See "Tree Felling" 1930. This work
is not a likeness and not in 3D. However, the cute little doodle quite
plainly shows that some trees are standing and some are not. It is obvious
that Klee has an understanding of traditional technique and uses his
knowledge to create a vision that sees this forest in a different way. His
use of both line thickness and intensity are striking and manage to create a
good deal of "presence" or essence if you will.
Fanny Whyde
thesh...@earthlink.net says...
>for laudation but to make a point about the 'techniques' used in the
>creation of three-dimensional imagery... Once mastered, chiaroscuro,
>perspective, texture replication, etc.
Then you have the PUSH-PULL theory of the colorists
like Hans Hoffman. No one need worry about the
skills required for "representational" images if
one merely wishes to create "non-representational"
images. But the failures of non-representational
images has much to do with lack of knowledge and
application of good design, including the push-pull
theory, as well as other color theories like
simultaneous contrast, complementaries, etc.
That having been said, what is "good design?"
Good design varies from culture to culture and
what westerner's refer to as good design may
not apply to eastern art, aboriginal art, etc.
bennett
The only "law" that I can think of regarding the art establishment's slavish
devotion to that which requires an "artist's statement" for any hope of
comprehension is the "Law of the Ego."
Most of the people selected to be jurors are gallery operators, more
frequently, teachers, and some, "established artists" of some local fame.
When time comes to hang the "best in show" ribbon, bet your booties it will
be on a piece that is utterly incomprehensible, though perhaps quite
startling. The juror lives in terror of being deemed hopelessly out of it.
Never, ever, will that juror hang the ribbon on a landscape or still life,
even if you sneaked in a Sisley or a Braque, sigs obscured.
Curators are no better. They too live by the "Law of Ego."
Peer pressure, the desire to be thought absolutely "with it" is a force
second only to the instinct for survival among those who have the "say" in
the art world. And, I suspect, every other world as well.
Marilyn...
While contemplating my collection of Cezanne images vis a vis your quoting
him as to the uselessness of perspective, I came to a renewal of my original
view of his work. Generally, it sucks. Fact is, he painted one portrait.
He painted one still life. He painted one landscape. All his life, only
one.
His portraits are the same, over and over and over. Landscapes, ditto.
Still lifes, ditto ditto. Look at his early work. Look at his middle
years. Look at his late work. If you can see even a hint of artistic
growth at any point along the way, drop a note and I will faithfully check
it out.
It is of some interest that he signed very, very few of his pieces. Perhaps
we might take that as a clue as to what he thought, himself, of most of his
work, having left it unsigned.
This isn't a Mani thing -- you are right, I have him blocked, but
unfortunately, still get a lot of people responding to him -- it is my own
very personal view of one single painter. In this, I reflect the opinion of
Camille Pissarro, who also branded Cezanne a poser.
Brian Shapiro
A good lesson in visual acuity is to look at a photograph of Bouguereau
painting a model. (It is then easier to understand that what he did wasnt
realistic representations)
Marilyn
bennett wrote:
There were landscapes and a couple of still lifes in the Eye Candy show at the Greater Victoria Art Gallery. 59 pieces were chosen by a curator from back east out of 800 entered by regional artists. They hung side by side with the installations. These genres of art can co-exist.
Marilyn...While contemplating my collection of Cezanne images vis a vis your quoting
him as to the uselessness of perspective,
Uselessness was Sharon's word, I said that it wasn't absolutely necessary
to a good painting and I stand by that.
I came to a renewal of my original
view of his work. Generally, it sucks.
snipped dismissal of Cezanne's whole life.
It is of some interest that he signed very, very few of his pieces. Perhaps
we might take that as a clue as to what he thought, himself, of most of his
work, having left it unsigned.
He signed them on the back. I haven't got the reference but I would guess that he felt the signature would ruin the design.
In this, I reflect the opinion of
Camille Pissarro, who also branded Cezanne a poser.
Pissaro writing to his son Georges:
"Vollard is having a Cezanne exhibition; it is really wonderful; there
are still lifes, very beautiful landscapes, very strange bathers of extraordinary
sobriety. It looks as though it were done in two tones; it is very effective...neverless
he is a first-class painter of astonishing subtlety, truth, and classicism."
to Lucien, his eldest son, Pissaro wrote:
I also thought of Cezanne's show in which there are exquisite things,
still lifes of irreproachable perfection, others, much worked on
and yet unfinished, of even greater beauty, landscapes, nudes, and heads
that are unfinished but yet grandiose, and so painted, so subtle...but
my enthusiasm was nothing compared to Renoir's. Degas himself is seduced
by the charm of this refined savage. Monet, all of us..Are we mistaken?
I don't think so...
ones who are not subject ot the charm of Cezanne ...properly point
out the faults we all see, which leap to the eye, but the charm - that
they do not see...so crude and so admirable! Degas and Monet have bought
some marvelous Cezannes."
Maybe it was Zola who called Cezanne a poser. (?)
I would point out "The Blue Vase" and "Still Life with Olive Jar"
The forms and the colours really sing. And his backgrounds are carefully
crafted to harmonize with the primary forms or subjects. I don't think
that his subjects were important, he was concerned with the pictorial space
more than the subjects themselves.
But you are right about today, "most art sucks."
regards,
Marilyn
Joseph Bennett
I stand gratefully corrected on Pissarro and Cezanne, no doubt crediting
Pissarro because I cherish the old anarchist who did not allow established
success and advancing age prevent him from trying something entirely new,
and adding to it! So, when it comes to expressing a thought with which I
agree, I tend to credit Pissarro.
I don't think it was Zola to called Cezanne a poser. It was one of the
other painters in that original Impressionist group. Cezanne for his part,
was a carping grouch who argued that Monet was the only other painter in the
group who was a peer. Cezanne's one redeeming aspect was his high regard
for Camille Corot, whom he said he "Liked, but at a distance." (He did not
approve of the people around Corot, much as he did not approve of most of
the rest of the world.)
Yes... It might seem I am dismissing his entire life, but that is not so.
When I say he painted one of this, one of that, and one of another, I am not
far wrong. His portraits of his wife are atrocious, vying in ugliness in
all of art only with Van Gogh's portraits of that ugly baby of his friend's.
When the Barnes Collection was on tour, Cezanne was a major feature. My
wife and I walked into a room at the Toronto Art Museum and there, arrayed
around four walls, were 35 or more Cezanne's, and when we had completed our
circle of the room, we decided to go around again, because surely , we were
missing something. This, after all, was CEZANNE!
After the second tour, we went outside for a breath of air, and to cope with
the sudden realization that Cezanne is Cezanne because he was at the front
of something, actually the first of something (His "primitive of a new
art"), and that and that alone was why he is today Cezanne. Had Cezanne
never lived before, and today was to come up in the art world in all of his
Cezannishness, can anyone actually believe he would be fawned over and
zealously collected? I think not. At best he would be thought an awkward
beginner.
I give him full credit for being, as he said he hoped he was, the primitive
of a new art. I give him full credit for opening the door to whatever was
to follow Impressionism. But I am never going to look at one of his
paintings and gush.
It's just a thing I have, and not curable. I don't expect anyone else to
agree with me. That's okay.
