What is wrong with REALISTIC art????????????/
KlaeCW12
make it clear that I am looking for honest answers and views, not irrational
flames and insults. That said, I will try to voice my opinions and ask
questions without offending anyone.
First of all, I am a realistic pencil artist.
It seems that realistic art has no merit in the "art community". Why is this? I
think it's very strange that throughout grade school and high school the art
classes emphasized learning correct perspective, human anatomy, shading, etc.
But for some reason it seems that artists that try to take these principals and
use them in their art are frowned upon. Realism is obviously NOT the only type
of art, and I don't believe in a "perfect" style of art. But why would you
teach something that will not be respected if you try to perfect it? It seems
art teachers create artists in the classroom only to have the real world
destroy them.
My personal philosophy has always been one of focus. I believe an "idea" is
only as good as it's translation...People seem to find "realism" stiff and
impersonal. But I try to draw realistically to feel closer to the subject,
closer to the art, it's about total understanding of the things around me.
I have posted on this newsgroup inquiring about other realist artist, and how
to find websites dedicated to realism...but all I get are snide emails, or
replies that talk about wrapping dead bodies in plaster, or drawing with
twigs...I hope these replies were just confused people who didn't understand my
inquiry and NOT people trying to take shots at me for being interested in
realism. Let me know if there is a place for realist artists, or should I just
paint something that matches my couch?
Thanks for your time,
Paul
KlaeCW12
by the way, if you need to email me directly please use: artb...@yahoo.com
thanks,
Paul
Nikolaus Maack
>It seems that realistic art has no merit in the "art community". Why is this?
My guess is that most people see realism as dead, what with
photography being able to do the job just as well. Why sit down and
spend hours and hours creating a perfect replica of something --
that's how most people perceive realism -- when you can point a
digital camera at the same object and, click, whirr, buzz, you have a
perfect replica in five seconds? Being able to create a realistic
depiction of someone has become somewhat anachronistic, like being
able to make horseshoes. It's sort of quaint, but few people have any
use for the skill.
No offense, Paul, but I have to admit that I don't much care for
realism myself. It doesn't seem to have as much room for artistic
self-expression that, say, impressionism does. Do you disagree with
this stance? Does realism allow you a great deal of self-expression?
I'm genuinely curious here.
What my above speculation amounts to, really, is that realism is out
of fashion. Like paintings of wildlife, it's considered gauche.
There might be no logical explanation for it. Fashion never really
seems to make much sense.
>Let me know if there is a place for realist artists, or should I just
>paint something that matches my couch?
There's room for everybody on the planet. Do what you want to do. On
the other hand, if you want to make a go at being a full time,
professional artist trying to earn a living with your art, realism
might not be the best way to do it. Fashion will hold you back.
Which sucks, if realism is your preferred form of self-expression.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
each painting should not be burned.
Chris
Realistic work - or even generally representational work - is by no
means dead! I've looked at your site - you have some very good things
there - and looking at (say_ your picture of "Katherine Sleeping" one
can see you aren't afraid of taking on a difficult perspective, while
your picture "Tiffany" has a striking mask-like feel to it.
So don't let it get you down that (& it's true) realistic art has little
respect in certain art communities. Not all, but certain. From a
financial point of view it poses difficulties. Because art that you
create from your personal focus of the world will always carry your
vision - it isn't the sort of thing that decorators & interior designers
will buy to furnish office buildings. It carries your stamp, and hence
provides a challenge to the rest of the world to look into your vision.
That's not what they want to see hanging over the steno pool.
Another problem is is that it conflicts to the world view of some
artists that because there is so much dehumanization in the world,
artists have to acquiesce to it by creating art that is devoid of any
sense of an individual lyric. It's a very middle-class guilt sort of
thing, and it generates a wonderful excuse not to take on emotional
challenges (I've been criticised, for example, for the act of painting
children picking flowers and for trying to capture the movement in a
cadets band, but that's another story :), but I wouldn't worry about it.
Life is, after all, where you find it.
On the bright side, in the rest of the world representational work sells
well. Personally I think there's a good deal of demand from the public
for work that reaffirms beauty and grace in the world, just as there is
- and will always be - demand for work that examines the multiple facets
of humanity.
In your case, you clearly have an ability that would carry you well into
portraiture, which is probably the most difficult field, but also quite
lucrative (and outside RAF, probably the most respected.) Have you
thought about that route?
Cheers & good luck;
Chris
Michael Voytinsky
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> No offense, Paul, but I have to admit that I don't much care for
> realism myself. It doesn't seem to have as much room for artistic
> self-expression that, say, impressionism does. Do you disagree with
> this stance? Does realism allow you a great deal of self-expression?
> I'm genuinely curious here.
I think "realism" may be more then just representing images as you see
them, as photography done the hard way. I have seen some very life-
like portraits in art galleries and their effect could not be
duplicated with a camera, IMHO.
A camera is limited to what the subject can do - if certain facial
feature or expression does not quite work, you can not help it with a
camera - although I suppose modern digital editing techniques may have
changed it.
A good realist painting (and this might be equally true of a digitally
edited photo) can capture not only the likeness of its object, but some
of the Platonic essence behind it. Pure photography can not do this.
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mdeli
> It's naive to think that
>photography is what caused abstraction, a really bad, conventional way
>of teaching modern art. But it definitely does change how we think
>about realism.
Agreed.
>If you ask me, realism is far from dead for lots of reasons. First,
>old-fashioned realism is popular with a broad public not all that
>interested in contemporary art.
What's "old-fashion realism."
> Modern artists I value are always
>worried that it's hard to sell new work.
You mean new incompetent work.
>Second, as Niklaus says, there are thriving commercial arts that allow
>even creative artists to play around. It's always hard. Do you lose
>too much by selling your work, even making your work on the side
>worse? That's why a lot of artists wait tables instead. But at least
>you know you can develop your work in different ways.
Most so called artists who wait table haven't the skill to do saleable
artwork.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my web page, A Skeptical View of Modern Art and
my book, comments, work at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
of three dimensional solidity usually occupying deep space. This
requires artistic knowledge and skill. The degree to which the
illusion is convincing varies greatly in different artwork. Notice
that this is a technical statement is not a value judgment. .
Most Modern Academics imagine that realism is something confined to
the work of the past. This confusion comes from believing that realism
is photo imitation and infers a particular species of subject matter.
Note that the above definition of Realism does not necessarily
describe an object that can be named. Good examples are abstract
solids the likes of which can be seen in Dali and especially Tanguey.
On the other hand, when de Kooning like a child, slaps out a couple of
flat-as-a-board eyes on a massive schmier it isn't realism even though
the image can be identified.
The ability of most our modern greats at creating the illusion of the
solid has steadily diminished throughout this century even though much
of this artwork contains reconizeable images. Most acclaimed Modern
Art is really what I can only call no-skill-realism.
Realism is alive and well even though little that is really skillfully
expressed is allowed in the Modern sections of museums.
The oft repeated statement that "Realism in artwork is replaced by
photography," is aphoristic nonsense. No well executed artwork of this
or any other century would be mistaken for a photograph. That
statement is really used to excuse that dull flat look which most of
the public instinctively senses when viewing most Modern Academic Art.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
Lauri Levanto
<snip>
> "faithful representation is NOT art" -- and
> I wasn't the first to use that phrase. It comes from one
> of my favorite artists, Oscar Bluemner. Or was it Charles
> Burchfield...hmmmm...
> But in clipping the rest of your [Paul's]reply I do not think
> that you and I disagree on the major points. And I
> certainly agree that someone can and should learn by
> 'copying' if that is going to get them where they
> need to be so that they no longer 'copy' but create in
> their own unique style. That copying can stultify the
> achievement of a unique style may well be a valid concern.
> Copying can certainly become a crutch as tons of
> look-alike realistic renderings out there testify to.
<snip>
The first part I almost agree:" Faithful representation
does not MAKE it art". From Nefertiti to Odd Nerdum we have
examples of faithful representation that must be included into art
by almost any definition. Technical skill is of course not
the only skill required.
The point, Cher, is your confusion with copying and rendering.
In traditional Europeans art teaching,
copying played a significant role. When you were asked to make
a copy, the teacher could verify if you have achieved
what you intended, instead what happened to come out
of a free exercise. Also, attempting to copy a painting is maybe
the only way to stydy how certain color effects are achieved.
That is copying.
On the other hand, how much of the evening classes are spent
making sofa art, copying "self expression"? That is copying, too.
Rendering what _you_see_ can and should be very personal.
In traditional European teaching again, personal rendering
played an important part in nude classes.
In some of Paul's works, I got an impression that he
_applied_ good technique like low key imaging.
This may be unfair criticism, because the digitized image
does not tell so much.
* * *
I begun drawing during travels in moslem countries.
They tolerated pencil better than camera. Then I learned
that in the middle of Europe as well, I get a stronger
impression of a place or event, if I sit down
to draw, say for half an hour. That is kin to the way
many abstractionists say it is the _process_ that is important.
If dance is an art of spoken body language,
for me more or less 'realistic' sculpture is the same in writing.
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
--
The fact that I abuse my office E-mail address
does not imply that my employer agrees with,
or is aware of the opinions expressed here.
John Haber
>You should simply consider the source in this instance
>and ignore all further replies from this pathetic wretch. I have.
..... if you were ignoring them how do you know who wrote this one ?
John Haber
living out of making portraits, I would advise against it - especially
for someone like you who is clearly interested in staying *true*.
Becoming a portrait artist means compromising your own work - dealing
with people you may have no interest in (idiots and fools <grin>),
using your creative energy to make work that may not satisfy your
creative impulses, dealing with dead lines, and so on. My friends
complain that they spend all their time producing work for people they
don't much care about and that they never have time to deal with the
real matter at hand. The *gut* art. However, if you were able to
convince your audience that they should accept the portraits as you
present them and you don't feel you are compromising, then go for it.
I sell my own work through three different sources. One of them is a
co-op gallery where we have two portrait artists who do commisssions
as well as sell their own work. I try always to only sell the sketches
produced as part of the work in progress on my large paintings there.
But some months are so busy I often find myself specifically producing
work that I know will sell. I feel like a factory. Thats ok to a
certain extent, but it is distracting from what I call my *real* work.
I helped to pay my way through college by doing paintings of people's
houses and got inundated with commissions - it was so depressing I
stopped and took a job data inputting instead. However, if I am off
doing some crummy job, like that, or waiting tables or cleaning, my
creative energy is still in tact - almost as if the only way to
survive the crummy jobs is to create. It works much better.
You have a goal, you have guts, and you have energy ... don't let
anything get in the way.
Best,
Alison
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
>Thank you Alison for the reply...about tolerance, point well taken. I read
>through some of my previous posts and realized that I had become defensive of
>personal attacks instead of focusing on my original goal...to understand why
>realistic art seemed to be disrespected. I have realized (as stated many posts
>ago), that I need to do what I believe in regardless of what the public thinks.
>I wanted to know the state of realism in the art world, and though many posters
>helped answer this question, it also became a personal debate about my art!
>Many of you suggested I be a portrait artist, and that may be a way to make
>good money, in fact that is the thing I am most often asked to do. But, I want
>my art to show what I feel when I draw...I want people to see honesty in my
>drawings as if you have already been introduced to the people in them. But
>that's my personal goal. Thanks again for all of your replies.
>Paul
John Haber
those uncomfortable with the initial question, because of realism's
vitality or because of it's vagueness as a label, and with those that
empathize with a realist's feelings of isolation. All contrast
painting with photography, the latter a mechanical process of
reproducing what one sees, the former a way to get inside things.
I don't buy it, for lots of reasons. Both media are creating images
out of light and shadow, both with reference to what one sees, and
both with the ability both to represent it insightfully and to make it
strange and new. They even have the ability to refer to and feed off
one another, as with painterly photography that approaches
abstraction, some kinds of conceptual art, or plain old photorealism.
For instance, is Chuck Close getting past photography to the essence
of the sitter -- or rather to the essence of what photographers and
painters do? I've written about him in
KlaeCW12
Alison wrote:
.>Becoming a portrait artist means compromising your own work - dealing
>with people you may have no interest in (idiots and fools <grin>),
>using your creative energy to make work that may not satisfy your
>creative impulses, dealing with dead lines, and so on. My friends
>complain that they spend all their time producing work for people they
>don't much care about and that they never have time to deal with the
>real matter at hand. The *gut* art."
Thanks Alison for understanding that my post about "not being a portrait
artist", was not a shot at portrait artists. I'm glad that came through, and I
couldn't agree with you more about "compromising your own work". If I'm not
inspired by the subject I feel like I'm prostituting my talents, and that makes
me feel like a sham...especially if the person I draw for thinks it's the best
drawing in the world. I want people to have a piece of art that I enjoyed
creating as much as they will enjoy owning. This may be illogical, and not very
profitable, but it is human.
Paul D. Snyder
http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/pencilartbypaul
Cher Ayde
>A camera is limited to what the subject can do - if certain facial
>feature or expression does not quite work, you can not help it with a
>camera - although I suppose modern digital editing techniques may have
>changed it.
Photo retouching of portraits has long been
practiced by portrait photographers. It's not
something new. Look at portraits in any
portrait photographer's studio to see how they
retouch and enhance and add auras, etc.
Cher Ayde
>
>Cher Ayde wrote:
>The first part I almost agree:" Faithful representation
>does not MAKE it art". From Nefertiti to Odd Nerdum we have
>examples of faithful representation that must be included into art
>by almost any definition.
I certainly would NOT include either Egyptian art
or Odd Nerdrum's in a definition of 'faithful representation.'
To me 'faithful representation' is what most Sunday painters
strive for. (I call myself a weakend painter, btw)
>The point, Cher, is your confusion with copying and rendering.
I'm not the least confused. I think my remarks have
been interpreted literally where I intended them
to be very loosely applied to any artist who is
'copying' something, be it a still life, a landscape,
or a photograph. The ART comes out when someone like
Charles Burchfield interprets the scene before him
in the manner in which Burchfield did it. He worked
outdoors (plein air) and 'copied' from nature too,
but his paintings are anything but copies.
I am NOT arguing against copying as a means of
learning to draw or paint. I am trying to point
out that the art market is FILLED with those
'copy' works that are nothing but another attempt
to render whatever the artist sees realistically.
The works that stand out from the mass are the
ones that go beyond the 'faithful representation.'
Let me give you an example from my art school days.
In my 'beginning semester' of painting, which didn't
come until my sophomore year, the first painting
instructor I had set up a still life that was a
table, chair and an auto jack with it's attendant
handle (crank) set atop the table. Everyone painted
the still-life arrangement as they saw it. I did
too, but I set it into an enviroment of my own
invention -- an outdoor scene in which the blackness
of the heavens filled with stars is sagging,
the jack all that holds the 'heavens' in place.
That painting won me a scholarship in competition
that semester -- before they learned I was who I
am -- a seasoned artist before ever entering art
school. But I got the scholarhip anyway.
mark webber
Alison wrote:
> I don't know whether we are correct to call Mark Webber's work
> *Realist* - John does; I calls it figurative ... with abstract
> tendencies (he may hate that).
I would really prefer that my work wasn't called realism. First, I don't
work from nature - the figures are invented. Second, I see are pretty
strong distinction between realism and various forms of classicism, an
idea that I think many in this group are somewhat resistant to. But if it
helps any - and without putting myself anywhere near their ranks - I would
add that I don't see Piero, Raphael, Michelangelo or Ingres as realists
and I don't think any art historians with an education do either. They
were idealizing human and other natural forms.
> Last night's opening of Mark's show
> was a delight. The images I have seen of his work did no justice to
> his superb use of colour and the sensual use of paint that transform
> an everyday image into a stimulating aesthetic experience. I wanted to
> peel away the layers of paint and find out how he got to such a simple
> image with so much complexity evident on close scrutinisation. It
> pleased me to hear him tell us that over the years he constantly
> reworked his paintings.
Thanks an awful lot. It was really a fun evening.
>
> Thanks to Mark for being a superb host ... even though the white wine
> had run out by the time we got there <grin>.
>
Oh, what a drag that was. We had to make three wine runs. Thanks for
coming!
Mark
Norman Strand~
Here in Arizona there is a great deal of realistic art being shown. Yes there
is some abstract art, but I would guesstimate that 80% of the art that I
see in local galleries is representational.
Norman Strand
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226
Sharlene
>Alison wrote:
>.>Becoming a portrait artist means compromising your own work - dealing
>>with people you may have no interest in (idiots and fools <grin>),
>>using your creative energy to make work that may not satisfy your
>>creative impulses, dealing with dead lines, and so on. My friends
>>complain that they spend all their time producing work for people they
>>don't much care about and that they never have time to deal with the
>>real matter at hand. The *gut* art."
I'm not sure I understand how you and your friends are compromising your own
work by doing portraits. Whenever I meet with my prospective clients, I am
given full freedom to 'create' the setting, mood, etc. for the sitter(s)
because they trust my work. Obviously, when they're paying the big bucks,
they're going to want to be able to recognize the sitter, but there's still
alot of creative space available! Also, when I bring my portfolio of
previous portraits, I just happen to bring along my "creative 'gut' work"
portfolio and invariably make a sale from that, as well. But, I've never
felt the loss of "my creative self" in either genre. If you don't like the
people who have hired you, why don't you refuse the commission? I've
certainly done so, when I felt no rapport with the sitter. BUT, that
doesn't mean I cut them out of my potential file. When first contacted to
do some work, I usually let them know that there is a waiting list but I
will be happy to meet with them for an initial consultation to go over what
they are interested in and what I bring to my portraits. If I find that
they will not allow me the freedom to be as creative within those parameters
as I choose, then I suggest another artist I trust whom they might wish to
contact, especially if they need the portrait done in the near future. This
is only done when I_absolutely_ have no sense of rapport with them. Moods
change and it may just be an off day. Not that I'm rich, by any means, but
I have found that when there is no 'connection' between myself and the
sitter, I invariably create a dull piece of work. So, I stopped doing that
many years ago.
>
Paul wrote:
>Thanks Alison for understanding that my post about "not being a portrait
>artist", was not a shot at portrait artists. I'm glad that came through,
and I
>couldn't agree with you more about "compromising your own work". >
I didn't take anything you said as a shot at portrait artists, either, Paul.
I think to be successful in that genre requires alot more than technical
skill. There has to be that little 'something' extra to create a truly
beautiful piece of work. There is a special joy that comes from being able
to capture the elusive personality of a sitter that generally carries me
through to completion. And, I am proud of my being able to create that for
someone. My 'creative' fulfillment within the protrait genre usually comes
from being able to create the background I want for a particular sitter.
But, there is nothing uglier than a poorly rendered portrait hanging on
someone's wall. This type of work generally gets tossed upon the demise of
the sitter, and sometimes sooner. Truly well-done creative portraiture
lasts through the centuries.
>
and Paul wrote:
If I'm not inspired by the subject I feel like I'm prostituting my talents,
and that makes
>me feel like a sham...especially if the person I draw for thinks it's the
best
>drawing in the world. I want people to have a piece of art that I enjoyed
>creating as much as they will enjoy owning. This may be illogical, and not
very
>profitable, but it is human.
Don't worry about prostituting your talents, Paul, just do it. There isn't
a profession in the world that workers don't feel that way. If you don't
own the business and bills have to be met, you will never have the freedom
to always do something you enjoyed creating. Someone will usually have the
final say over whatever you're doing. But, if you're looking to sell your
work, you are in business. My father used to have a wonderful expression
whenever I made the same complaint that you have, "There's s--- duty to
everything!"
Business is business, and I've met alot of artists who don't want to think
about that area. Life is compromise. Until you're totally self-supporting
and can pick and choose whatever you want to do, there will always be those
jobs you're less fond of than others. The trick is to change your attitude
and look upon each one as another lesson to sharpen your skills, learn new
ways of approaching the same thing, or, even as a psychological lesson in
people skills. As long as their checks clear the bank, they're good people.
The bigger the payments, the more realistic they want the portrait work.
8-)
P.S. Another thing I do when I meet with new clients is bring along my
artist's statement, as well as a paper I created about how my portrait
procedure is structured. This includes what I won't allow, as well. They
have to understand that this isn't just their portrait, it's my product,
too, and although we're doing this together, I expect the freedom to create
the portrait in my own fashion. Believe it or not, this leaves a tremendous
amount of "creative" freedom to enjoy as an artist.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> Alison wrote:
>
> > I don't know whether we are correct to call Mark Webber's work
> > *Realist* - John does; I calls it figurative ... with abstract
> > tendencies (he may hate that).
>
> I would really prefer that my work wasn't called realism. First, I don't
> work from nature - the figures are invented. Second, I see are pretty
> strong distinction between realism and various forms of classicism, an
> idea that I think many in this group are somewhat resistant to. But if it
> helps any - and without putting myself anywhere near their ranks - I would
> add that I don't see Piero, Raphael, Michelangelo or Ingres as realists
> and I don't think any art historians with an education do either. They
> were idealizing human and other natural forms.
....AND ALONG THIS LINE IF THEY AREN'T "IDEALIZING" THEN THEY ARE DOING
SOMETHING ELSE!
EXCUSE THE SCREAMING, my little finger slipped.
Old Hen
artists do the same thing photography does. Very, very wrong. If that's true then
there's no room for imagination, aside from a little enhancement, yes?
As a person who has worked very hard to hone my skills and to enhance my talent, it
irks me to no end to say that realism is "dead" because we now have photography. I
have visions and landscapes in my mind that would take 100 years to paint but I
will never be able to find them in a photograph, anywhere on this earth. We
create, not translate or imitate.
Use your talent and your refined skills to create something and that will always be
fresh.
Gloria
KlaeCW12 wrote:
> Let me begin by saying I respect and truly love all types of art. Let me also
> make it clear that I am looking for honest answers and views, not irrational
> flames and insults. That said, I will try to voice my opinions and ask
> questions without offending anyone.
>
> First of all, I am a realistic pencil artist.
>
> It seems that realistic art has no merit in the "art community". Why is this? I
> think it's very strange that throughout grade school and high school the art
> classes emphasized learning correct perspective, human anatomy, shading, etc.
> But for some reason it seems that artists that try to take these principals and
> use them in their art are frowned upon. Realism is obviously NOT the only type
> of art, and I don't believe in a "perfect" style of art. But why would you
> teach something that will not be respected if you try to perfect it? It seems
> art teachers create artists in the classroom only to have the real world
> destroy them.
> My personal philosophy has always been one of focus. I believe an "idea" is
> only as good as it's translation...People seem to find "realism" stiff and
> impersonal. But I try to draw realistically to feel closer to the subject,
> closer to the art, it's about total understanding of the things around me.
>
> I have posted on this newsgroup inquiring about other realist artist, and how
> to find websites dedicated to realism...but all I get are snide emails, or
> replies that talk about wrapping dead bodies in plaster, or drawing with
> twigs...I hope these replies were just confused people who didn't understand my
> inquiry and NOT people trying to take shots at me for being interested in
> realism. Let me know if there is a place for realist artists, or should I just
> paint something that matches my couch?
>
> Thanks for your time,
>
> Paul
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/pencilartbypaul
--
Gloria: "And on the Fifth Day God Created Birds" nuff said!
Gus: "I Can Talk ... Can You Fly?"
Erik A. Mattila
particularly inspired by their work, that's a pretty devestating condemnation of
humanity. It also implies that 'artists' are a singular class that has the option
to rise above whoring their 'talents' to the world, commiting shammery right and
left in their day to day routine of survival. (I'm being sarcastic here, Paul,
and I hope the humor doesn't escape you.)
The alternative is interesting to explore (at least for me). That is that a
'real' artist (since that qualifier seems to be of interest to many on this ng) is
one who will art no matter what, even under the most sever restrictions and narrow
scope of a commission. So I'm imagining a person that oozes art from every pore --
and even the grocery store window sign this imaginary person paints testifies to
the fact - a certain Dürer quality to the shape of the 'B' in 'bananas' or a very
Fauve '2 lbs. for a dollah.'
So this person gets up in the morning on the wrong side of the bed, feels
absolutely uninspired about everything in general, yet is still able to go to work
and make art. One day this person is 'all tied up' and withdrawn, and makes art,
and the next this person is 'loose and free, maybe even 'expressive,' and still
makes art. This imagined person is the 'consumate artist.'
If this person's strategy is to be a portrait artist, then he/she compromises
nothing to achieve the goal, right? A plumber doesn't compromise carpentry when a
plumber plumbs. And it may be that Idiots and Fools make wonderful portraits. I
wonder what Holbein really thought of Henry VIII?
But I'm talking around the subject that really interests me, and that is the
collection of vaporous statements that are so common to the art discourse. RAF is
an excellent place to collect these, by the way. I've already asked on the n.g.
what 'self-expression' really means, and it didn't go very far, as these threads
have a tendency to wander off-topic (as my post here is doing). Personally, I
think it is a vaporous statement, meaning that it is only something that artists
say to each other, and to others associated with 'the art world,' (meaning
sub-culture) and has no particular meaning other that a 'badge' or 'signal' which
simply says 'this is art talk here.' Hopefully I'm wrong - I would just like to
know that I'm wrong, with a reasonable degree of certainty.
But more to this thread, what do statements such as 'compromise you work' or
'prostitute your art' or even 'gut art' mean, beyond being platitudes of the art
discourse? A lot of things begin to unfold when you ask this sort of question.
Anyway, I am interested in exploring the 'concrete' meaning of these terms. I'm
particularly interested in 'gut art' because I think that artists imagine that
they can transfer human emotion to a work of art. I keep thinking that the only
way I have ever been able to work on an automobile is to get angry, cuss, bash
things, and all that. When the engine starts up and purrs, it is a represntations
of my emotions? I don't think so, even though the only way I could make it purr
is to get angry. The thing is, the most angst-ridden painting could be made
either in a state of angst, or in a state of cool detachment. Equally, a portrait
of the most mundane subject could be quite able to elicit emotional responses from
the viewer.
Erik Mattila
KlaeCW12 wrote:
> Alison wrote:
> .>Becoming a portrait artist means compromising your own work - dealing
> >with people you may have no interest in (idiots and fools <grin>),
> >using your creative energy to make work that may not satisfy your
> >creative impulses, dealing with dead lines, and so on. My friends
> >complain that they spend all their time producing work for people they
> >don't much care about and that they never have time to deal with the
> >real matter at hand. The *gut* art."
>
> Thanks Alison for understanding that my post about "not being a portrait
> artist", was not a shot at portrait artists. I'm glad that came through, and I
> couldn't agree with you more about "compromising your own work". If I'm not
> inspired by the subject I feel like I'm prostituting my talents, and that makes
> me feel like a sham...especially if the person I draw for thinks it's the best
> drawing in the world. I want people to have a piece of art that I enjoyed
> creating as much as they will enjoy owning. This may be illogical, and not very
> profitable, but it is human.
>
Erik A. Mattila
lens -- on just the grounds of optics. The idea that photography stands
for reality is in fact a 'learned' thing. Again, the famous example of
Papuans who were unable to recognize a Polaroid portrait as a
representation of a human face until they were told that it was -- and
then could never 'unlearn' this and regain the innocence of seeing the
Polaroid as abstract expressionism. (Incidentally, the Papuans can see
two images at once, which we cannot do.
Often, a painter who is skilled in descriptive drawing and rendering can
make a much more 'true to life' representation (if human vision is the
standard that determines this) than a camera. Anyone who doubts this can
perform a simple experiment. Get a very study tripod and take several
shots of the same subject, each with different lenses. Then view them
all and choose the one that most faithfully represents what you actually
saw. (It would drive the point home if you did this while viewing the
photographed scene.
But now I'm remembering the most horrible job in a graphic design studio
(a long time ago). An electronic component would be photographed, and
your boss would hand it to you to make it look real. You had to paste
the photo down on a piece of illustration board, and carefully slice a
very narrow pie slice down the middle of the object, wide at the top, and
then unglue it, and reglue it down again rotated to fill up the wedge.
This was done to correct the parallax of the camera lens. Then it had to
be air-brushed to remove the cut-line.
Erik Mattila
John Haber
>'prostitute your art' or even 'gut art' mean, beyond being platitudes of the art
>discourse? A lot of things begin to unfold when you ask this sort of question.
That is an easy one to most artists who believe that art is not about
a finished image but about an investigation - an exploration - where
constantly pushing the boundaries to explore the potential of a piece
takes over from the need for a marketable product. Failure becomes an
accepted part of your work. To prostitute it or compromise it means to
play safe within the boundaries that you already know - which means
you can never discover the boundaries you don't know. Those boundaries
are constantly just out of reach ... they are the ones that turn the
gut. That is when the real art comes.
John Haber
invention of form you mention as distinct from a realist working from
a model. I apologize if my signature critic's style in my post 48
hours ago (on the one hand, on the other hand, on the third hand, ...)
left raf without a desire to get a look at your work. They'd
definitely take pleasure in it!
John
John Haber
>I think possibly you read too much. Try going to art museums and galleries.
>Here in Arizona there is a great deal of realistic art being shown. Yes there
>is some abstract art, but I would guesstimate that 80% of the art that I
>see in local galleries is representational.