Joseph Bennett
You have hit the nail right on! Anyone who thinks Bouguereau was a
"realistic" painter obviously has not closely observed his women and then
looked at real women! Similarities are plainly coincidental. Bouguereau
was an unrepentant romantic. Every image his painted was idealized, his
view of what it should have been.
I think a lot of the early 20th century animosity to him and his work --
which is not kant in the art schools and among those who would be thought
with it -- derives from the fact that long after Impressionism -- Yuk! --
had yielded to Cubism, and Cubism to the sterilized offerings of De Stihl,
Bouguereau was still at it, well into the 20th century, the last dinosaur of
Academic Painting and therefore, a handy target.
There really is no other reason for focusing on him, versus any other
practitioner of Academic style. He just lasted longer, was more popular in
his day, still is loved by many (cretins, obviously) and still is capable of
raising the temperature of your average contemporary art teacher.
As to realism, would that it were so that women actually looked like his
women, and men actually looked like his men. What a lovely world it would
be.
"Brian Shapiro" <thesh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oS1B6.2085$cb6.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
mdeli
>Brian...
>
>You have hit the nail right on! Anyone who thinks Bouguereau was a
>"realistic" painter obviously has not closely observed his women and then
>looked at real women! Similarities are plainly coincidental. Bouguereau
>was an unrepentant romantic. Every image his painted was idealized, his
>view of what it should have been.
>
>I think a lot of the early 20th century animosity to him and his work --
>which is not kant in the art schools and among those who would be thought
>with it -- derives from the fact that long after Impressionism -- Yuk! --
>had yielded to Cubism, and Cubism to the sterilized offerings of De Stihl,
>Bouguereau was still at it, well into the 20th century, the last dinosaur of
>Academic Painting and therefore, a handy target.
Not quite, B. died in 1905
>There really is no other reason for focusing on him, versus any other
>practitioner of Academic style.
Thew is! B. was the best of the academic style. His technique is
equaled by no one. One has to compare originals in order to see this.
There are lots of pretty mediocre academic painters and over rated
ones. B. particularly irritates artzy fartzies because the technique
is so obviously superior.. He like Dali is picked out because that
technical superiority stands out so planely.
What can an art teacher who can scarcely draw an egg say when faced
with superior skill of B. which is a balance between hyper-realism and
impressionism and is unique even among 19th century work.
mdeli
<sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote:
>
>"Marilyn Welch" wrot
>> "Tricks" you got that right, chiaroscuro & perspective are only tricks.
>
>Certainly they are tricks. Tricks for creating an image based on the science
>of how the eye sees. snip...
I suppose you could call chiaroscuro & perspective only tricks. By
that logic arithmetic is just a trick in order to allow the wary
shopper to count his change and the scales in music just a composer's
crutch.
However crabbing about perspective is about as intelligent as being
angry about the use of "tricks" like arithmetic.
People like Marilyn are into astounding ignorance and never bother to
question what they have been told as fact. They blindly believe that
they see what they have been taught rather than what is actually
there.
Her ideas about the use of photography in painting reveal an almost
culty ignorance. I doubt that even the most ignoramus of art teachers
go that far into believing such nonsense.
Joseph Bennett
>> There really is no other reason for focusing on him, versus any other
>> practitioner of Academic style.
> M. Deli wrote:
>
> Thew is! B. was the best of the academic style. His technique is
> equaled by no one. One has to compare originals in order to see this.
> There are lots of pretty mediocre academic painters and over rated
> ones. B. particularly irritates artzy fartzies because the technique
> is so obviously superior.. He like Dali is picked out because that
> technical superiority stands out so planely.
>
> What can an art teacher who can scarcely draw an egg say when faced
> with superior skill of B. which is a balance between hyper-realism and
> impressionism and is unique even among 19th century work.
> ....no skill no art
>
Mani...
You have a real problem separating the substance of the painting, from
the technique of the painter. Your response, regrettably, was
completely irrelevant to my post.
Boog was a superb technician who masterfully painted highly idealized,
romanticized women. Whether he was the "greatest" of the Academics is
an open question and a whole new argument.
Which ought to be started by defining Greatest. Are we talking style or
substance?
Joseph Bennett
Cezanne the "Father of Modern Art?"
I am screaming, reeling in dismay, tearing out my virtually nonexistent
hair!
How can you say that? When the entire world knows that JBC Corot is the
guy who broke the mold?
Cezanne moved it forward, but heck, he was upstaged even by those
dreadful impressionists -- excluding Pissarro -- regarding fathering
modern painting.
Corot quite innocently opened the door to the future when he took what
had been Academic exercises and simply by his talent elevated them to
the status of paintings.
Pissarro and Cezanne both held Corot in such regard that they signed
themselves "student of Corot" on several early salon offerings though
neither of them had ever actually taken a lesson from the older man.
Don't fret. I forgive you. So does Corot.
Marilyn Welch wrote:
> Hey Joe,
>
> Great post! and it's a free country eh? You are allowed to abhorr
> Cezanne's work.
>
> These fore-runners get a lot of attention because they were the FIRST. We
> have a thing about doing it FIRST. Therefore Cezanne becomes the Father of
> Modern Art.
>
> Now here is something I have noticed on this group. If I say I like
> Cezanne, I am usually asked to explain it or to justify him. (like asking
> the Irish to justify St. Patrick). But if someone says they like Robert
> Bateman, I don't insist on justification. I know why I don't like his
> stuff and that's enough for me. I know why I don't like Bougie too.
>
> Anybody can like/dislike who they want to but they can't force their
> likes/dislikes on me.
>
> so there,
>
> Marilyn
RBrac53660
Take a look at Oscar G. Rejlander "The Two Ways of Life" circa 1857. The
painterly manner in which it is done you might like. Or Henery Peach Robinson
"Fading Away" circa 1858. Or try some of Lewis Caroll's hand painted images
of, yes, Lolittas. Please take it for granted that I know that photography has
its own aesthetic.
RBrac53660
Also It the only David painting I like
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Ricardo Pontes
Perhaps if you define a trick as a feat requiring special knowledge and
skills than they would be tricks.But you are just putting down traditional
artists for having skills that most people do not, for example the very
average man Mr. Pollock. I doubt you have the capability to learn any of
these "tricks". If they are tricks indeed you must have studied them very
long and hard.
Ricardo Pontes
> >
Ricardo Pontes
So everyone before Cezanne did not know the picture plane was flat? How is
that such a great achievement?
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
Most conceptual/modern artists i met always tell me that traditional artists
are basically sell outs. That they use "a bag of tricks" to lure the
uneducated public to buy their stuff. They use the "wow" factor to trick the
audience.. They speak of the ingredient in the soup etc..
Their way of telling us they are not sellouts is to paint very big canvases
with gobs of paint and do not think of the final work of art. They just use
their "gestural" quality. If they need soemthign extra they get some glitter
paint and that makes all the difference.
Selling artwork is a great thing, makes you feel good that someone actually
enjoys the artwork and gives you fuel to keep going. Abstractionists use the
anti sell, anti show philosophy because they feel they are above public
taste. They feel they are elite.
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
There is a photograph that i am aware of Bouguereau painting 2 little girls.