And you know, I forgot another example. There's after all here in New
York, just a block above the Guggenheim, the National Academy of
Design dedicated to the, er, retro styles.
John Haber
>If I find that they will not allow me the freedom
>to be as creative within those parameters
>as I choose, then I suggest another artist I trust
Makes me appreciate again how wonderfully amazing it is that the old
master portraits, with their insight into character often at the
expense of idealization of neurotics, ever got made.
John Haber
>Add to this the radical difference between the
>human eye and the camera lens -- on just the
>grounds of optics. The idea that photography
>stands for reality is in fact a 'learned' thing.
Nice. The idea of one lens, two eyes, and then more possiblities that
the multiplicity of art can analyze and explore dogged me with that
Gary Hill of separate monitors for the head and hands the other day.
KlaeCW12
Eric wrote:
>That is that a
>'real' artist (since that qualifier seems to be of interest to many on this
>ng) is
>one who will art no matter what, even under the most sever restrictions and
>narrow
>scope of a commission.
Eric, I applaud your approach of having a strong work ethic, and one of
determination...Yes, I can see how that would make you a "working" artist, but
I'd rather starve than just crank out uninspired art to make a buck. When I
started drawing at age 2, money was obviously not my motivation, so why should
it be today? What happened to individualism...that's what makes art so
wonderful isn't it? I create to realize my vision and though praise and the
occassional sale are nice, it's even better if I know I've created something I
believe in. That's where 'compromising my work' and 'prostituting my art' come
in... As a teenager, (not very long ago), I would draw other people's ideas to
get fast cash...but the art meant absolutely nothing to me, and when I see that
artwork hanging in their homes, I cringe, and it's worse when they say how much
they love it and show it off. In most instances I offer to give them another
piece of art. Back then, I was immature,(okay, not as mature as I am
today...I'm still immature!), and in hindsight I feel I compromised my
integrity, I now try to have "quality control" when I create or show work.
Maybe one day I'll "grow up" and realize that I should hate drawing and just do
it because it's what an "artist" is supposed to do...But for now I'm happy
staying true to my beliefs...stuck in the rut of self-expression...That's just
another 2 cents added to the buck-fifty I've dropped here over the last few
days!
Artistically yours,
Paul D. Snyder
http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/pencilartbypaul
>
Sharlene
John Haber wrote in message <380b8925...@news.columbia.edu>...
>Sharlene:
>>If I find that they will not allow me the freedom
>>to be as creative within those parameters
>>as I choose, then I suggest another artist I trust
John
>Makes me appreciate again how wonderfully amazing it is that the old
>master portraits, with their insight into character often at the
>expense of idealization of neurotics, ever got made.
They got made the same way I do it, John. I would imagine that those dumb
old stupid masters way back then were given the freedom to explore the
process of setting up the portrait parameters, which they then shared and
refined with the sitter. I think in some instances, even today, there are
some of us whom the sitter trusts enough to allow that same artistic
freedom. Within those parameters, having set up the view, I see no problem
with being able to create a portrait with character insight. I'm somewhat
amazed at your amazement. Do you really think the old masters would_ not_
be in control of their portrait work? Who's the one that's supposed to know
what they're doing? Why would you assume that I don't paint with insight
because I try to find the best setting for my portraits? This is simply
what most of my sitters expect of me and what you should be giving the
people who pay you to present them in their best light.
>
>John
>jha...@haberarts.com
>http://www.haberarts.com/
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
(snip)
:But more to this thread, what do statements such as 'compromise you :work'
or
:'prostitute your art'
Erik,
Virginia Woolf says that one "prostitutes their art" when they make it with
an audience in mind. I would imagine that would be something like painting
mauve to go with a mauve carpet and so on, but I guess it would be included
in portrait commissions as well. That must be wrong because I would imagine
that would make van Gogh's portraits "prostituted"... Then again, people
wishing a "realist" portrait wouldn't go to van Gogh because he put too much
angst into every little thing. Which makes me ponder your question below
about the "gut" painting which I will reply to:
or even 'gut art' mean, beyond being platitudes of the art
:discourse? A lot of things begin to unfold when you ask this sort of
question.
I'm sure it will allow for a lot of opinions here :-)
"Gut art", to me, is a very pure form of art. Many people will not care to
say the artist's pain and suffering (who really cares?) but, allowing the
surfaces of polite society, of civilization, of appearances to crumble will
permit a non-"prostituted" and "pure" expression of artistic statement. I
have done some very nice watercolors which are very relaxing and pretty.
Many people like my watercolors, but there is no "gut" feeling or
examination in this medium for me (flame away) so I give them away or toss
them away. Your automobile analogy is very good and perhaps you don't see a
coorelation of anger of emotion applied to your painting but many do. That
is why, again - there is more than ONE "art world" and room for many diverse
styles.
Kay
Kay
Norman Strand~ wrote in message <7ufdgk$9...@chnews.ch.intel.com>...
:I think possibly you read too much. Try going to art museums and
galleries.
:Here in Arizona there is a great deal of realistic art being shown. Yes
there
:is some abstract art, but I would guesstimate that 80% of the art that I
:see in local galleries is representational.
:Norman Strand
Norman,
Being an Arizona resident myself I think you may be talking about the 80%
that caters to the "tourist" and "winter visitors". I still don't
understand what people categorize as "realistic" because the sculpture of
Luis Jiminez, Alfrez Quiroz, Robert Colescott, Bailey Doogan and the gang
are representational but certainly not amongst the 80% you mention. There
is a vast gap between "realist" and "abstract" art with many other styles
between that I am not reading about in this thread. Also, I assume you are
speaking about the Scottsdale area? I just went to an opening at Riva Yares
Gallery in Scottsdale where the average price was 50K and walked a few
blocks away to (?) Gallery where some very nicely painted landscapes were
selling for $500. The latter is more representational of the 80% I believe
you are referring to.
Kay
:
:--
Kristina
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:3807441d...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> On 15 Oct 1999 17:32:06 GMT, klae...@aol.com (KlaeCW12) wrote:
>
> >It seems that realistic art has no merit in the "art community". Why is
this?
>
> photography being able to do the job just as well.
I disagree with this Nik. Photography is a totally different meduim, and
realism is not just about portraying an image as is seen through the eye in
everyday life. An artist brings something of him/herself to that image in
painting or drawing, whatever. You cannot compare the two and say that
photography does a better job when it is altogether a different medium. as
in photography, the artist brings their own to the work. Whether that be
the mood of the piece, whether they approach that photo in a more
traditional sense, or whether they use photographic chemicals to paint with.
The areas and possibilities are just too vast to simplify it as you have.
Why sit down and
> spend hours and hours creating a perfect replica of something --
> that's how most people perceive realism -- when you can point a
> digital camera at the same object and, click, whirr, buzz, you have a
> perfect replica in five seconds? Being able to create a realistic
> depiction of someone has become somewhat anachronistic, like being
> able to make horseshoes. It's sort of quaint, but few people have any
> use for the skill.
It is again, as I have said before, "all in your mind". That is the true
essence of art. even if someone wated to portray something 'realistically'
without changing what they see before them, it is not possible. We bring
something to the work whether or not we are aware of it. Most artists
actively do this. There is a purpose in communicating something.
>
> No offense, Paul, but I have to admit that I don't much care for
> realism myself. It doesn't seem to have as much room for artistic
> self-expression that, say, impressionism does. Do you disagree with
> this stance? Does realism allow you a great deal of self-expression?
> I'm genuinely curious here.
You don't have to like realism...but first, try and understand and educate
yourself on what it is about. I don't get this comparisson to
impressionism, it seems almost a mute point. It doesn't make sense to me.
I don't know what paul said, but I think all art has equal footing to be
expressive. One is not far superior thatn another type of art
(expressionism, minimalism, imprressionism, abrstract art, realism) they are
all more or less approaches to the work. (very simplified version here)
Each can impact just as much as the other.
>
> What my above speculation amounts to, really, is that realism is out
> of fashion. Like paintings of wildlife, it's considered gauche.
> There might be no logical explanation for it. Fashion never really
> seems to make much sense.
Realism is not out of fashion...go and check out some art in the galleries
Nik, and read some books on art.
Kristina.
>
> >Let me know if there is a place for realist artists, or should I just
> >paint something that matches my couch?
>
> There's room for everybody on the planet. Do what you want to do. On
> the other hand, if you want to make a go at being a full time,
> professional artist trying to earn a living with your art, realism
> might not be the best way to do it. Fashion will hold you back.
> Which sucks, if realism is your preferred form of self-expression.
>
> Nik
> ---
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
> Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
> each painting should not be burned.
Erik A. Mattila
spliff) "Reality is a crutch!"
Glad to hear your opening went well. Good thing I didn't go out for wine --
I would have returned with Remy Martin.
best,
Erik
mark webber wrote:
> Alison wrote:
>
> > I don't know whether we are correct to call Mark Webber's work
> > *Realist* - John does; I calls it figurative ... with abstract
> > tendencies (he may hate that).
>
> I would really prefer that my work wasn't called realism. First, I don't
> work from nature - the figures are invented. Second, I see are pretty
> strong distinction between realism and various forms of classicism, an
> idea that I think many in this group are somewhat resistant to. But if it
> helps any - and without putting myself anywhere near their ranks - I would
> add that I don't see Piero, Raphael, Michelangelo or Ingres as realists
> and I don't think any art historians with an education do either. They
> were idealizing human and other natural forms.
>
Jenn
that woman who had her exhibition opening and any work that was sold the
buyer had to go consumate the sale out the back with the artist?? *giggle*
She made it up of course but she was making a point about the prostitution
of art.
Just made me think of it.
Kay wrote in message ...
>
>Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>(snip)
>
>:But more to this thread, what do statements such as 'compromise you :work'
>or
>:'prostitute your art'
>
>Erik,
>Virginia Woolf says that one "prostitutes their art" when they make it with
>an audience in mind. I would imagine that would be something like painting
>mauve to go with a mauve carpet and so on, but I guess it would be included
>in portrait commissions as well. That must be wrong because I would imagine
>that would make van Gogh's portraits "prostituted"... Then again, people
>wishing a "realist" portrait wouldn't go to van Gogh because he put too
much
>angst into every little thing. Which makes me ponder your question below
>about the "gut" painting which I will reply to:
>
> or even 'gut art' mean, beyond being platitudes of the art
>:discourse? A lot of things begin to unfold when you ask this sort of
>question.
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
I had forgotten that we had two eyes. I ran across a 18th century
critique of Italian perspective once in the library. The main concern
here was indeed 'in the [Po?] valley of the blind the one-eyed man is
king' but also there was consideration of movement, since we see the
world while moving. I guess the eye-dea just layed around Paris for a
century or two until Braque and Picasso, eh?
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
that I was a 'working' artist. I was merely laying out a proposition to be
considered. Actually, the point was that if making art is held to a higher
standard than, say, 'work,' what is this standard? It's sort of a rhetorical
question, actually, although I can only imagine the answer being spoken in
vaporous terms - uttering any of the various platitudes about art such as
'expressing myself' or ' not prostituting 'my' art.'
I'm simply asking what these things mean. What in the world does 'stuck in a rut
of self-expression' mean? I'm seeing quite a few windmills posing as dragons
here. What is the part and parcel of this great 'compromise?'
But now you bring up other concepts that seem to me to be vaporous. What do you
mean when you say "What happened to individualism." Why does deciding (or even
having the opportunity to decide) to spend significant time making art for purely
recreational purposes (as opposed to working for a living) make one more of an
individual than deciding to simply use your skills to earn money? Is an
independently wealthy stamp collector more of an individual than a soda jerk?
Now you obviously attach more signification on some of your work than other of
your work -- that's what you are saying below, if I understand you. You've also
indicated that others, who own work which you have assigned less signification,
don't agree with you, since they are refusing your update offer and opting to keep
that which they have assigned an equal, if not greater, signification to. And
someday you won't be around to police the signification of your artwork, and you
will have no control at all over how others respond to your work and what kind of
signification they attach to it. What this says to me is that the whole process
of signification is very personal, and what you see as a compromise of your
integrity doesn't really hold much truck outside of your head. I'm not saying at
all that you shouldn't have self-imposed criteria -- but I am saying that you
should understand where this criteria is appropriate and productive, and where it
is not. Once you throw it out on the chopping block of the public forum, expect
it to be, well, chopped.
Anyway, if you ever feel inclinded to attempt to define these terms I call
'vaporous' I would be quite interested. Otherwise, all they communicate to me is
that you are fully engaged in the art game, and you are flashing your badges.
best,
Erik Mattila
KlaeCW12 wrote:
> (see my reply below)
>
> Eric wrote:
> >That is that a
> >'real' artist (since that qualifier seems to be of interest to many on this
> >ng) is
> >one who will art no matter what, even under the most sever restrictions and
> >narrow
> >scope of a commission.
>
> Eric, I applaud your approach of having a strong work ethic, and one of
> determination...Yes, I can see how that would make you a "working" artist, but
> I'd rather starve than just crank out uninspired art to make a buck. When I
> started drawing at age 2, money was obviously not my motivation, so why should
> it be today? What happened to individualism...that's what makes art so
> wonderful isn't it? I create to realize my vision and though praise and the
> occassional sale are nice, it's even better if I know I've created something I
> believe in. That's where 'compromising my work' and 'prostituting my art' come
> in... As a teenager, (not very long ago), I would draw other people's ideas to
> get fast cash...but the art meant absolutely nothing to me, and when I see that
> artwork hanging in their homes, I cringe, and it's worse when they say how much
> they love it and show it off. In most instances I offer to give them another
> piece of art. Back then, I was immature,(okay, not as mature as I am
> today...I'm still immature!), and in hindsight I feel I compromised my
> integrity, I now try to have "quality control" when I create or show work.
> Maybe one day I'll "grow up" and realize that I should hate drawing and just do
> it because it's what an "artist" is supposed to do...But for now I'm happy
> staying true to my beliefs...stuck in the rut of self-expression...That's just
> another 2 cents added to the buck-fifty I've dropped here over the last few
> days!
>
> Artistically yours,
>
> Paul D. Snyder
> http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/pencilartbypaul
>
>
> >
Erik A. Mattila
rather that 'prostitution' and 'compromise.' The only reason I can imagine is that
being frustrated at an experiement gone foul isn't particularly significant
sounding, it lacks the alibi of profundity.
Artist A: "I'm going to stop doing what I am doing, in order to experiment towards
finding a fresh approach to my work, even if it frustrates me."
Artist B: "Gawd, I am compromising my work -- PROSTITUTING my art! I'm driven by
my genius to descend into the gut-wrenching depths of hell in order to achive art
satori and transcend all boundaries:"
I'm just trying to visualize the difference here. It seems to me that both Artist A
and B are saying the same thing. But boy, Artist B is more likely to be quoted in
the art rags.
But one thing puzzles me, Alison. There is pretty much of a consensus on RAF by now
that 'art' is not a definable term, as it is always so conditional. Given that, why
would be a term such as 'real art' be less enigmatic? What you describe as 'turning
the gut' is actually a very common experience for anyone engaged in several
endeavors that must be learned. A carpenter has countless gut wrenching encounter
with wood, noted to be quite obstinate to the uninitiated, before s/he reaches an
appreciable level of competence (or 'art' in consideration of the original meaning
of the term).
I could be entirely wrong about this, but old Pablo P. himself is said to have
stopped innovating quite early, and spent a great period of his productive life
simply painting without any heavy investment into experimentation. I think he
caught up in the sheer joy of painting -- maybe even deciding the self-inflicted
angst of struggle wasn't worth the effort because the dividends were too meager.
Erik
John Haber wrote:
> >But more to this thread, what do statements such as 'compromise you work' or
> >'prostitute your art' or even 'gut art' mean, beyond being platitudes of the art
> >discourse? A lot of things begin to unfold when you ask this sort of question.
>
Nikolaus Maack
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>I can only imagine the answer being spoken in
>vaporous terms
Whenever I express myself in vaporous terms, people get very angry.
They pull out their handkerchiefs and wipe my vapour off their faces,
and shout hurtful things, like:
"What the hell did you do that for, you lunatic? Now I'm soaked in
your spittle!"
I am often startled at how people aren't impressed by imitation of a
fog machine. It's a gift, galdarnit, and the people at the Letterman
show were very impressed, back in '86.
>What in the world does 'stuck in a rut
>of self-expression' mean?
When a wagonwheel rides over a man's head, and gets caught in his
teeth, and the wagon can move no further, that's being "stuck in a rut
of self-expression".
>I'm seeing quite a few windmills posing as dragons
>here.
You are a fool. Those windmills aren't posing as dragons! They're
posing as giants. If you can't have the proper, socially-accepted
hallucinations, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
Lauri Levanto
The main concern
> here was indeed 'in the [Po?] valley of the blind the one-eyed man is
> king'
That's folklore, Erik. In real life
- in the valley of blind
the one-eyed man is a discriminated deviant
and most propably stoned to death.
- lauri
> but also there was consideration of movement, since we see the
> world while moving. I guess the eye-dea just layed around Paris for a
> century or two until Braque and Picasso, eh?
>
> Erik
There is even more than that. The eye reconstructs the scene, instead of
copying it. Most notable, a camera has three vanishing points,
while our eye/mind ignores the vertical perspective.
last year I was painting a (Nordic gothic) cathedral interior.
I took a photo, too, to assist my scetches. It was of no use.
The colors were not the same -in photo the differencies in
illumination are exaggerated, the projection of columns on film
does not match with the perception of depth of the
spaces between.
Yes the movement is there. That is very much emphasized in Finnish
architecture. Not only the movement of the viewer but the
movement of focus.
This is trivia, however. A sidetrack of the original question.
What is "wrong?" with the representational drawings of Paul D.
I'd like to put the question the other way round.
What is "right?" in the modern artist's disability to see
"art" or personality elsewhere than in sensationalism,
distortion, empty symbolism.
- lauri
Erik A. Mattila
that. I once raised the question "what does it mean, in a concrete sense, to
'own' something. It turned out to be a difficult question, but at the same
time we use the tern 'to own' regularly, without a second thought about it's
meaning. And we can use it in a way that others understand the term, and it
functions well in the exchange of ideas, even though the concrete meaning of
'owning' something never surfaces. Just to not leave this hanging, all the
meanings of 'own' are abstract, and the only concrete meaning is political, in
that if you 'own' something you can exercise your 'right' over it, and call
upon the powers of the state to enforce your right, which amounts to
controlling others' access to your property.
So I'm searching for the concrete sense of these art terms that we exchange
frequently. Since it's difficult, I can't help but suspect that some of these
have no real meaning, in any concrete sense, yet they are used in exchanges all
the time and the seem to communicate something -- but what? It could be,
however, that many of these terms function on the level of signals only. In
other words, if I say "I am expressing myself with my paintings" you will know
that I am a member of a group of people who say "we express ourselves with our
paintings." Slang develops like this, as do colloquialisms and dialects.
People develop special ways of talking to each other that outsiders don't, so
you always know who your people are. Dig? Intiendo? Savvy? Catch my drift?
But I'm willing to be wrong about this. In fact, I would like to be wrong.
But so far it looks like I'm right. Your explanation, for example, just
substutes one questionable phrase with another. "Gut art" is "pure art." It's
funny, I know what you're saying, on the level of communication, but I don't
know what these things mean. "Pure art" as opposed to "unpure art?" Whaaa?
It is also an indication to me that you believe that you can 'express yourself'
with your art, even though I have no idea how that works in any concrete
sense. If you could make the argument that human emotions could be encoded in
clever systems of form. line, and then decoded by a viewer, thus transferring
emotion from one being to another, it would be clearer to me.
I wonder if Virginia Woolf is responsible for introducing the concept of
prostitution into art making. I'm serious, I thought about this last night --
where did this idea come from?
Erik
Kay wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> (snip)
>
> :But more to this thread, what do statements such as 'compromise you :work'
> or
> :'prostitute your art'
>
> Erik,
> Virginia Woolf says that one "prostitutes their art" when they make it with
> an audience in mind. I would imagine that would be something like painting
> mauve to go with a mauve carpet and so on, but I guess it would be included
> in portrait commissions as well. That must be wrong because I would imagine
> that would make van Gogh's portraits "prostituted"... Then again, people
> wishing a "realist" portrait wouldn't go to van Gogh because he put too much
> angst into every little thing. Which makes me ponder your question below
> about the "gut" painting which I will reply to:
>
> or even 'gut art' mean, beyond being platitudes of the art
> :discourse? A lot of things begin to unfold when you ask this sort of
> question.
>
Lauri Levanto
>
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> (snip)
>
>> or
>> :'prostitute your art'
Kay:
> Erik,
> Virginia Woolf says that one "prostitutes their art" when they make it with
> an audience in mind. I would imagine that would be something like painting
lauri:
Kay, almost a year ago I was provoked by some Erik's statement
to do a garden gnome. I think that is a sculptor's equivalent of
painting mauve for sake of mauve carpet.
I havn't started it yet, but it haunts in my mind. With this
self-imposed restriction, am I capable to make 'art', a garden gnome
that is more than a garden gnome. It will be my masterpiece.
A step from journeyman to a master. A proof of professionality.
Thus I think, 'prostitution' is mannerism, seeking the easy way out.
( Yes, Kay, no I remember our earlier correspondence
about a certain milk jug). Unlike Virginia Woolf, I see nothing wrong
in customer satisfaction.
Well, there is another kind of prostitution, too. Working against
your own moral. To propone an idea, that you are against.
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
Lauri Levanto
lauri:
> >From Nefertiti to Odd Nerdum we have
> >examples of faithful representation that must be included into art
> >by almost any definition.
Cher:
> I certainly would NOT include either Egyptian art
> or Odd Nerdrum's in a definition of 'faithful representation.'
> To me 'faithful representation' is what most Sunday painters
> strive for. (I call myself a weakend painter, btw)
lauri:
Look at the Nefertiti head. What makes it different from
Sunday painters representationalism - except the fact that it
is good art. In your definition, you replaced representation
with naivism, or simple lack of skill. But lack of skill
is a sign of UNfaithfull representation.
lauri:
> >The point, Cher, is your confusion with copying and rendering.
Cher:
> I'm not the least confused. I think my remarks have
> been interpreted literally where I intended them
> to be very loosely applied to any artist who is
> 'copying' something, be it a still life, a landscape,
> or a photograph.
lauri:
So the copying is for you an attitude. I can buy that,
although much of self expression - even above the Sunday level -
is by this definition copying. Rendering (=making lookalikes of)
abstract art.
Cher:
<...>
> The works that stand out from the mass are the
> ones that go beyond the 'faithful representation.'
lauri:
That's another loose saying. When you walk three four hours
throuh Louvre or Heremitage, What stands out of the mass?
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>So why not say 'frustrated' rather than 'turning the gut?' Why not say
>'experiment'
>rather that 'prostitution' and 'compromise.' The only reason I can imagine is
>that
>being frustrated at an experiement gone foul isn't particularly significant
>sounding, it lacks the alibi of profundity.
>
God no, Erik. Frustration is definitely not the right word. Frustration
implies upsetting, getting angry, being unfulfilled. That's not what I
am talking about. Fulfilment comes equally from knowing that you tried -
that you had an idea and you followed it through - that you focused on
something that was important to you and were able to identify what *was*
important to you.
Turning the gut ? Its the feeling you get just before you dive off a
high cliff or out of an aeroplane. Obviously then this is in no way a
feeling restricted to artists. The *compromise* is to stay safely on the
ground below. The *prostitution* is to sell out to the easy option - the
safe route - to go paddling instead of white water rafting.
Alison
Paul Mesken
Maack) wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 05:13:02 GMT, "Erik A. Mattila"
><emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>>What in the world does 'stuck in a rut
>>of self-expression' mean?
>
>When a wagonwheel rides over a man's head, and gets caught in his
>teeth, and the wagon can move no further, that's being "stuck in a rut
>of self-expression".
>
That's pretty good. You should make a painting of it for the
"sensation" stuff in NYC :-)
>>I'm seeing quite a few windmills posing as dragons
>>here.
>
>You are a fool. Those windmills aren't posing as dragons! They're
>posing as giants. If you can't have the proper, socially-accepted
>hallucinations, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
>
Tolkien generation comes with its own lingo ;-)
Paul Mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>John Haber wrote:
>
>> Erik:
>> >Add to this the radical difference between the
>> >human eye and the camera lens -- on just the
>> >grounds of optics. The idea that photography
>> >stands for reality is in fact a 'learned' thing.
>>
>> Nice. The idea of one lens, two eyes, and then more possiblities that
>> the multiplicity of art can analyze and explore dogged me with that
>> Gary Hill of separate monitors for the head and hands the other day.
>>
>> John
>>
>> John
>> jha...@haberarts.com
>> http://www.haberarts.com/
>
>I had forgotten that we had two eyes. I ran across a 18th century
>critique of Italian perspective once in the library. The main concern
>here was indeed 'in the [Po?] valley of the blind the one-eyed man is
>king' but also there was consideration of movement, since we see the
>world while moving. I guess the eye-dea just layed around Paris for a
>century or two until Braque and Picasso, eh?
>
Yes, the image we perceive is composed of a number of snapshots from
the eye. Cubism expresses this. Three eye movements a second are done
and our visual system is more or less automatically (although that
what we want to investigate guides us) "scans" in the image. Only
small parts are in full focus (size is roughly thumbnail on stretched
arm, 2 degrees). I saw in this ng Chuck Close mentioned. He does
paintings that look like a photo but then again: they're not photos.
He gets his powerfull effects by bringing certain areas (like the
eyes) more in focus. Our eyes are drawn to these areas of sharper
contrasts and Close thus manipulates the way in which we perceive his
paintings by guiding our eye movements.
Yarbus (late 60s) was one of the pioneers researching eye movement by
tracking them. This way it was possible to see how our eyes are moving
over images. Yarbus also found out that asking a question about an
image radically changed the way the eyes scanned the picture, like
"estimate the economic level of the people on the picture" or "judge
their ages" or "remember the positions of objects and people on the
picture", etc.
Imagine what a painting's title could mean considering this.
A lot of the eye movements is based on evolved heuristics ofcourse,
maybe even innate parts like giving attention to eyes. Attention is
often moved to parts which stand out of the rest of the rhythm of the
image (the red dot between white dots, fine lines in a constellation
of coarser ones, etc.)
Once the eyes are focused on one point than peripheral vision is used
around that area. We're hardly aware of what our peripheral vision
tells us and it does perceive differently, seeing coarser and much
more with the rods (luminance) than cones (chrominance). Considering
this one could perform tricks: putting a picture within a picture. The
picture we're aware of is composed of the details we see with the
fovea and the "sharp vision" areas immediately around it. The picture
we're not aware of is made around the area to which we direct the eyes
(by the mentioned methods). This picture is made up from slow
transitions in luminance and doesn't rely on line stuff (lateral
inhibition in the center of our visual field _makes_ us see lines) but
on big shapes.
Although this "sublimal" picture will creep into our minds, we can't
see it for if we direct our eyes to it we will not be able to
distinguish the slow transitions of luminance which make up the shapes
(the center of our visual field doesn't collect such information).
Only by taking quite some steps back we might perceive this picture in
a picture.
Cher Ayde
>
>In your definition, you replaced representation
>with naivism, or simple lack of skill.
I didn't. YOU did. You are still attempting to
put words into my mouth or read between my lines
something that is not there. All I am doing is
defending my use of the word 'copying' to define
what MOST artists do when they draw, paint, or
sculpt something as 'realistically' as they are
capable of doing. And I repeat -- there is NOTHING
wrong with copying if that is all you are interested
in. I repeat -- it won't make you a 'great artist'
since you'll be doing no different than MOST artists
who draw, paint, or sculpt realistically. YAWN!
>> The works that stand out from the mass are the
>> ones that go beyond the 'faithful representation.'
>
>lauri:
>That's another loose saying. When you walk three four hours
>throuh Louvre or Heremitage, What stands out of the mass?
What stands out from the mass when comparing a museum
full of masterpieces is too personal (subjective)
to even attempt an answer. I suppose we could poll all
those exiting and see what gets the most votes. YAWN!
Nice day here, so guess I'll get moving, go bike
riding, and think over all you've said befor I nod
off again...
mark webber
My, I rather dislike the subject heading of this thread, but....
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> As a good friend of mine said often (usually halfway through the second
> spliff) "Reality is a crutch!"
>
> Glad to hear your opening went well. Good thing I didn't go out for wine --
> I would have returned with Remy Martin.
>
> best,
> Erik
Thanks Erik!
Mark
Lauri Levanto
enjoy your bicycle tour.
It seems we are not so controversial.
Copying is copying, though I may see something
differently in representational ART.
Cher:
<snip>
> You are still attempting to
> put words into my mouth or read between my lines
> something that is not there.
lauri:
Oh no, usually I'm intimidated with the flow of words that
come out from female mouths. Not interested to put there more :-)
For the second part - I maybe read your lines too literally, missing
some implied meanings between the lines.