They look very different from the finished work. Bouguereau did not simply
copy nature as some people are lead to believe. Bouguereau enhanced
everything to make a better work. For some people who have not seen this
photograph of Bouguereau painting the 2 little girls, here it is in a link.
http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/wbatwor.jpg
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Brian Shapiro" <thesh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oS1B6.2085$cb6.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"Joseph Bennett" <Joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:bBjB6.11060$uh5.3...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
Ricardo Pontes
>
> Now here is something I have noticed on this group. If I say I like
> Cezanne, I am usually asked to explain it or to justify him. (like asking
> the Irish to justify St. Patrick). But if someone says they like Robert
> Bateman, I don't insist on justification. I know why I don't like his
> stuff and that's enough for me. I know why I don't like Bougie too.
>
Is it because their skill makes you feel small?
> Anybody can like/dislike who they want to but they can't force their
> likes/dislikes on me.
>
> so there,
No one is forcing anything. This is a group in which people can express
their thoughts about art isnt?
>
> Marilyn
>
Ricardo Pontes
Joseph Bennett
> Marilyn,
>
>
>
> Is it because their skill makes you feel small?
>
> >
>
> No one is forcing anything. This is a group in which people can express
> their thoughts about art isnt?
>
>
>> Marilyn
>>
>
>
> Ricardo Pontes
Ricardo...
This was ungracious. We have a good dialogue going here and remarks
like making you feel small just serve to close it off.
The second part of your post was accurate. It is a group for personal
expression, and personal expression ought to be possible without ad
hominum cut-downs.
I agree with most of your thoughts. Marilyn loves Cezanne; I say, he's
a slug. We ought to be able to express those thoughts without anyone
coming down on us.
Also, I think the Death of Marat is one of the all-time superb
paintings. And it is also one of the very few by David that I put in
the first-class bin.
Opinions. All of them. None of us knows everything. Some of us know
nothing. And some of us have one tune, that we sing over and over. It
takes all kinds to keep the world spinning.
See you.
Marilyn
Joseph Bennett wrote:
> Hey, Marilyn...
>
> Cezanne the "Father of Modern Art?"
>
> I am screaming, reeling in dismay, tearing out my virtually nonexistent
> hair!
>
Okay, take a breath, breathe deeply.
>
> How can you say that? When the entire world knows that JBC Corot is the
> guy who broke the mold?
>
That's what I learned at "The Academy." haha. They didn't talk much about
pre-Cezanne. But now you have got me wondering what Corot would have thought of
Cezanne. Artists' pigments improved by the time Cezanne came along and his use of
colour is dazzling. Corot on the other hand used alot of earth colours and he is
the master of FORM. (Wonder where Mark Webber is, he could tell me a lot about
Corot & Form.)
>
> Cezanne moved it forward, but heck, he was upstaged even by those
> dreadful impressionists -- excluding Pissarro -- regarding fathering
> modern painting.
>
"Dreadful impressionists" now I'm pulling out my hair and I've got plenty of it.
You must be thinking of all the dreadful Impressionist poseurs who think dabbing
spots of paint is all they need to know.
>
> Corot quite innocently opened the door to the future when he took what
> had been Academic exercises and simply by his talent elevated them to
> the status of paintings.
>
>
You've got me wanting to hit the books again on Corot which is one of the good
things about discussions here.
> Pissarro and Cezanne both held Corot in such regard that they signed
> themselves "student of Corot" on several early salon offerings though
> neither of them had ever actually taken a lesson from the older man.
>
> Don't fret. I forgive you. So does Corot.
>
>
Nice touch for Good Friday.
Marilyn
ljrobins
>
> Selling artwork is a great thing, makes you feel good that someone actually
> enjoys the artwork and gives you fuel to keep going. Abstractionists use the
> anti sell, anti show philosophy because they feel they are above public
> taste. They feel they are elite.
The problem, Ricardo, is that you just don't do your homework. Abstract artists
sell their work all the time. And I have never known one who insists that their
work is based on an anti-show philosophy. Quite the OPPOSITE in fact. While it
is true that much of the public doesn't get "abstraction" I am not convinced it
is because it's all crap. I am more convinced that it is because viewers are
generally visually and conceptually lazy and/or unsophisticated. And I am not
just referring to just viewing "painting" when I say this. I also mean theatre,
music, film, television and advertisements. Our North American culture is not
taught to read or critique any visually material beyond basic comprehension or
enjoyment. I feel strongly that this 'lack' originates in our education system.
Children are taught extensively in every other area of study except art. There
is generally no real exploration of art history or the art of observing and
critiquing at the elementary, junior or high school levels. Every other field
of study (including visual art) has advanced and the world sees fit to educate
people on most of those advancements except in art! Why? I think it is
generally because (except in most European countries) that the public thinks
art & culture is not a significant part of a functioning society except when it
is entertainment.
Did anyone here see the film _In the Mood for Love_ ? It is a Japanese film
that won at the Cannes Film Festival. Beautiful and touching movie. Visually,
so sophisticated. There is no way the average, hollywood viewer would be able
or willing appreciate this film (I could be wrong but I doubt it). So does this
mean it shouldn't be made? Should its success only rated by the number of
people who see it? NO!
Otto Rogers is a Canadian abstractionist whose work really is quite
extraordinarily beautiful. It is compositionally strong (space, form, flatness,
surface texture, colour) and subject wise it makes enough references to nature
that it exists somewhere between the real and the fantastical. Just the way a
good realist painting should exist. Of course, this is only my opinion and a
reflection of the type of art I find most interesting. I do also find a lot of
abstract work rather uninteresting and at times pretentious, but I can
admittedly recognize (rather than deface) its significance. For me, really,
there is a lot of interesting art being made but very little GREAT art being
made. And that has been the case throughout history. Abstraction and pop art
came into this world at a time when art was entering into the realm of the
general populace much more than it probably ever had historically.
lissa
ljrobins
> Marilyn wrote:
>
> Opinions. All of them. None of us knows everything. Some of us know
> nothing. And some of us have one tune, that we sing over and over. It
> takes all kinds to keep the world spinning.
>
Ahhh. Beautiful.
lissa
Marilyn
Joe Bennet wrote that not me. But I like it too.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"ljrobins" <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:3AD716CE...@cadvision.com...
> Ricardo Pontes wrote:
>
> >
> > Selling artwork is a great thing, makes you feel good that someone
actually
> > enjoys the artwork and gives you fuel to keep going. Abstractionists use
the
> > anti sell, anti show philosophy because they feel they are above public
> > taste. They feel they are elite.
>
> The problem, Ricardo, is that you just don't do your homework. Abstract
artists
> sell their work all the time. And I have never known one who insists that
their
> work is based on an anti-show philosophy.
There are a few here that do not show their work. mainly because they are
afraid that mani has been right all along. ("Gee, its true we have no
talent")
Quite the OPPOSITE in fact. While it
> is true that much of the public doesn't get "abstraction" I am not
convinced it
> is because it's all crap. I am more convinced that it is because viewers
are
> generally visually and conceptually lazy and/or unsophisticated.
Unsophisticated? Most people understand art, when viewers do not understand
somethign they are either called unsophisticated, ignorant, idiots etc..
That is a way to get people to shut up and just ttake it up the ass. That is
the way modernists like to think, as if they are ABOVE anything average.