I'm handicapped here with a foreign language.
> >> The works that stand out from the mass are the
> >> ones that go beyond the 'faithful representation.'
> >
> >lauri:
> >That's another loose saying. When you walk three four hours
> >throuh Louvre or Heremitage, What stands out of the mass?
>Cher:
> What stands out from the mass when comparing a museum
> full of masterpieces is too personal (subjective)
> to even attempt an answer.
lauri:
my point was simply that standing out is not a reliable sign of good
art.
Cher:
> Nice day here, so guess I'll get moving, go bike
> riding, and think over all you've said befor I nod
> off again...
lauri:
cold day here, it's five o'clock and I am ready to leeave
the office for some sculpting.
- lauri
Alison A Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>
>My, I rather dislike the subject heading of this thread, but....
Whoops !! My fault !!! A thousand apologies. I told Haber you would hate
it ... it doesn't even come slightly close to what I call *Realism* -
shows what he knows eh ? bloody art critics ! (in the hope he will hate
being called an art critic)
>> Glad to hear your opening went well. Good thing I didn't go out for wine --
>> I would have returned with Remy Martin.
>>
>> best,
>> Erik
Well the two awful shows in the adjoining galleries had plenty of even
worse wine and lots of things to soak it up with ... which is the only
reason we ventured in there.
Taking my duty free Remy now and heading into the sunset with memories
of New York and the hangover we got from drinking Greenwich Village dry
after Mark's opening.
Cheers !
--
Alison
KlaeCW12
Allison wrote:>Turning the gut ? Its the feeling you get just before you dive
off a
>high cliff or out of an aeroplane. Obviously then this is in no way a
>feeling restricted to artists. The *compromise* is to stay safely on the
>ground below. The *prostitution* is to sell out to the easy option - the
>safe route - to go paddling instead of white water rafting.
Well said, Allison. Erik obviously took my previous post as a means to start
yet another argument...There is no debate, I was merely stating why I don't
prefer to draw every second of everyday, with or without inspiration...just to
show that Iam an artist. That is NOT art in my opinion...AGAIN..."my opinion".
(note: everything I type is not a "how to" lesson, or a philosophy that
everyone should live by).My art immitates life, and in order to be inspired I
have to see things around me, experience things. I believe my art is better for
NOT locking myself in a room and drawing all of the time. That was the point of
my reply.
Erik A. Mattila
pretty exciting to me. Alison is talking about 'boundaries' that need to be
crossed. Why isn't the line between fine art and kitsch just as legitimate
boundary as any? Well, of course it is -- a lot of artists have crossed this
boundary. Warhol gets the limelight for Pop, but sometimes I think the earlier
form in Britain was more interesting, that is, British Pop, as it is called. At
least you could say the Warhol left out humor, even though other US Pop artists
didn't.
Personally, I'm very interested in the whole gamut of 'popular art' -- that class
of art which artists often sneer at as lacking profundity etc. A very good book to
look at is the catalog of the MOMA show "The High and Low" which is a comparison of
High Brow and Low Brow art, zeroing in on artists who have crossed over, such as --
I can't think of his name, the abstract expressionist who suddenly started making
cartoon paintings.
Well, one thing about a garden gnome is that you would be forced to confront the
dividing line, and develop a deep understand of why one rendition would be kitsch
and another art. By 'deep' understanding, I mean one that is transferable from
your thoughts to your work.
Erik
Lauri Levanto wrote:
Erik A. Mattila
mechanism -- another thing we are seldom aware of. This might cause the
most radical difference between looking at the world and looking at a
photograph, painting, or motion picture, since the rapid focus mechanism is
totally useless in viewing representations of space on a two dimensional
surface. So you could say that the experience of seeing is quite different.
But then there is the force of habit. We are so inundated with visual
representations on flat surfaces that these have more or less replaced
looking at the world. You know, the last time I saw the Grand Canyon it
looked 'wrong' put I couldn't put my finger on it. I mean it looked wrong
because I couldn't put my finger on it.
Erik
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <380C1DFB...@tomatoweb.com>...
:I realize that I'm driving at something that is very difficult. Words are
Creative vs. commercial? Not written in stone, just throwing out thoughts
through the net... I guess there are as many answers about "what is
creativity" as there are about "what is art".
Whaaa?
:It is also an indication to me that you believe that you can 'express
yourself'
:with your art, even though I have no idea how that works in any concrete
:sense. If you could make the argument that human emotions could be encoded
in
:clever systems of form. line, and then decoded by a viewer, thus
transferring
:emotion from one being to another, it would be clearer to me.
This seems pretty clear to me though we look with different visions, of
course. Narrative is much easier to decode, but can't you see emotions with
a Rothko? a van Gogh? Nolde? Franz Marc?
:I wonder if Virginia Woolf is responsible for introducing the concept of
:prostitution into art making. I'm serious, I thought about this last
night --
:where did this idea come from?
Probably from a woman so that we can besmirch males with the word equally
:-) Honestly, I read it in her writings, probably "Three Guineas" but have
no idea if an earlier or concurrent writer/painter/sculptor/queen/king/etc.
may have used the same terminology. I guess it is a bad thing to do to
creativity wouldn't you think, at least in that context?
Kay
Kay
:Kay, almost a year ago I was provoked by some Erik's statement
:to do a garden gnome. I think that is a sculptor's equivalent of
:painting mauve for sake of mauve carpet.
You really intend to do it? Because of something Erik said? Great! <big
smile>
:I havn't started it yet, but it haunts in my mind. With this
:self-imposed restriction, am I capable to make 'art', a garden gnome
:that is more than a garden gnome. It will be my masterpiece.
:A step from journeyman to a master. A proof of professionality.
Sounds like an improvement over anything made by Jeff Koons :-)
:Thus I think, 'prostitution' is mannerism, seeking the easy way out.
:( Yes, Kay, no I remember our earlier correspondence
:about a certain milk jug). Unlike Virginia Woolf, I see nothing wrong
:in customer satisfaction.
But do you see that perhaps there are at least different categorizations?
:Well, there is another kind of prostitution, too. Working against
:your own moral. To propone an idea, that you are against.
Wouldn't that be a lot of commissions? Now if I want to go even beyond that
idea I would have to say that I (who has stated their love of government
subsidy $$$$ for the artist) would have to reject funding awarded to me if
the government supported ANYTHING that I didn't believe in, which would
prevent me from accepting ANY funding from any existing governments that I'm
aware of. Yes, good definition, Lauri. I guess I AM a prostitute at heart
<sly grin>
Kay
:- lauri
:journeyman of sculpture
Iian Neill
> But more to this thread, what do statements such as 'compromise you
work' or
> 'prostitute your art' or even 'gut art' mean, beyond being platitudes
of the art
> discourse? A lot of things begin to unfold when you ask this sort of
question.
These threads all come back to the issue of artistic integrity.
Integrity is the dedication of a person (whether a plumber, an artist,
or a politician) to an honour code. Integrity is traditionally
understood to denote honesty, industriousness and professionalism.
Applied to art the painter of integrity is one who creates according to
his highest ideals, and does not sacrifice them for the sake of lower
ones. The question naturally arises what these ideals are, and how can
we judge between them.
Prior to the twentieth century, it was generally accepted by most
Westerners that the artist of integrity was first and foremost a
crafstman, one who created works of skill, intelligence and beauty. The
average person (if there is such a cryptozoological beast), unschooled
in the intricacies of form, colour harmony, anatomy, as well as
classical history, would first and foremost look at the painting for
its realism. Discounted by some critics as a naive reaction, this does
in fact reflect one of the essential truths of fine art - that it re-
creates the real world in an illusion. Whilst for a time discredited in
the visual arts, the process of re-creation continued in our own
century in literature and films, where writers and directors went to
great pains to construct meticulous invented worlds, whose characters
acted believably with regard to their own natures, and where events had
a fundamental logic to them (A follows B, C follows B, etc.).
Understanding the power of illusionism to submerse an audience in a
fictional reality, the American movie-industry placed much emphasis on
special effects; this, more vividly than anything else, demonstrates
the primary importance of realism as a medium.
To the general public, therefore, the integrity of the artist was in
large measure ascertained by his skill as a realist and - equally
important - his skill as a composer of beautiful harmonies. In a
similar way the architect was judged according to his engineering and
aesthetic talents - did his buildings stand, and were they beautiful?
Realism was the engineering of painting and sculpture - it provided the
scaffolding necessary to erect those harmonies of light, tone, mass and
colour. On a more visceral level, however, realistic painting has the
fascination of magic, of bringing to a dead canvas the semblance of
life, of transforming strokes of paint into a living face. The Greeks
immortalised this idea in the fable of Pygmalion and Galataea, the
sculptor whose creation was granted life by the goddess Aphrodite.
What does it mean to compromise your art, then? It means to sell out
a higher ideal for a lower one. This higher ideal was never merely
realism, but also beauty of form and content. If this was compromised
for political reasons or for personal gain, then you could say that the
work lacks integrity, in the sense that the form has been sacrificed
for extra-artistic purposes.
A building that is made of shoddy materials to save costs lacks
integrity. A yacht that is left to leak for financial reasons, lacks
integrity. A painting whose form is subjugated to the demands of
commerce or to vanity, lacks integrity.
That is NOT to say that a portrait must reproduce all of the worst
traits of its subject; just as a building CAN be made of cheap
materials IF IT IS DESIGNED IN THE RIGHT WAY. That is to say, if it is
built in a way consistent with the nature of its materials. A portrait
or an altar-piece need not lack integrity - despite the demands of
convention, vanity or religious dogma - if the painting qua painting
works.
> Anyway, I am interested in exploring the 'concrete' meaning of these
terms. I'm
> particularly interested in 'gut art' because I think that artists
imagine that
> they can transfer human emotion to a work of art. I keep thinking
that the only
> way I have ever been able to work on an automobile is to get angry,
cuss, bash
> things, and all that. When the engine starts up and purrs, it is a
represntations
> of my emotions? I don't think so, even though the only way I could
make it purr
> is to get angry. The thing is, the most angst-ridden painting could
be made
> either in a state of angst, or in a state of cool detachment.
I would hazard to say that the better angst-ridden paintings are made
in a state of cool detachment, as the artist is in more deliberate
control of his faculties. I think this applies generally. I have read
of composers (including modern ones) speaking of productive periods
being marked not so much by a 'divine frenzy' but merely by a period of
heightened cerebral activity. That said, could it be there are shades
of feeling at even this heightened level? After all, how does a
composer make a melody reach out and yearn if he does not have at least
the *remembrance* or *reflection* of this memory in him to begin with?
I think this is the mortar of art - the remembrance of things past,
chewed on, digested, and savoured, until it is processed enough for our
brains to deal with stylistically.
Banging and shouting at your car isn't artistic, because your
emotions haven't been filtered through the higher state of
consciousness which is artistic creation. What characterizes this
state, I leave to the psychologists - and, of course, to the artists
who practise it.
Cheers,
Iian Neill
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lauri.L.
> In article <380C0870...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik
>A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>>So why not say 'frustrated' rather than 'turning >the gut?' Why not
>>say 'experiment'
>>rather that 'prostitution' and 'compromise.' The only reason I can
>>imagine is that being frustrated at an experiement gone foul isn't
>>particularly significant
>>sounding, it lacks the alibi of profundity.
>
Alison
> God no, Erik. Frustration is definitely not the right word.
> Frustration implies upsetting, getting angry, being
> unfulfilled. That's not what I am talking about. Fulfilment comes
> equally from knowing that you tried - that you had
> an idea and you followed it through - that you focused on something
> that was important to you and were able to
> identify what *was* important to you.
> Turning the gut ? Its the feeling you get just before you dive off a
> high cliff or out of an aeroplane. Obviously then this
> is in no way a feeling restricted to artists.
lauri:
Alison hits the point. Just for Erik, I happened to find a referate
that explains it with more scientific terms. Here are a couple of URL's.
5. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi : Flow : The Psychology of Optimal Experience
author: Flow : The Psychology of Optimal
Experience...
URL: www.bbebmobnto.az6.debbie.dothan.al.us/
Last modified 23-Jul-99 - page size 931 bytes -
in English [ Translate ]
6. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Finding Flow
Enlightenment.Com Home | Book Review Index | |
Send E-mail to Jordan S. Gruber | Finding Flow: The Psychology Of
Engagement With
Everyday Life by Mihaly...
URL:
www.enlightenment.com/content/bookrevs/findflow.html
Last modified 31-Oct-98 - page size 13K - in
English [ Translate ]
These refer to studies of people with extraordinary performance
on widely different fields. I'm backtranslating a Finnish referate of an
Hungarian author writing in English (no guarantee
for accuracy). Mihaly C. claims that peak performance is characterized
by something he calls "Flow", and describes this
"When you exceed yourself, and all snaps in place, your action
changes to a flow. You lose your sense of "I" and find your existence
in the flow of your act.
This is is something Herrigel so marvelosly faild to describe in Zen and
the art
of archery, but Pirsig found it in Zen and the art of Motorcycle
Maintenance.
I guess many of us know this feeling in art making.Suddenly, when
you are at the limits of your skills, you forget time and place,
you just do it. And you do it kind of effortlessly but well.
"Fulfilment comes from knowing you tried" as Alison said.
Yeah, I know Erik, you are going to say this is what happens inside
your head, and has nothing to do with the piece of artwork when you
leave it from your hands. You claim that one can paint expressionistic
when in turmoil of emotions, but as well consciously and calculatively.
I think it can be hard to see the difference. The latter is, in
fact forgery. The difference is even more difficult to see in
pastorale, cool, maybe representational work. Have you any proof that
it is *not* there, objectively. There is something that separates
a true and forged autograph. I claim that the confidence in flow
is seen as easyness and firmness of lines, that is extremely difficult
to produce in detached mental state.
Mihaly C. claims that this flow is present in every kind of effort;
sports, blumbing, art you name it. He says it is characterized
by the challenge of the task, be it external or self imposed.
When you do your best. As a contrast to compromizing.
Pirsig sees it in more varied circumstances. He calls it gumption.
Bot have an orriental appeal that the distinction between I and
outer world is blurred.
But at least, I could find you something else than artspeak.
- lauri
I'm sorry if thsi looks like double posting. I tried to write
it on yesterday, but that posting seems to be abducte out there
in the heaven of bits.If you see both, please ignore the previous one.
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office E-mail address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Erik A. Mattila
discussion. I did concede that what you do inside your head is certainly a
private thing, hardly anything that someone could say this or that about. What
interests me is what's put out in the public sphere -- the words we use to
describe these private experiences, assumptions and artistic strategies.