When John Doe looks at a painting and says "what the frickin crap is that? "
Then you can bet its a shitty painting, and that is because it did not do
its job of expressing ideas very clearly. Ideas for the sake of just being
ideas are just that. They are not art. You cannot make art without know the
fundementals, and USING them. That is like trying to run before learning how
to walk. i can understand that someone might like something different, i
prefer portraits and such, some might find them boring. I sat in a drawing
class the other day, one of the teachers pulled out a projector to show some
images of great art. They flipped through some of the stuff and it was the
usual pollock, rothko etc.. I just stook int he back looking at the students
faces(all intersted in art BTW) . Each afraid of raising their hand and
questioning the teacher. Who by the way is very nice and i would feel bad
about instulting her "taste". But she went on and on, blabbing about talking
about pollocks marks on the floor etc.. She saw nudes, she saw fun in the
sun. etc...
Why are you so sophisticated?
And I am not
> just referring to just viewing "painting" when I say this. I also mean
theatre,
> music, film, television and advertisements.
There are as much garbage out in the theatres, film, music as there are in
the fine arts. But at least for some of those crafts they have a vague
understand of their craft unlike modernist fine art baboons.
Our North American culture is not
> taught to read or critique any visually material beyond basic
comprehension or
> enjoyment. I feel strongly that this 'lack' originates in our education
system.
> Children are taught extensively in every other area of study except art.
There
> is generally no real exploration of art history or the art of observing
and
> critiquing at the elementary, junior or high school levels. Every other
field
> of study (including visual art) has advanced and the world sees fit to
educate
> people on most of those advancements except in art! Why? I think it is
> generally because (except in most European countries) that the public
thinks
> art & culture is not a significant part of a functioning society except
when it
> is entertainment.
I agree with most of that. There is not shortage of Art schools is there?
There are tons of them, each and everyone one of them teachign false
information by idiotic baboon teachers who have failed in everyway and need
a part time job. Perhaps if children were taught the importance of REAL art,
then there would be a greater importance placed on art.
>
> Did anyone here see the film _In the Mood for Love_ ? It is a Japanese
film
> that won at the Cannes Film Festival. Beautiful and touching movie.
Visually,
> so sophisticated. There is no way the average, hollywood viewer would be
able
> or willing appreciate this film (I could be wrong but I doubt it). So does
this
> mean it shouldn't be made? Should its success only rated by the number of
> people who see it? NO!
That makes me think of the movie "le bohemes" The Bohemians. They had a
modern musician playing his original music, it came from the heart or
something. But he banged on that piano as if he knew what the hell he was
doing. That reminds me of modern fine "artists", they think they feel
something, they think they know. But the final product is just noise.
>
> Otto Rogers is a Canadian abstractionist whose work really is quite
> extraordinarily beautiful. It is compositionally strong (space, form,
flatness,
> surface texture, colour) and subject wise it makes enough references to
nature
> that it exists somewhere between the real and the fantastical.
Oh boy. Check it out yall. That crap looks like any other crap floating
around the garbage bins of modern art teachers. Im sure he is a nice fella
thou :)
Ricardo Pontes (real crappy wannabe artist, and yes im proud to admit it)
ljrobins
>
>
> There are a few here that do not show their work. mainly because they are
> afraid that mani has been right all along. ("Gee, its true we have no
> talent")
I am not talking about HERE. I am talking about the REAL world. Take a look
around and see how many abstract artists are selling their work. Do you get out
much?
>
> Unsophisticated? Most people understand art, when viewers do not understand
> somethign they are either called unsophisticated, ignorant, idiots etc..
I said their viewing skills are unsophisticated not they themselves. Nor did I
call them ignorant or idiots. If art making or art viewing was something that
came naturally to everyone than why don't we all just do it? Why is it unreal
to expect art skills (as viewers and makers) to stay at the same level while
all other fields grow and expand?????
>
> That is a way to get people to shut up and just ttake it up the ass. That is
> the way modernists like to think, as if they are ABOVE anything average.
> When John Doe looks at a painting and says "what the frickin crap is that? "
> Then you can bet its a shitty painting, and that is because it did not do
> its job of expressing ideas very clearly.
No. I will not bet on that when the average Joe decides something is crap. How
many novels were tossed out of the schools as crap when some average Jane
decides its crap???
> Ideas for the sake of just being
> ideas are just that. They are not art. You cannot make art without know the
> fundementals, and USING them.
Duh. Everyone here agrees with that. Are you arguing with yourself now?
>
>
> Why are you so sophisticated?
Did I say I was? I do think I am a more sophisticated viewer than the average
person with regards to art yes. But because I also had teachers who taught me
to look and be critical. Most people look at something for a few seconds and
move on. Why do you think hollywood makes the films they do? A Robert Bateman
might be well-made but it's an easy read.
> And I am not
> > just referring to just viewing "painting" when I say this. I also mean
> theatre,
> > music, film, television and advertisements.
>
> There are as much garbage out in the theatres, film, music as there are in
> the fine arts. But at least for some of those crafts they have a vague
> understand of their craft unlike modernist fine art baboons.
Another generalization based on opinion rather than fact.
>
>
>
> >
> > Did anyone here see the film _In the Mood for Love_ ? It is a Japanese
> film
> > that won at the Cannes Film Festival. Beautiful and touching movie.
> Visually,
> > so sophisticated. There is no way the average, hollywood viewer would be
> able
> > or willing appreciate this film (I could be wrong but I doubt it). So does
> this
> > mean it shouldn't be made? Should its success only rated by the number of
> > people who see it? NO!
>
> That makes me think of the movie "le bohemes" The Bohemians. They had a
> modern musician playing his original music, it came from the heart or
> something. But he banged on that piano as if he knew what the hell he was
> doing. That reminds me of modern fine "artists", they think they feel
> something, they think they know. But the final product is just noise.
>
Except YOU DIDN'T SEE THE FILM DID YOU LOSER. So why are you commenting on
it????
>
> >
> > Otto Rogers is a Canadian abstractionist whose work really is quite
> > extraordinarily beautiful. It is compositionally strong (space, form,
> flatness,
> > surface texture, colour) and subject wise it makes enough references to
> nature
> > that it exists somewhere between the real and the fantastical.
>
> Oh boy. Check it out yall. That crap looks like any other crap floating
> around the garbage bins of modern art teachers. Im sure he is a nice fella
> thou :)
>
> http://www.spaga.com/ap19.htm
Yup. It's a beautiful thing. Too bad you don't have the ability to really see
it. At least I can be comforted in truly seeing the proof that you don't have
the ability to look. Your eyes could sure use some training.
lissa
Joseph Bennett
I did see that film, at the Detroit Institute of Art Film Theater just a
month or so ago.
On the way out, everyone was talking about how great it was, but I kept
waiting for something to happen. I was sure as blazes he or she would
get caught with all those night trips out for noodles.
Lordy, I just hate being a cretin.
Joe B.
ljrobins wrote:
>
>>
>>> Did anyone here see the film _In the Mood for Love_ ? It is a Japanese
>>
>> film
>>
>>> that won at the Cannes Film Festival. Beautiful and touching movie.
>>
>> Visually,
>>
>>> so sophisticated. There is no way the average, hollywood viewer would be
>>
>> able
>>
>>> or willing appreciate this film (I could be wrong but I doubt it). So does
>>
>> this
>>
>>> mean it shouldn't be made? Should its success only rated by the number of
>>> people who see it? NO!
>>
>>
Joseph Bennett
The "realism" thread got just too long. You had mentioned checking out
Corot. I recommend three books in particular, and you will never need
more:
"Corot", published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art as the catalogue
for the 1996 massive exhibit of Corot's work. Authors, Vincent Pomarede
(The Making of the Artist), Michael Pantazzi (The Greatest Landscape
Painter of Our Time), and Gary Tinterow (Le Pere Corot: The Very Poet of
Landscape), have done a magnificent job of bringing Corot to life. The
Tinterow essay is especially fine.
If you have just one, the Met book is it. For expansions into Corot's
earlier work, I suggest "Corot In Italy" by Peter Galassi, published by
Yale University Press. This goes into detail about Corot's initiation
into outdoor painting, and the state of outdoor painting by the early
1800's. That's right, the early 1800's, for those who think the
Impressionists invented it. By the time of Impressionism, outdoor
painting already was more than 100 years old.
Finally, for an especially good look at those earliest years of outdoor
painting, check out "In the Light of Italy" (subtitle: "Corot and Early
Open-Air Painting"), and if that isn't enough for you, I can suggest a
really good look at the Barbizons, contemporaries of the slightly aging
Corot, but with whom he sometimes painted.
The problem with Corot, I call it "the wonder of Corot", is that he
cannot be classified. He is not an Academic, though he painted for the
Salon; not truly a Barbizon, though he painted with them, and not an
Impressionist, though he is generally considered the authentic precursor
to the Impressionists. Wonderful! Absolutely unique.
As to his being a master of form, I think you will conclude, upon
reading some or all of the above, that he was indeed a master of form,
but moreso of value. Were he alive today, he'd be saying something like,
"It's the values, Stupid!" (Actually, I doubt that. This gentle man
would never call anyone "stupid," But you get my point.)
Happy reading.
Joe B.
>
Marilyn
Pollock book (800+ pages - it could have been edited down. I think I'm
picking up a Freudian bent of the authors, you know, blame the mother.)
You wrote:
"The problem with Corot, I call it "the wonder of Corot", is that he
cannot be classified."
This is exactly what they are now saying today about the painter Gerhard
Richter. These painters evolve and experiment and never get "stuck" in a
formula.
Marilyn
Chris
Are you finding that book on Pollock as hard a slog as I am? It seems to
me the authors, in trying to capture Pollock, have simply enumerated
every possible detail they could find, larded with lots of weak
hypotheses ranging back several generations, and without much sense of
real analysis. It'll be a challenge to finish.
Regards;
Chris
ljrobins
> That's right, the early 1800's, for those who think the
> Impressionists invented it. By the time of Impressionism, outdoor
> painting already was more than 100 years old.
But surely this is not surprising. History also suggests that the idea of
photographic painting began with Manet. Wrong indeed. The influence of
photographic means in painting (the use of a camera lucida) goes back much
farther than that.
Generally there is always someone who discovered something *first* before
finally gaining public recognition. And of course, by that time the prize
is given to the wrong person.
Thanks for the information though Joe. You are obviously well read in
painting history.
> Finally, for an especially good look at those earliest years of outdoor
> painting, check out "In the Light of Italy" (subtitle: "Corot and Early
> Open-Air Painting"), and if that isn't enough for you, I can suggest a
> really good look at the Barbizons, contemporaries of the slightly aging
> Corot, but with whom he sometimes painted.
>
> The problem with Corot, I call it "the wonder of Corot", is that he
> cannot be classified. He is not an Academic, though he painted for the
> Salon; not truly a Barbizon, though he painted with them, and not an
> Impressionist, though he is generally considered the authentic precursor
> to the Impressionists. Wonderful! Absolutely unique.
The best kind of artist indeed.
lissa
ljrobins
Laurie Lisle's book: _Louise Nevelson: A Passionate Life_
Soloman, Deborah: _Utopia Parkway: The Life and Work of Joseph Cornell_
I have also heard that the most recent book on Marcel Duchamp is quite
interesting.
Anyone have any other recommendations?
Lissa
Scarlett
Excellent book! Gives an idea (generally unknown) not only of
this woman artist (Spanish Expatriate living in Mexico) but also
of the women and men in the Surrealist movement, the European
Expatriates living in Mexico and the great contemporary art scene
there. Also, names exhibitions that are quite impressive for the
time but generally unknown as well as the friendships and
influences of the Surrealists of both genders.
Scarlett
"ljrobins" <ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote in message
news:3AD8A497...@cadvision.com...
: Two biographies I loved reading:
:
Chris
One book on Pollock you may enjoy is Ellen Landau's "Jackson Pollock",
Arbradale Press, 1989. There was a reprint in 2000, which is the one I
have, ISBN 0-8109-8186-6. It's neither sensationalistic nor judgmental,
and discusses (with good reproductions) much of his work in detail,
including some of the lesser known pieces and student works.
The student works in particular I found fascinating - Pollock was by no
stretch of the imagination a natural draftsman and seems to have
struggled in the shadow of virtually everyone from his brothers to
Picasso, trying on different styles before hitting his stride for the
brief period that things seemed to really work for him. Although it is
only conjecture, I think that lack of innate draftsmanship combined with
his desire to work with images (whatever its basis) really pushed him
into new forms of expression, much as similar issues influenced
Cezanne's development.
Regards;
Chris
ljrobins
> The biographer's
> job is the same as that of art historian: to report, not to analyze.
I would have to disagree with this statement. A biographer's job is to paint a
human picture of the life of their chosen subject. Sometimes a biographer will
go too far in the analysis of their subject, no doubt, but the key is finding
a balance between relaying the factual information and then doing a
psychological analysis based on these facts. Any good biographer will have
substantial knowledge on their subject and a decent understanding of the
processes of the human and social psyche. Human life is not just the result of
mechanical processes and facts. It is much more organically complex.
lissa
Chris
You wrote:
>
> But surely this is not surprising. History also suggests that the idea of
> photographic painting began with Manet. Wrong indeed. The influence of
> photographic means in painting (the use of a camera lucida) goes back much
> farther than that.
>
There's some interesting info on both the camera obsura and camera
lucida at:
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/department/fad/fi/woodrow/an-orig2.htm
(particularly w/r to Hockney's claim).
I'm not too sure whether the use of either camera is considered
photographic, since they both precede the invention of the photographic
camera. OTOH, certainly mechanical aids to drawing have existed for
centuries (see, for example, Durer's woodcut of "An Artist Drawing a
Seated Man", 1525), as well as the page mentionned above.
Regards;
Chris
Chris
I think I agree with you re the analysis bit. As lissa points out, it
is important for the biographer to go beyond dates and events - to find
the humanity in the subject - but I don't think you'd disagree with that
either. Certainly it makes you wonder why they'd create details like the
one you mention (unless it was dug out of his psychiatrist's notes);
after all, if seeing one's father pee patterns in the snow turned one
into a Pollock, then Pollock's would be a dime a dozen...