But all you are saying here is that 'art' is whatever you want it to be, a
definition that I do, in fact, agree with strongly. So we have a group of people
here who more or less operate on the same principle, that is a very personal
definition of art which is then put into the terrain of 'exchanges' with the
expectation that the terms one uses will have some communicative value.
Ornithologists have determined that the trill of the Redwing Blackbird
communitates this "I am a Redwing Blackbird," which he says over and over again to
his bird buddies. I'm seeing a lot of art terms the same way, as saying "I am an
artist!" rather than speaking to some concrete aspect of art, that artist's say
over and over again to their art buddies. But what's wrong with that idea? It's
pretty innocent, except if we become all puffed up and self-impressed with
imagined profundity, it's a bit of a letdown to think that we may be just making
very complicated noises that are capable of carrying only a very simple
message--"I am an artist."
But this isn't being argumentative on my part is it? But it's ok, of course, if
you're not interested in this sort of thing. Actually, my point is that an artist
can be both successful and a 'real' artist without ever engaging in any deep
thought about anything for her/his entire career, to never ask a provocative
question to her/himself or others, or without ever experiencing any sort of
conflict over production. I think Gustave Dore may be a good example of this.
The guy just liked to draw, and didn't give it a second thought. But he was also
never in any sort of crises over 'prostituting his art' and really didn't give a
dam if his was an original invention, a commission, or some stuffy magazine
editor's idea. He was incredibly prolific.
Erik
KlaeCW12 wrote:
> See reply below...
>
> Allison wrote:>Turning the gut ? Its the feeling you get just before you dive
> off a
> >high cliff or out of an aeroplane. Obviously then this is in no way a
Lauri Levanto
for advertizing business. We traced a lot of cases how the eyes
scan an A4 (letter) size magazine ad.
The movements of the eyes have two purposes.
To shift the focus and to refresh the receptors.
(If you wear pink glasses, the world looks
pink for a while. Then the red receptors
adapt the pinkness off. After looking something else
you can perceive the pink again.)
I think you were referring to the role of head movements
(shifting the looking point) to comprehend the 3D
environment from 2D cues.
- lauri
Erik A. Mattila
mdeli wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
> >And another feature not yet mentioned is the human eye's rapid focus
> >mechanism -- another thing we are seldom aware of. This might cause the
> >most radical difference between looking at the world and looking at a
> >photograph, painting, or motion picture, since the rapid focus mechanism is
> >totally useless in viewing representations of space on a two dimensional
> >surface.
>
> ?
>
> > So you could say that the experience of seeing is quite different.
>
> from what?
>
> >But then there is the force of habit. We are so inundated with visual
> >representations on flat surfaces that these have more or less replaced
> >looking at the world.
>
> really?
>
> > You know, the last time I saw the Grand Canyon it
> >looked 'wrong' put I couldn't put my finger on it. I mean it looked wrong
> >because I couldn't put my finger on it.
> >
> Which finger did you use? Is this an artzy fartzy problem? Perhaps
> overconcentration on flat looking artwork is making the rest of
> reality look wrong.
Well, yes, genius. That was my point, was it not?
Erik Mattila
>
>
> Mani DeLi
> ....no skill no art
>
> Check out my web page, A Skeptical View of Modern Art and
> my book, comments, work at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>You may become the founder of Finnish Gnominism school, Lauri. Anyway, the
>idea
>is
>pretty exciting to me. Alison is talking about 'boundaries' that need to be
>crossed. Why isn't the line between fine art and kitsch just as legitimate
>boundary as any? Well, of course it is -- a lot of artists have crossed this
>boundary.
Don't you dare link me with the idea that I don't believe that to be a
legitimate boundary. How impertinent of you. The idea of fine art and
kitsch being one and the same came out of a challenge to the bourgeois
notion of art. It probably marked the most important leap across those
boundaries of this century. It certainly wasn't born of someone
compromising. How can you question whether that was or was not a
profound thought ?
Now the problem is that thousands of so called artists have jumped on
the bandwagon with the idea that everyone is an artist and everything is
art. The majority of those people are seduced by the idea and have never
questioned what art really is - why should they ? Everything, after all,
can be art. That is what infuriates artists. Its de-valued and de-
sensitised art to such an extent no one can distinguish anymore.
>Well, one thing about a garden gnome is that you would be forced to confront
>the
>dividing line, and develop a deep understand of why one rendition would be
>kitsch
>and another art. By 'deep' understanding, I mean one that is transferable from
>your thoughts to your work.
The fact that making the gnome haunts in Lauri's mind indicates his
seriousness about the subject. He has been thinking about it - he didn't
just go out and make the damn thing. He hasn't gone out and made a
thousand of them and set up a business on his front lawn. He has
challenged himself with the idea. He has made art before he even started
to make the gnome.
Alison A Raimes
<nei...@kraz.tafe.tas.edu.au> writes
>
>These threads all come back to the issue of artistic integrity.
>Integrity is the dedication of a person (whether a plumber, an artist,
>or a politician) to an honour code. Integrity is traditionally
>understood to denote honesty, industriousness and professionalism.
>Applied to art the painter of integrity is one who creates according to
>his highest ideals, and does not sacrifice them for the sake of lower
>ones. The question naturally arises what these ideals are, and how can
>we judge between them.
Well said, Iian - to all of your post. Artists have the right to be
proud of their *profession* in exactly the same way that plumbers or
politicians have. Both professions, just as art, are full of would-
be's. A plumber would do all he could to rid his profession of a cowboy
plumber who was bringing it into disrepute just as a legitimate
politician would uncover a corrupt politician. If they didn't then the
word *professional* would become distinct - there would be no dividing
line between legitimate and fraudulent.
Alison A Raimes
<klae...@aol.com> writes
>
>Well said, Allison. Erik obviously took my previous post as a means to start
>yet another argument...
I don't think so, Paul. Erik has a genuine interest in investigating
*art* though we have yet to find out why - his posts are provocative in
the sense that he invites artists to explain themselves. Of course he
loves the opportunity to intellectually slaughter them too - but I never
knew of an artists who found that a threat ;-)
>There is no debate, I was merely stating why I don't
>prefer to draw every second of everyday, with or without inspiration...just to
>show that Iam an artist.
I think there is a debate, Paul. Everyone is interested in how an artist
works and how so called *great* art is made. For the past two years I
have corresponded daily with an artist who went to a New York Art School
during the fifties and who makes art every day - and I really mean that
- every single day - that's over forty years of being engrossed in the
making of art. The pressures of daily life have never been allowed to
come between him and his work - the idea that *not having time to* is a
nonsense to him. He goes through periods of intensity, periods of
playfulness and periods of just thinking and he destroys as much art as
he makes.
Being an artist has more to it than physically producing images.
> That is NOT art in my opinion...AGAIN..."my opinion".
Get over it Paul ! EVERYTHING you say in a forum like this is your own
opinion .. unless you are quoting someone else, of course. But these
forums are for throwing ideas into the ring and challenging yourself -
its the only way to really find out if your ideas have any basis. You
should come out stronger whatever the result. Aim to win your argument
but be happy to concede if you change your mind .... as a friend of mine
says: winning is for losers, and losers never win.
>(note: everything I type is not a "how to" lesson, or a philosophy that
>everyone should live by).My art immitates life, and in order to be inspired I
>have to see things around me, experience things. I believe my art is better for
>NOT locking myself in a room and drawing all of the time. That was the point of
>my reply.
Absolutely ! Now imagine if every day of your life you had to make
portraits - in order to make a living. It would become a *job* - you
would find a way of doing it easily - you would not feel the need to
challenge or push yourself - you would discover the *recipe* of success.
Or would you ?
Let us all know when you get some new work up won't you ?
Cheers !
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>But it's the same old argument, Paul, although I would prefer to call it a
>discussion. I did concede that what you do inside your head is certainly a
>private thing, hardly anything that someone could say this or that about. What
>interests me is what's put out in the public sphere -- the words we use to
>describe these private experiences, assumptions and artistic strategies.
>
the weakness of your reply. Its like saying that artist's ideas never
change and that implies complete stagnation, which is exactly what *real
art* fight against. Or apparently not, so you are saying.
Oh yes, and who the hell is Gustave Dore ? ....... its ok, I looked him
up - he is classed as an illustrator. I may have heard of him before, I
don't recall but I am sure all illustrators know who he is.
Get my drift ?
Alison
Paul Mesken
<lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
>Sometime, in late 50's I was involved with eye-movement studies
>for advertizing business. We traced a lot of cases how the eyes
>scan an A4 (letter) size magazine ad.
>
>The movements of the eyes have two purposes.
>To shift the focus and to refresh the receptors.
>(If you wear pink glasses, the world looks
>pink for a while. Then the red receptors
>adapt the pinkness off. After looking something else
>you can perceive the pink again.)
>
Yes, refreshing the receptors is very important since it is change in
firing rate which is detected and the receptors become saturated after
a while. A hawk sees mice moving in the grass this way. It holds its
gaze perfectly still until all non moving objects fall away. Now it
will only see things that change in its visual field, like moving
mice. Looking at a field which is all over white (with no change in
detail whatsoever, say the insides of pingpong balls placed on your
eyes) will make you go "blind" after a while. Everything will go black
because the receptors get oversaturated with their constancy in
firing.
The pink glasses are tricky, there's another factor: an all over
lateral inhibition will compensate for the pinkness, white objects
will remain to look white (while they've become actually pink) if
there are other colored objects to compare it with. Something is not
blue because it is but because it's more blue than other objects.
Paul Mesken
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>> You know, the last time I saw the Grand Canyon it
>>looked 'wrong' put I couldn't put my finger on it. I mean it looked wrong
>>because I couldn't put my finger on it.
>>
>Which finger did you use? Is this an artzy fartzy problem? Perhaps
>overconcentration on flat looking artwork is making the rest of
>reality look wrong.
>
Yes, Deli, this is an artzy fartzy problem concerning the visual
system. Dali and Escher also knew that knowledge of it enabled them to
add something extra to their work. Especially the disappearing head of
Voltaire of Dali nicely showed how knowledge about focus could be used
to make pictures within pictures.
Paul Mesken
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>In article <380D19CF...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
><emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>>But it's the same old argument, Paul, although I would prefer to call it a
>>discussion. I did concede that what you do inside your head is certainly a
>>private thing, hardly anything that someone could say this or that about. What
>>interests me is what's put out in the public sphere -- the words we use to
>>describe these private experiences, assumptions and artistic strategies.
>>
>How can it be the same old argument, Erik ? Actually I am surprised at
>the weakness of your reply. Its like saying that artist's ideas never
>change and that implies complete stagnation, which is exactly what *real
>art* fight against. Or apparently not, so you are saying.
>
No, he doesn't say that at all. What he's stating is the artist's
problem of translation. It really lies at the very heart of the
problem of art. Everybody experiences but the experience is the
reaction to perception (some also argue that the reaction is part of
perception, just like "art" "perception" is ill defined).
This reaction is felt and an artist naturally wants to convey it. Note
that the reaction might also encompass complete ideas as well as
emotions and cognitive states. If it is an apple I see before me than
I will experience more than the mere observation done by my eyes (I
might even react violently to its sight ;-)
If I would just depict the apple as it is then I would convey that the
apple doesn't affect me at all. But suppose the apple awakes in me a
feeling of melancholia, a longing to a youth long passed by (amazing
things these apples ;-) how would I then need to depict the apple. I
would need to find strong symbols (here's the language stuff again) to
convey this feeling to others or to myself for there's the apple but
there's also the melancholia inside my head, caused by the very same
apple.
Now I'm posed with a problem, I can't depict a feeling (they're not
graphical). I need to find something that conveys my melancholia. The
past is something that wears down, deteriorates, has passed, ended,
etc. I need to describe my private experiences as Erik said.
I might come up with the apple on an old bill board with paint coming
off and colors worn down, put in a sunset, long shadows, a road next
to it vanishing towards the sunset, etc. All this to describe my
experience of the apple. But I can't do everything, consider depicting
a rotten apple, certainly it is old and passed away but it's also
repulsive and my memories caused by the apple were not repulsive. As a
matter of fact, I need to make the apple in a very cheerfull and happy
composition on the bill board.
Sunsets, decay, etc. are all symbols of the past (when considered as
concepts). If I want to depict my feelings than I need to use symbols
denotating concepts that cause these feelings. These symbols are
ofcourse also private but a majority is also public because we adopted
them, being exposed to culture.
Paul Mesken
>On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 22:50:22 GMT, usu...@euronet.nl (Paul Mesken)
>wrote:
>
>>Realism is far from dead and it is very popular and respected by the
>>public. How often is it not heard that people are of the opinion that
>>something (typical abstract) isn't art because even their 3 year old
>>niece could make it?
>
>Did you ever wonder why?
Lian Neill has an excellent post in this thread describing the why. A
lot of people believe it is the craftsmanship that makes the artist. I
do believe it is necessary to be skilled (I would even go as far as to
say it is mandatory) but I don't necessarily feel this skill needs to
be one of creating the illusion of reality (or the illusion of 3D
space as you stated). Ideas can be conveyed in more ways than by
creating this illusion.
>>It's the subject that's important and how the whole thing is conveyed.
>>Alberto Vargas stuff is still very wanted because he beautifully
>>painted beautifull women. Olivia is nowadays mighty popular with the
>>same subject.
>
>Take note that his work isn't allowed in the modern sections of
>museums.
>
This indeed goes for a lot of museums (although there are exceptions)
but it doesn't matter: with or without museums, the stuff is still
mighty popular. Undoubtfully, a lot of museums rely on hype. If I
would wear a police officer's uniform then I'm recognized as a police
man. In the same way museums are capable of turning anyting into "Art"
(with the capital) just because it's hung there. This is what Erik
stated, how museums dictate "Art".
This doesn't mean I don't believe that the stuff exhibited in museums
isn't art (I use a very loose definition: "If it was meant to be art
then it is" but I don't like all art and whether I like it or not is
more important to me than the mere recognition of art).
I do believe that a lot of stuff gets overrated because it's denotated
as "Art" due to the fact that it was exhibited in museums. No matter
how many people say Pollock's stuff is great and important, I still
don't like it. I also believe the dutch government was completely
foolish to spend millions to Mondriaan's "Victory Boogie Woogie". No
picture is worth that much but the hype apparantly was.
I would much rather spend a lot of money on "Brunette holding mask" of
Vargas and make it the center piece in my home. Not because it's art
but because it's beautifull.
Lauri Levanto
balls.
- lauri
Paul Mesken wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 06:21:29 GMT, Lauri Levanto
> <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> >for advertizing business. We traced a lot of cases how the eyes
> >scan an A4 (letter) size magazine ad.
> >
> >The movements of the eyes have two purposes.