I didn't know you were a Burrough's fan (or at least reader); sometimes
I find he's bang on in his writing, and sometimes one wonder's what he
is on. (Well, not really LOL). A favourite quote from him is from Naked
Lunch - that boredom is the result of unresolved tension.
Cheers;
Chris
Dan Fox wrote:
>
> Hi, C&M --
>
> I read the big Pollock tome when it came out originally and agree pretty
> much with what you both have said. My main objection to this book (as to
> many bios) is the analysis, Freudian or otherwise, to which the authors
> subject the artist. The notion that Pollock's mature style originated in
> his seeing his father urinating in patterns is just silly. The biographer's
> job is the same as that of art historian: to report, not to analyze.
>
> One of the more interesting bios (but strangely not often quoted) is
> Potter, Jeffry, 'To a Violent Grave: An Oral Biography of Jackson Pollock.'
> Pushcart Press. NY: 1987. There is also a Putnam hardcover. What is
> interesting here is to read the same incident as reported by different
> people around Pollock. The different 'eye-witness reports' bolster William
> Burroughs's statement - 'all history is fiction!'
>
> Happy Easter/Passover.
>
ljrobins
> There's some interesting info on both the camera obsura and camera
> lucida at:
> http://www.newcastle.edu.au/department/fad/fi/woodrow/an-orig2.htm
> (particularly w/r to Hockney's claim).
Thanks for the link. I loved the article on Hockney's claim in the New York
Post (I think that is where it was).
> I'm not too sure whether the use of either camera is considered
> photographic, since they both precede the invention of the photographic
> camera. OTOH, certainly mechanical aids to drawing have existed for
> centuries (see, for example, Durer's woodcut of "An Artist Drawing a
> Seated Man", 1525), as well as the page mentionned above.
Yeah, I am not sure either, but the technology is the same isn't it? It's just
that the image ends up being projected onto a film or light sensitive paper
which reacts to light rather than just being used to create an image that can
be traced onto paper.
>
>
> Regards;
>
> Chris
Chris
(in reproduction) but was really unfamiliar with the rest of her work.
I've been poking around a bit looking for more. For those who are
interested here's a site with a biography (in French) and a number of
images:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/4736/index.html
Regards;
Chris
Chris
>
[..]
>
> Anyone have any other recommendations?
>
> Lissa
Probably far too many for my own good :) I tend to prefer biographies of
artists before the twentieth century - partly because my own taste runs
to more classical art, and partly because so much less is known about
their day to day lives that it is difficult to pad the books with
trivia, and the authors have to content themselves with analyzing the
works and their context. There are exceptions to this - for example, my
nomination for the absolute worst artist biography I have ever tried to
read -"M., the Man Who Became Caravaggio". (I'm not including Stone's
novelizations, which are a class by themselves.)
As for favourites, here's a few:
"Hans Holbein, the Portrait of an Unknown Man", by Derek Wilson. Holbein
is one of my favourite artists, and it is unfortunate that very little
is actually known about his life. Wilson has done a great job though of
analyzing his work in terms of what we know of his associates
(particularly Thomas More and Erasmus), and in exploring the expression
of the Reformation in his work.
"Rembrandt's Eyes", by Simon Schama. Schama is a pleasure to read, if
only because he is a thorough historian and a very fluent writer. But in
this book he more than does double duty in that he precedes his
biography of Rembrandt with a full biography of the dominant artist of
the era, Rubens, as well as a solid backing of Northern European
politics of the age. He ties these well to Rembrandt's development as an
artist; and the reproductions (though generally small) are excellent.
Sprinkled in the text are interesting bits on Rembrandt's techniques
(including the delightful reference to the use of lapis lazuli blue
under a brown, because he apparently liked the texture).
"Van Gogh and Gauguin: the Search for Sacred Art", by Debora Silverman.
One issue that has always bothered me about the way these two painters
are usually portrayed - especially van Gogh - is that the analysis of
their work is done through a development of style without much reference
to the spiritual motivation that guided the choices they made. In van
Gogh's case in particular there's a huge body of his own correspondence
in which he discusses what he intended to achieve, and how he selected
the means to do so. Silverman rights this by going back to the original
sources, particularly from the time of the Yellow House to van Gogh's
eventual suicide. She pays a good deal of attention to the very
different religious backgrounds of the two - Catholicism for Gauguin,
Dutch Reform for van Gogh - and how, even though they each essentially
rejected the superficial trappings of their religious heritage, the
underlying principle continued to guide their work in separate (and
often conflicting) directions. The plates are also very good.
Finally, I'll toss in Hilary Spurling's "The Unknown Matisse: A life of
Henri Matisse". This is apparently a two volume work (was the second
ever published?) - I only have the first volume, which covers Matisse's
first 40 years. I have to say Spurling must be a great writer - I don't
like Matisse's work very much, but she makes one feel an enormous
sympathy with the painter, and what he was trying to achieve, and one
comes away with a good deal of respect for him (at the least). John
Richardson, in one of the cover blurbs, declares the first volume as
"riveting as a novel by Zola"., and I certainly agree. The plates and
illustrations are moderately good.
And I'm off to bed.
Cheers;
Chris
Fanny Whyde
wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
>I remember Mark Webber stating here that he saw figures in Pollock's work.
>And now the book reveals that according to Lee Krasner he did begin with
>figurative work and then said "I veil the images."
>That I found interesting.
I guess I have the advantage of age and years
of reading under my belt that make me wonder
why anyone who has studied art history, and
Pollock in particular, wouldn't know about the
figurative foundation of his works. It's been
discussed ad-nauseum in art reviews ever since
Pollock climbed to his pinnacle. But I can
fully understand if the recent movie and the
book are one's introduction to Pollock and his
art.
Fanny Whyde
wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
>But do we need to know all about Benton's parents too?
I had the exact opposite reaction to the book.
While I'm sure the book would have been a lot
easier and maybe more palatable read for some
if all the peripheral details had been left out,
I found the art-historical nitty gritty MUCH
more interesting than the nitty gritty on
Pollock himself. A few paragraphs on his
addictions and boorishness were all I needed
to get the picture. I didn't need to hear
about every single snit he had or why he had
them.
caliban
equivalent of Leo Castelli's and still didn't sell a single painting.
cal
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010417223701.301$G...@newsreader.com...
> Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> > Remember the movies about Van Gogh, and Toulouse Letrec?
> > Who needs "years of reading under my belt" when we have Hollywood!
>
> I assume you're referring to the disaster starring Kirk Douglas. It was
> what you would expect for a movie made from an Irving Stone book, although
> I did like Anthony Quinn as Gaughin (sp).
>
> If by some chance, however, anyone here has not seen Vincent and Theo,
> run out and rent the video. Far better writing, acting, etc.
>
> The critic John Canaday perhaps said it best: 'Van Gogh is probably a lot
> more fun to read about than he was to know.' Probably applies to Pollock
> as well.
>
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
> http://www.danfoxart.com
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Chris
Chris
caliban
cal
"Chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3ADD05D0...@ns.sympatico.ca...
Scarlett
: Thanks for posting this Scarlett. I had seen her "Creation of
the Birds"
: (in reproduction) but was really unfamiliar with the rest of
her work.
: I've been poking around a bit looking for more. For those who
are
: interested here's a site with a biography (in French) and a
number of
: images:
:
: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/4736/index.html
:
:
: Regards;
:
: Chris
Thanks Chris for the link.