> >To shift the focus and to refresh the receptors.
> >(If you wear pink glasses, the world looks
> >pink for a while. Then the red receptors
> >adapt the pinkness off. After looking something else
> >you can perceive the pink again.)
> >
Bob C
>
> Sometime, in late 50's I was involved with eye-movement studies
> for advertizing business. We traced a lot of cases how the eyes
> scan an A4 (letter) size magazine ad.
>
> The movements of the eyes have two purposes.
>
> I think you were referring to the role of head movements
> (shifting the looking point) to comprehend the 3D
> environment from 2D cues.
>
One more function of eye movement, which would probably not be apparent
when viewing a magazine ad, is to shift the focal length. When looking
at the "real" grand canyon, it's impossible to focus on the far canyon
wall and the trees right in front of you both at the same time, but your
eye can very rapidly alter it's focal length to accomodate both. I think
this is the "rapid focus mechanism" to which Erik was referring.
- Bob C.
Nikolaus Maack
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>Well said, Iian - to all of your post. Artists have the right to be
>proud of their *profession* in exactly the same way that plumbers or
>politicians have.
A child molestor also has the right to be proud of his particular
hobby. A dead dog has the right to be eaten by maggots. The damned
have a right to burn in hell, should they believe in such a place.
When I get arrested, I have the right to remain silent. If I choose
to ignore that right, anything I say can and will be used against me
in a court of law. Presumably this definition of "anything I say" can
include any art works I create on the way to the police station.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
each painting should not be burned.
Erik A. Mattila
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
> >
> > Sometime, in late 50's I was involved with eye-movement studies
> > for advertizing business. We traced a lot of cases how the eyes
> > scan an A4 (letter) size magazine ad.
> >
> > The movements of the eyes have two purposes.
> > To shift the focus and to refresh the receptors....
> >
> > I think you were referring to the role of head movements
> > (shifting the looking point) to comprehend the 3D
> > environment from 2D cues.
> >
>
> One more function of eye movement, which would probably not be apparent
> when viewing a magazine ad, is to shift the focal length. When looking
> at the "real" grand canyon, it's impossible to focus on the far canyon
> wall and the trees right in front of you both at the same time, but your
> eye can very rapidly alter it's focal length to accomodate both. I think
> this is the "rapid focus mechanism" to which Erik was referring.
>
> - Bob C.
Right, this is what I'm talking about, but I forgot to mention that the
human eye also has a very shallow depth of field (which we don't notice
because we focus so rapidly). It's very interesting to play with it, as a
matter of fact. In your normal everyday humdrum you hardly give it a
second thought. It's fascinating to sit down and concentrate on how your
eye works, and you can even begin to feel the muscles that constrict your
iris work after a bit.
I was doing this one time, and a thought about an enigma hit me. I knew
that the French Impressionists were heavily influenced by Naturalism in
philosophy. In fact the battle against the Academy was engaged on that
ground, Naturalism versus Idealism. So why would the Impressionists
produce so many 'natural' scenes which were mostly out of focus. So in the
idealized landscape the vast depth of field will be in sharp focus, but in
a landscape that attempts to represent human vision, the very shallow depth
of field that the human eye generates is showcased. So which is more
'realistic?'
Erik
mdeli
>And another feature not yet mentioned is the human eye's rapid focus
>mechanism -- another thing we are seldom aware of. This might cause the
>most radical difference between looking at the world and looking at a
>photograph, painting, or motion picture, since the rapid focus mechanism is
>totally useless in viewing representations of space on a two dimensional
>surface.
?
> So you could say that the experience of seeing is quite different.
from what?
>But then there is the force of habit. We are so inundated with visual
>representations on flat surfaces that these have more or less replaced
>looking at the world.
really?
> You know, the last time I saw the Grand Canyon it
>looked 'wrong' put I couldn't put my finger on it. I mean it looked wrong
>because I couldn't put my finger on it.
>
Which finger did you use? Is this an artzy fartzy problem? Perhaps
overconcentration on flat looking artwork is making the rest of
reality look wrong.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
wrote:
>Realism is far from dead and it is very popular and respected by the
>public. How often is it not heard that people are of the opinion that
>something (typical abstract) isn't art because even their 3 year old
>niece could make it?
Did you ever wonder why?
>It's the subject that's important and how the whole thing is conveyed.
>Alberto Vargas stuff is still very wanted because he beautifully
>painted beautifull women. Olivia is nowadays mighty popular with the
>same subject.
Take note that his work isn't allowed in the modern sections of
museums.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
wrote:
>
>: On 15 Oct 1999 17:32:06 GMT, klae...@aol.com (KlaeCW12) wrote:
>: Let me know if there is a place for realist artists, or should I
>:just paint something that matches my couch?
I had a copy of a Vermeer and some fine contemporary work all of which
matched my couch quite well.
Artzy fartzies seem possessed with an anti-couch-matching paranoia.
If you look at some older movies you will find Picasso's matching
couches. A look in house and garden type magazines will show all sorts
of paintings which match couches. Many European palaces have
integrated the furniture with paintings.
>That is actually another "art world" which is called "Sofa art". Usually
>the work is poor abstractions done in mauve (this year's color).
Does this mean that good Modern Academic work never matches any couch?
Or does this prejudice derive from the fact that many Artzy Fartzies
can't afford a couch?
John Haber
> I forgot to mention that the human eye
That makes sense. Besides the out-of-focus effect you mention in the
Impression's rebellion against phony realism, it also may help account
for the sense of wonder that panoramas can give -- the sort of thing
I'm dancing around with my Constable post. In other words, it's a
shame for people naively to mutter against Modernism in favor of their
own superior realism (both words in quotes, so to speak), when they're
copying styles that had themselves a more complex understanding of
nature.
Cher Ayde
says...
>Presumably this definition of "anything I say" can
>include any art works I create on the way to the police station.
>
> Nik
Robt Lederman could probably answer that for you...
Kay
mdeli wrote in message <380e9a3c...@news.psi.ca>...
:On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:54:54 -0700, "Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com>
:wrote:
:
:>
:>: On 15 Oct 1999 17:32:06 GMT, klae...@aol.com (KlaeCW12) wrote:
:>: Let me know if there is a place for realist artists, or should I
:>:just paint something that matches my couch?
:
:I had a copy of a Vermeer and some fine contemporary work all of which
:matched my couch quite well.
:
: Artzy fartzies seem possessed with an anti-couch-matching paranoia.
:
:If you look at some older movies you will find Picasso's matching
:couches. A look in house and garden type magazines will show all sorts
:of paintings which match couches. Many European palaces have
:integrated the furniture with paintings.
:
:>That is actually another "art world" which is called "Sofa art". Usually
:>the work is poor abstractions done in mauve (this year's color).
:
:Does this mean that good Modern Academic work never matches any couch?
This is really stretching it, Mani. WHAT??? I guess it COULD match
someone's couch, but it shouldn't be bought or made with that in mind, at
least in my opinion. You seem to think is should match?
:Or does this prejudice derive from the fact that many Artzy Fartzies
:can't afford a couch?
Absolutely! We are only allowed to sit on bean bag chairs. If we are
caught with a couch we get kicked out of our Artzy Fartzie membership.
Kay
:
:Mani DeLi
John Haber
> If we are caught with a couch we get
>kicked out of our Artzy Fartzie membership.
Too bad for Alison. She travels America looking for good couches to
sleep on. She'll have to continue further west. Maybe Mattison has
one.
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>
>Too bad for Alison. She travels America looking for good couches to
>sleep on.
Unlike John who spends the entire night wandering around with a pillow
and somewhere different to sleep other than his own bed ... only place I
didn't find him was in his bath tub (but that was probably because he
didn't want to share it with the years of grime ;-)
>She'll have to continue further west. Maybe Mattison has
>one.
Cute ! Having now seen one of Mattison's paintings in John's bedroom,
there is little doubt in my mind that she *is* the axe murderer I
suspected her of being ... I would never be able to sleep soundly.
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Larry Seiler
> well. Personally I think there's a good deal of demand from the public
> for work that reaffirms beauty and grace in the world, just as there is
> - and will always be - demand for work that examines the multiple facets
> of humanity.
I like the way you worded this.....my work focuses on reaffirming and
refocusing attention to the sublime....what some might call, senseless
beauty. Senseless in that its value is not dependent upon the functional.
As for selling.....well, perhaps that relates more to where one has the
good fortune to be living. I live in the far northeastern part of
Wisconsin. Loggers up here don't buy art. We are surrounded by
beauty....streams, waterfalls, lakes.
My work has been argued to have been done to appeal to the buying
masses...yet, I possess perhaps 90% of all that I have ever done as a
professional artist. If that is the only reason I have endeavored to paint
what I paint.....I surely have failed myself.
Some equate success in art as to how one impacts the "art world"...but,
there are other values to artmaking such as what one becomes thru the life
long dedication of it.
I have learned a saying, (author unknown), "Its not what happens to you,
but in you that matters"
While that is a character building notion....it applies to art as well.
I could care less if no one here appreciates my work....accuses me of being
a blight upon society.
It is what making art has done to me....
...how learning to see has enriched my life. That when all is said and
done, and life's troubles are viewed in measuring one's sense of whether or
not it has been worth living through the turmultuous times.....one can yet
breathed a word of thanksgiving and hope.
Differences of opinion leading to acceptances are little more than key
cards to ideological club memberships.
by the way....if you know where all these buyers are looking for
representational art....clue me in! <wink>
peace,
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
Larry Seiler
> of drawing???? Let me tell you why. The most rewarding thing about art to
me is
> the PROCESS OF CREATING!!!!
exactly....again....it is what art does for the maker of art where success
ought to be measured, and not how it has "wowed" the art world!
Larry
James W. Foster
Day-Glo beanbags to black leather. Therefore anyone obsessed enough with
not matching couches would find it an impossible task because whatever they
produce it will match someone's couch, somewhere in the world. Such a
crusade would inevitably either end in defeat and the artist would have give
up and play chess for the rest of their life or they would eventually spiral
into despair, breakdown and suicide.
Does this mean galleries will have to reject many artist's work because the
paintings just don't go with their furniture? Such a thing would be an
outrage and must be stopped. Maybe we should storm the galleries and burn
their chairs. The revolution will be televised...
Oh yeah, anyone can afford a couch. Even if they have to make it themselves
out of a few planks of wood balanced on some beer crates with a few cushions
thrown on top. They'd have to buy found-object artwork to match it though.
-james
www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jfostr/artzone.htm
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote
> Artzy fartzies seem possessed with an anti-couch-matching paranoia.
>
> If you look at some older movies you will find Picasso's matching
> couches. A look in house and garden type magazines will show all sorts
> of paintings which match couches. Many European palaces have
> integrated the furniture with paintings.
>
> >That is actually another "art world" which is called "Sofa art". Usually
> >the work is poor abstractions done in mauve (this year's color).
>
> Does this mean that good Modern Academic work never matches any couch?
> Or does this prejudice derive from the fact that many Artzy Fartzies
> can't afford a couch?
>
Cher Ayde
>
>This is just silly. There are so many different styles of couches from
>Day-Glo beanbags to black leather.
It's the 'couch psychology' that most people think
of when choosing art that 'fits the mood' of the
room. And since livingrooms and the couches that
are found there are supposed to be restful havens
for visitors, it is 'comforting art' that most
think of hanging there. Or 'delightfully decorative'
as the case may be. Odd Nerdrum has said that his
art would never find itself over a couch, for an
example of non-couch type of art.
gannerm
I am her biggest fan.
Please take a look at the online gallery I have created for her and let
us both know what you think.
All the best,
Martin Ganner (husband of Susan Vesely MA rca)
http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/6553
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Erik A. Mattila
gets in during prolonged rote activity, like weaving or painting. "Flow"
is a good word for this, I think. I think it liberates your mind, in a
sense, because your thoughts become 'disconnected' to a greater degree from
your physical existence. The experience is somewhat refreshing, also. You
come back to the normal state of consciousness feeling quite good. It's no
wonder that artists see this as something profound and dripping with all
sorts of genius and meaning, etc. etc. The experience has that sort of
quality to it, even tought, objectively, it is sort of a ruse.
I think it may be different from the 'guts' that Alison is talking about.
Maybe she will comment. Alison is equivocating 'significant' art making
with the feelings one get's when faced with emminent danger. I took
'jumping off a cliff' or 'out of an airplane' as metaphors, but we always
run the risk of believing our metaphors (when they mutate to metonymys).
Remember, this whole discussion is packaged in the context of 'selling
out,' 'artistic honesty,' prostituting one's art,' 'artistic compromise,'
and such terminology. When you utter these terms, the implication is
always that there is an opposite state of affairs. If there is a
possibility to 'sell-out' one's art making, then there is also a
possibility to 'buy in' instead. Buy into what? What really is artistic
'dishonesty?' The 'prostitution' metaphor is more interesting, however,
given the term's connotations. What is the opposite of 'prostitution' that
is proposed? You know, the 'non-prostitutional' way of making art. One
thing would be "Not For Sale," right? This indicates that artwork created
for commercial purposes would be 'prostituted,' buy the guidance of this
metaphor. Since it is a term that speaks to human sexuality, or more
appropriately 'power relationships' what does it say in the context of
works of art. One, a value of society is that sex should not be
commodified. Two, sex should be consummated within the constraints of
micro-organizations like marriage, in order to avoid 'prostituion.' Three,
the image of the prostitute in modern art has been very important, as it
stands for marginalization, ostracism, social sedition, and by extension,
once it migrates to art making, represents the whole idea of modern art
intself. So the evocation of this metaphor in some important sense attacks
the standard that was originally intended to be enhanced by the utterance
(which 'turns' the trope itself from metaphor to irony.)
"Lauri.L." wrote:
> Lauri:
> Alison hits the point. Just for Erik, I happened to find a referate
> that explains it with more scientific terms. Here are a couple of URL's.
>
> 5. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi : Flow : The Psychology of Optimal Experience
> author: Flow : The Psychology of Optimal
> Experience...
> URL: www.bbebmobnto.az6.debbie.dothan.al.us/
> Last modified 23-Jul-99 - page size 931 bytes -
> in English [ Translate ]
>
> 6. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Finding Flow
> Enlightenment.Com Home | Book Review Index | |
> Send E-mail to Jordan S. Gruber | Finding Flow: The Psychology Of
> Engagement With
> Everyday Life by Mihaly...