Did you see Terminator 2?
Look at this Varo image and tell me that it didn't influence the
movie ;-)
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/4736/ciencia.html
Remember when the 2nd terminator came up from the floor? Just
like this work!
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his
head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
Marilyn
Dan Fox wrote:
"the truth may actually be unknowable."
The above statement is really True!
Marilyn
mdeli
>I guess I have the advantage of age and years
>of reading under my belt that make me wonder
>why anyone who has studied art history, and
>Pollock in particular, wouldn't know about the
>figurative foundation of his works. It's been
>discussed ad-nauseum in art reviews ever since
>Pollock climbed to his pinnacle.
>
I definitely noticed two very large blue ass holes in a Pollock.
Anyone can obviously see these if he squints hard enough and squeezes
his imagination.
In fact I'm sure anyone with your vast sensitivity and scholarly
superiority could even see the figures that these anatomical parts
were attached to. I have to admit I tried, but an insensitive clod
like me could get no deeper.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Fanny Whyde
wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
>Pollock must have been
>fun to know at one time, he had so many friends. As with any alcoholic,
>the friends fall away, one after another.
I don't get the impression he had many 'friends.'
Not unless you equate 'acquaintances' with friends.
From what I've read about him - not just the latest
stuff - he was pretty much of a loner, in fact.
Like many a barfly, he was always hanging around
but never formed many 'friendly' attachments except
with Krasner and the few other women in
his life.
mdeli
university, I turned and reached for the paper. Someone had drawn a
peculiar arrow pointing to the roll hanging on the wall. Above it was
inscribed a penciled note which read, "ART DEGREE, TAKE ONE."
So what's really so funny about that you might ask? It certainly
seemed to me to be good for a laugh because it pretty well summarizes
a particular attitude toward Modern Art and education. Like much other
graffiti, it says something which remains for the most part publicly
unspoken.
This roll of toilet paper could be construed to have a double meaning.
On one hand it can simply be considered as just another mundane
everyday object but together with a bit of well-written conceptual art
commentary it becomes a genuine artistic artifact, a work of art.
Whatever it meant it did a lot to remind me of my assorted adventures
in art schools. In a way it summarized my feelings and inspired my
painting of the same name.
Guerdis
"Ricardo Pontes" <Ricard...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Modrian was known for his lame compositions of color shapes and crap
> like that, not only are they badly designed they are bad art. They say
> nothing. Art has to have a meaning, and for that meaning to be meaningful
it
> has to show the public through skill
Say, Ricky, did you take the short bus to art school?
Hutto
Guerdis
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote ...
> I challenge them to defend the Cezanne's I mentioned.
The contributions of Cezanne to artistic progress have little or nothing to
do with draftsmanship or anything else related to "skill" in your narow
defnition of the term.
I will even concede to you your points about his utter lack of
representational ability in terms of how closely he made things appear to be
real.
Those points are moot, however, for (R)eality is not the primary concern
here.
In short, simple terms, Cezanne helped to move art from representation
toward interpretation. Where ideas and 'meanings' were formerly communicated
via scenes and symbols, they were thereafter also able to be shown through
linear movement, arbitrary color, and distortion of conventional 'reality'.
Is that really so hard for you to grasp?
Is it also impossible for you to accept the idea that not all significant
work must be created by artists with like ability? For examble, I seriously
doubt that Bougereau would quite grasp either Cubism or the work of your
beloved magazine illustrator Rockwell (who was also an abstractionist).
There is a principle known as evolution. Evolution is present in all things
within and without a civilization. In the year 2001 we have little or no
real need for the artistic ideals of the 1800s, except to trace our artistic
evolution backwards to those rigid years before the new dawn of the 20th
century broke the horizon.
100 years have passed since that dawn. Cezanne is nothing but history now.
He's dead. His career is over. It's too late for you to do anything about
it. Modern Art exists. It's spilled milk. Get over it.
Hurry up and evolve, already.
Hutto
RBrac53660
>doubt that Bougereau would quite grasp either Cubism or the work of your
>beloved magazine illustrator Rockwell (who was also an abstractionist).
I think the before mentioned would grasp the concepts. But they could never do
it on there own. So they have a fall back
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
lauri levanto
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3ae0e9f1...@news.psi.ca...
> After doing my thing in the men's room in an art department of a large
> university, I turned and reached for the paper. Someone had drawn a
> peculiar arrow pointing to the roll hanging on the wall. Above it was
> inscribed a penciled note which read, "ART DEGREE, TAKE ONE."
So even that painting on your web page is but plagiarism.
<...>
> Tired of ... (your) web page!
>
-lauri
Brian Shapiro
It is important to note that evolution isn't completely linear, in that it
becomes necessary to revisit motifs, concepts and theories that have been
forgotten or overlooked---as the Renaissance and Neoclassical artists became
influenced by antiquity, the Romanticists became influenced by gothic
architecture, the Pre-Raphaelites by the medieval, Academics by Rococo,
early avant-garde artists by Japanese prints, later avant-garde artists by
sculpture by Africans and Pacific islanders, etc. I would suggest that the
postmodern art community has begun to rediscover concepts of art that had
been part of Academism (coinciding with renewed historical interest in
Academism and the Victorian era in general), such as allegory (Mark Tansey)
and figuration (Lucien Freud), poetic formalism (Franco Piruca), iconography
(Odd Nerdrum), artistic vocabulary of forms and idealism (Carlo Maria
Mariani), and eclecticism .
"Guerdis" <gue...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9btrdj$7nk$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Joseph Bennett
All of this creates massive confusion in my mind, particularly your point
regarding
"Cezanne helped to move art from representation toward interpretation."
Especially since it was Cezanne himself who said oil paintings were real and
capable only of representing reality, not capable of representing
non-substantial elements such as inspiration. I forget the exact quote, but
that was about the meaning, that oil wasn't the medium for intellectual
epiphanies.
Besides, it was Corot, 50 years before Cezanne, who said it isn't the scene, its
the interpretation of the scene that makes the picture.
I know Cezanne has a lot more followers than detractors, but lets not add to the
mythology floating around about those late 19th century painters. There's
enough baloney out there now, without us adding to it.
Regards....
mdeli
...As much as throwing a bunch of crap on the floor and calling it
art.
><...>
>> Tired of ... (your) web page!
>>
>-lauri
>
So don't go there.
mdeli
>
>"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote ...
>
>> I challenge them to defend the Cezanne's I mentioned.
>
>The contributions of Cezanne to artistic progress have little or nothing to
>do with draftsmanship or anything else related to "skill" in your narow
>defnition of the term.
What definition is that?
>I will even concede to you your points about his utter lack of
>representational ability in terms of how closely he made things appear to be
>real.
You should say, "any ability."
>
>Those points are moot, however, for (R)eality is not the primary concern
>here.
All his subject matter is entirely conventional and portrays reality.
No one has to draw "reality." If Cezanne paints a face and it looks as
bad as you might have done it there aint no excuse.
>
>In short, simple terms, Cezanne helped to move art from representation
>toward interpretation.
He helped move the last vestige of artistic competence on the road of
steady deterioration and turned attention away form what's on the wall
to ever sillier Artspeak.
>Where ideas and 'meanings' were formerly communicated
>via scenes and symbols, they were thereafter also able to be shown through
>linear movement, arbitrary color, and distortion of conventional 'reality'.
The usual art school nonsense. Abstraction is the oldest artform.
>Is that really so hard for you to grasp?
Its easy to grasp the fact that a close look at Cezanne's work reveals
that many people imagine seeing what they have been told rather than
taking a close look at what is really there.
>Is it also impossible for you to accept the idea that not all significant
>work must be created by artists with like ability?
I guess this idiot imagines that I believe that Leonardo is on a level
with Vargas.
> For examble, I seriously
>doubt that Bougereau would quite grasp either Cubism or the work of your
>beloved magazine illustrator Rockwell (who was also an abstractionist).
So what? I hope you will write a treatise on this important point.
Better still write whether Mondrian would grasp floor tile design by
your beloved abstractionists.
>
>There is a principle known as evolution. Evolution is present in all things
>within and without a civilization. In the year 2001 we have little or no
>real need for the artistic ideals of the 1800s, except to trace our artistic
>evolution backwards to those rigid years before the new dawn of the 20th
>century broke the horizon.
The usual art school mythology: anyone who criticizes Modern Academic
Art harks back in time. MAA is what's antiquated, it was all done by
1923 with the demise of Dada.
>
>100 years have passed since that dawn. Cezanne is nothing but history now.
>He's dead. His career is over. It's too late for you to do anything about
>it. Modern Art exists. It's spilled milk. Get over it.
Spilled milk is garbage. I feel its time to make that point. Look at
Fox's garbage. It has lots of "spilled milk." with some politically
correct Twombly scrapings. Its on the road that leads from Cezanne to
the slums.
Guerdis
"Brian Shapiro" <thesh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0zFE6.7510$J74.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Hutto,
>
> It is important to note that evolution isn't completely linear, in that it
> becomes necessary to revisit motifs, concepts and theories that have been
> forgotten or overlooked---
I agree. However, if we don't use the revisited idea to propel us forward,
what good is it to refer to the past at all? An artist is not necessarily
obligated to be a historian, it's just that no good artist fails to take as
much as he or she can from those who've set the groundwork for us.
I am only against anyone's attempt to categorically discount the
contributions of artists who've helped art evolve based on some how-to-book
style list of rules.
If those sorts of nay-sayers had their way, we'd all be painting by number
the various covers of Saturday Evening Post.
Hutto
Brian Shapiro
The tradition of interpretation did not even begin with Corot---Bouguereau,
for example, said that art was a "poetic interpretation of nature". And
Cezanne specifically set out to create a hyperrealism absent of
interpretation, claiming that by that point art had already mastered the
ability to capture the 'illusion' of reality, and that what he showed on his
canvases was more realistic than academic art because it was portraying
reality in the process of becoming, before fully ordered and layered by
human perception.
But I didn't want to argue with Hutto ;)
--Brian
"Joseph Bennett" <Joseph...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AE34C22...@mediaone.net...
lauri levanto
>
> ...As much as throwing a bunch of crap on the floor and calling it
> art.
Surprise,
we seem to agree on both cases!
-lauri
Joseph Bennett
Boog, whom I cherish but do not worship, was a bit after Corot. But I agree
that the concept of interpretation predates Corot. He just happens to be the
one whom I know actually articulated it. My area is 19th Century European
Painting, and I confess that I know very little outside that narrow slice of
time and geography. But outdoor painting got its first real emphasis pre-19th
Century from Valenciennes and through him, to his student, Michelin (who died
too young), and through Michelin, to his student, Corot, who brought it to its
fruition in Italy in the 1826-30 period. At that time, Italy was crawling with
painters from all over the continent, all painting the same scenes. No doubt a
bunch of them were interpreting like mad, to keep from making Xerox copies.
My own opinion: Interpretation reached its apex with VanGogh, whose explosions
of form and color are unrivaled in art history as windows into the mind of man.
I am not sure anyone would agree with me. That's Okay. I don't want to argue
with anybody.
Regards....\
Joe Bennett
Fanny Whyde
>I have to admit I tried, but an insensitive clod
>like me could get no deeper.
RIGHT ON for once!!! Just rememember that YOU
said it, not me or someone else.
Andrew D
<gue...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[snip]
+In short, simple terms, Cezanne helped to move art from representation
+toward interpretation. Where ideas and 'meanings' were formerly communicated
+via scenes and symbols, they were thereafter also able to be shown through
+linear movement, arbitrary color, and distortion of conventional 'reality'.
The same could be said of Disney, yet he is usually labelled "cartoonist"
- and it's not usually intended as a compliment.
Andy.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
mdeli
Interestingly DIsney fits the precepts of modern abstraction far
better than its so called masters.
There is more abstraction, better drawing, color, composition, skill
and emotion in two minutes of Dumbo than in most of the pretentious
nonsense presently inhabiting the modern sections of our museums.
mdeli
>Joseph,
>
>The tradition of interpretation did not even begin with Corot---Bouguereau,
>for example, said that art was a "poetic interpretation of nature". And
>Cezanne specifically set out to create a hyperrealism absent of
>interpretation,
...whatever that means
> claiming that by that point art had already mastered the
>ability to capture the 'illusion' of reality,
-like where? Name a painting.
>and that what he showed on his
>canvases was more realistic than academic art because it was portraying
>reality in the process of becoming, before fully ordered and layered by
>human perception.
>
Sounds like the usual Artspeak. What's "the process of becoming ---?"
Cezanne influenced practically nothing except miles of Artspeak. No
popular Modern Academic looks anything like Cezanne. His drawing is an
abomination. He didn't even know basic perspective, and couldn't even
figure out an axonometric approach as did the more educated cubists.
Cezanne is very ordinary second rate no-skill-realism as taught in
most art schools. His portraits are miserable and dependent for their
fame on a signature. Anyone willing to take a close look and forget
the Artspeak gas he learned will easily see what an ordinary patzer
Cezanne really was.
Check out "behind the behind" on my web site for an analytical glimpse
at the utter stupidity of a Cezanne's major masterpiece. Its really
too bad that one can't show graphics on this conferenc. Perhaps some
day it will be possible.
Andrew D
+ "Brian Shapiro" wrote:
+
+>Joseph,
+>
+>The tradition of interpretation did not even begin with Corot---Bouguereau,
+>for example, said that art was a "poetic interpretation of nature". And
+>Cezanne specifically set out to create a hyperrealism absent of
+>interpretation,
+...whatever that means
+> claiming that by that point art had already mastered the
+>ability to capture the 'illusion' of reality,
+-like where? Name a painting.
+>and that what he showed on his
+>canvases was more realistic than academic art because it was portraying
+>reality in the process of becoming, before fully ordered and layered by
+>human perception.
+Sounds like the usual Artspeak. What's "the process of becoming ---?"
Sounds a little bit like "All children are great artists until they are
encumbered by rules". To which I've always responded, all babies are great
talkers - until they are expected to follow the rules. Similarly, all
people are exceptional drivers - until rules get in the way.
Erik A. Mattila
Andy, in truth Disney has been recognized as Dada in some art texts.
In fact, I think older editions of Jamison's say this.
Erik Mattila
>