> URL:
> www.enlightenment.com/content/bookrevs/findflow.html
> Last modified 31-Oct-98 - page size 13K - in
> English [ Translate ]
>
> These refer to studies of people with extraordinary performance
> on widely different fields. I'm backtranslating a Finnish referate of an
> Hungarian author writing in English (no guarantee
> for accuracy). Mihaly C. claims that peak performance is characterized
> by something he calls "Flow", and describes this
> "When you exceed yourself, and all snaps in place, your action
> changes to a flow. You lose your sense of "I" and find your existence
> in the flow of your act.
Maybe there is a translation problem, Lauri. But what I am reading are
rhetorical entrees:
1. "Exceed yourself" Come on, what kind of science does this come from?
2. "Flow" This was Class A Hippytalk in the 70s. "Go with the Flow, man"
3. " it all snaps in place." What is 'all?' Is this like Gurdjieff, "All
and Nothing?"
4. Losing your sense of "I" makes a bit of sense to me, but then 'finding
your existence in the flow' becomes a little obtuse.
> This is is something Herrigel so marvelosly faild to describe in Zen and
> the art
> of archery, but Pirsig found it in Zen and the art of Motorcycle
> Maintenance.
>
> I guess many of us know this feeling in art making.Suddenly, when
> you are at the limits of your skills, you forget time and place,
> you just do it. And you do it kind of effortlessly but well.
Yes, we know this feeling. But I don't think it is particularly unique to
art making, or that it's particularly profound. Some educational
psychologists a few years back discovered that creating this same state of
rote attention in school children was an excellent way to teach. The
children were fully engaged in a 'hand-on' activity that was entertaining
and repititious, while the 'lesson' was given as background.
Personally, what I think happens during this state of awareness is that our
filters deactivate. We perceive a narrow range of experience, blocking out
much. When you get into that hypnotic state of rote activity some extra
data comes in, that's all. (maybe "flow" is "dataflow.")
> "Fulfilment comes from knowing you tried" as Alison said.
> Yeah, I know Erik, you are going to say this is what happens inside
> your head, and has nothing to do with the piece of artwork when you
> leave it from your hands. You claim that one can paint expressionistic
> when in turmoil of emotions, but as well consciously and calculatively.
No, I claimed that one could make a work of art that could be classified as
'expressionist' regardless on one's state of mind while painting it. The
sagacious sage who paints in peaceful detachment may create a work that
projects a feeling in angst in others, but does not mean the sage was
experiencing angst while he painted it.
> I think it can be hard to see the difference. The latter is, in
> fact forgery. The difference is even more difficult to see in
> pastorale, cool, maybe representational work. Have you any proof that
> it is *not* there, objectively. There is something that separates
> a true and forged autograph. I claim that the confidence in flow
> is seen as easyness and firmness of lines, that is extremely difficult
> to produce in detached mental state.
"Forgery?" Is this another art metaphor? So you are saying that if I
successfully create a work of art that causes, say, sadness in the viewer
while I am in a happy state of mind, that the work is a forgery. This says
that the artist must experience the same thing the viewer experiences in
order to make 'real' art as opposed to 'fake' art, right? So I paint a
very poignant depiction of Marie Antoinette at the Gillotine, while
experiencing the horror of the idea of decapitation and capital
punishment. I exhibit it, and low and belhold, I see viewers showing signs
of the same horror while looking at my work. But wait, now a group of
Igorot headhunters are laughing, pointing, and having a great happy
discussion about my painting.
Scenario two is of course that I have discovered the philosophers stone of
painting and I can rub it on the painting and magically transfer my
emotions to the viewer via the agency of the painting.
But I actually believe that the work of art can transfer emotions from one
person to another. How it does this is because it operates like language
on many levels, and ranks among our roster of symbolic forms. This
transferability is culture specific, but there are classes of meaning that
can working ever larger collections of cultures -- you know, like
Helsinkian, Finlandian, Scandivavian, European, Western, Human. Meaning is
established by convention, as it is in language, but there may be some
meta-categories of meaning that are pan-human. I'm thinking of studies of
facial expressions which suggest that this may be pan-human.
But you don't want to accept the idea of art operating like language, so
what's the way then tha emotions can transfer from artist to viewer? I
haven't the foggiest idea of how I could 'prove' that there is no magical
substance in a work of art that does this work. Of course there is no
possibility to prove the non-existence of something that can't be
perceived. Our systems of proof are not that far reaching, I think.
> Mihaly C. claims that this flow is present in every kind of effort;
> sports, blumbing, art you name it. He says it is characterized
> by the challenge of the task, be it external or self imposed.
> When you do your best. As a contrast to compromizing.
>
> Pirsig sees it in more varied circumstances. He calls it gumption.
> Bot have an orriental appeal that the distinction between I and
> outer world is blurred.
>
> But at least, I could find you something else than artspeak.
>
> - lauri
It seems like artspeak to me, Lauri. I don't see Pirsig as particularly
substantive, at least your quotes. But that's the way one talks about Zen
and Zennish things -- and I'm not knocking it. Zen seems to focuse on the
view askance, the reality in the corner of your eye, seldom noticed. The
Zen mechanisms, such as the Kohen, cleverly create that momentary 'world
stopping' event, when some other logic comes through. But by definition,
the suspension of ego involvement with the world creates a grand generality
of equinamity of all things of the universe. On the other hand, ego is
based on differenciation, seperating out and organizing the universe into
discrete units of meaning. The battle axe of the ego (perhaps the nuclear
bomb) is language. Simply naming the artefacts of our world, real and
imaginary, is enough to create that sense of individual identity. Without
this identity, by the way, we would have no artists, and no art.
- Erik
Norman Strand~
to match the artwork.
Norman Strand
In article <380e9a3c...@news.psi.ca>, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
|> On Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:54:54 -0700, "Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com>
|> wrote:
|>
|> >
|> >: On 15 Oct 1999 17:32:06 GMT, klae...@aol.com (KlaeCW12) wrote:
|> >: Let me know if there is a place for realist artists, or should I
|> >:just paint something that matches my couch?
|>
|> I had a copy of a Vermeer and some fine contemporary work all of which
|> matched my couch quite well.
|>
|> Artzy fartzies seem possessed with an anti-couch-matching paranoia.
|>
|> If you look at some older movies you will find Picasso's matching
|> couches. A look in house and garden type magazines will show all sorts
|> of paintings which match couches. Many European palaces have
|> integrated the furniture with paintings.
|>
|> >That is actually another "art world" which is called "Sofa art". Usually
|> >the work is poor abstractions done in mauve (this year's color).
|>
|> Does this mean that good Modern Academic work never matches any couch?
|> Or does this prejudice derive from the fact that many Artzy Fartzies
|> can't afford a couch?
|>
|> Mani DeLi
|> ...no skill no art
|>
|> Check out my web page, A Skeptical View of Modern Art and
|> my book, comments, work at:.
|> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Sounds to me like what's being described below is that state of mind one
>gets in during prolonged rote activity, like weaving or painting. "Flow"
>is a good word for this, I think. I think it liberates your mind, in a
>sense, because your thoughts become 'disconnected' to a greater degree from
>your physical existence. The experience is somewhat refreshing, also. You
>come back to the normal state of consciousness feeling quite good. It's no
>wonder that artists see this as something profound and dripping with all
>sorts of genius and meaning, etc. etc. The experience has that sort of
>quality to it, even tought, objectively, it is sort of a ruse.
I don't think so. What you describe is automatic pilot. What Lauri is
pointing to is the state of being focused, which is very different. It
has little to do with prolonged activity. In the flow you describe the
mind is simply distracted. In the absorption of being focused it *is*
very like a trance state - you do become detached from the body - like
astral projection. Did you ever do that ? Or levitate ? Its a form of
meditation that involves physical activity as well as mental activity.
>
>I think it may be different from the 'guts' that Alison is talking about.
>Maybe she will comment. Alison is equivocating 'significant' art making
>with the feelings one get's when faced with emminent danger. I took
>'jumping off a cliff' or 'out of an airplane' as metaphors, but we always
>run the risk of believing our metaphors (when they mutate to metonymys).
>
I have already commented quite a lot on this in the discussion - sorry
for this rushed reply but my head is definitely at the canvas this week.
The feeling I refer to is not exclusive to artists, which is why I made
those comparisons. Some people are content not to take risks. They make
live a perfectly contented life without striving for something that may
be just out of their reach. Others become professional athletes,
politicians, businessmen, actors etc. These people set specific targets
in their lives to which they strive for *greatness* .... not necessarily
fame I hasten to add, but a level of achievement that pushed the limits
of their capabilities.
Why do you find this so hard to relate this human condition to an
artist?
James W. Foster
the mood of anyone's room, because there are so many different rooms out
there, from the messiest bedsit to the most luxury apartment. I was being
pedantic.
:-)
-james
Cher Ayde <do...@tryto.emailme.com> wrote in message
news:3811b...@oracle.zianet.com...
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3813876C...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> >Sounds to me like what's being described below is that state of mind one
> >gets in during prolonged rote activity, like weaving or painting. "Flow"
> >is a good word for this, I think. I think it liberates your mind, in a
> >sense, because your thoughts become 'disconnected' to a greater degree from
> >your physical existence. The experience is somewhat refreshing, also. You
> >come back to the normal state of consciousness feeling quite good. It's no
> >wonder that artists see this as something profound and dripping with all
> >sorts of genius and meaning, etc. etc. The experience has that sort of
> >quality to it, even tought, objectively, it is sort of a ruse.
>
> I don't think so. What you describe is automatic pilot. What Lauri is
> pointing to is the state of being focused, which is very different. It
> has little to do with prolonged activity. In the flow you describe the
> mind is simply distracted. In the absorption of being focused it *is*
> very like a trance state - you do become detached from the body - like
> astral projection. Did you ever do that ? Or levitate ? Its a form of
> meditation that involves physical activity as well as mental activity.
I wonder, Alison, -- about the difference. Of the classes of 'most focused'
individuals I've known, kids playing computer games are at least among the
top-ten. So what's so compelling about computer games? I think the answer is
close to that sense of detachment, which can also be described as
'distraction,' that you refer to. From what are we either distracted or
detached? Obvously the 'norm' -- the everyday hum-drum of existence and the
mental state which meets those demands. More or less that which Proust
describes (in almost psychotic detail) in his magnum opus.
Of course the implication here is that artists are attracted to art making by
the seduction of the experience of detachment. I think this can be true, but
it isn't a good axiom since it doesn't apply to 'all artists." Again, some
artists can produce the most angst ridden work without ever feeling that way,
but certainly with the understanding, on a functional level, of the colors,
shapes and contents that would produce a sense of angst in the viewers. Lauri,
if I understand him correctly, calls this 'forgery.' My position is the
opposite, since I really feel that the biographical element of a painting is
irrelevant once the work of art hits the streets. Actually, in my own studies
I've discovered on numerous occassions that a work of art that appears to have
been dashed off in a fit of emotional gestures wasn't, but rather meticulously
contrived to appear that way. This also is true of less overtly 'angst ridden'
work -- a painting that appears to have been made with rather careless
application of gobs of paint turns out to have been heavily calculated and not
random in any way.
As for astral projection, what can I say? I did see a TV program recently
(NOVA, I think) that debunked the famous 'near death experience' of the tunnel
with the light at the end. What was offered was a detailed account of
neurophysiology which created the 'common' experience of the near dead. I
didn't enjoy learning this, personally, since I would prefer to believe that I
would bathe in the celestial light at the end of my days.
I've had a few inexplicable experiences that could be described as astral
projection, I guess. Two that come to mind involve dreaming. One was that I
found myself floating in the air above Kennedy Airport (I have never been to
New York) and then I traveled to a residential area and I thought "I didn't
know New York looked like this (the Brownstones). I entered one flat and
looked around. A couple of months later I got a call from a friend who lived
there, and she began telling me about her recent move to occupy a friends flat
while he was away. I interupted and described what I had seen in my dream,
down to details like the angled roof (an attic flat) in the kitchen, the wall
paper design, and the neighborhood. I was right on. Pretty amazing.
In 1979 I went to Teotihuacan with a local Indian curandero and another Indian
from Guatemala. As we entered the city I remembered a dream I had had some
years before about being there. I discribed the dream in detail to the two
men, and during the course of our visit it all came true, down to details like
a room supported by metal beams, and metal stairs, with a man sitting next to
stacked cases of soda pop which he was selling to the tourists.
But I don't see what these kinds of things have to do with making art. But
I've never been able to resolve these kinds of experiences with my rational
life -- they just remain on the periphery.
> >I think it may be different from the 'guts' that Alison is talking about.
> >Maybe she will comment. Alison is equivocating 'significant' art making
> >with the feelings one get's when faced with emminent danger. I took
> >'jumping off a cliff' or 'out of an airplane' as metaphors, but we always
> >run the risk of believing our metaphors (when they mutate to metonymys).
> >
>
> I have already commented quite a lot on this in the discussion - sorry
> for this rushed reply but my head is definitely at the canvas this week.
>
> The feeling I refer to is not exclusive to artists, which is why I made
> those comparisons. Some people are content not to take risks. They make
> live a perfectly contented life without striving for something that may
> be just out of their reach. Others become professional athletes,
> politicians, businessmen, actors etc. These people set specific targets
> in their lives to which they strive for *greatness* .... not necessarily
> fame I hasten to add, but a level of achievement that pushed the limits
> of their capabilities.
But Alison, this is Yuppy quasi-ideology, reeking of Reaganism and
Thatcherism. What's at risk, anytway? What you are describing may be the
ramifications of dietary defficiencies at early childhood, or a huge range of
circumstancial environmental factors. The truth is that there are a great
number of artists, even some who are thought of as 'masters,' who have not
taken particular 'risks.' Once late modernism congealed in western society, we
were able to use the modernist bifocal to reevaluate art history, and see the
past with a different view. The idea of 'risk,' as insubstantial as it is,
became endemic to the discourse of modernism, since the models were artists who
had traversed the road to Bohemia. Art making, after all, may be nothing more
than neurosis.
> Why do you find this so hard to relate this human condition to an
> artist?
I don't. I see artists fully engaged in the ideology of art as it exists in
culture. My interest is a critical examination of this. By 'critique,' of
course I mean an examination of the questions "where does this idea come from,
how is it constituted, what is its significance?" The first task for such an
inquiry is to begin to take ideas apart and look at them, and certainly make
some distinctions or typology, i.e. what is objective, concrete, abstract,
social, codes and signs, and so on down the line.
But many artists don't like this sort of inquiry, because you always have to
come face to face with your personal fictions. I can't see any weakness in the
idea that art has become, in society, a grand play that is rife with
metaphysical assumptions, valorization of art itself, and heroic attributes
assigned to the artist. Since I am very focused about understand art, I'm
willing to look at these ideas and theories and evaluate their merits, or lack
of merits. What I am finding, however, if one or all of these ideas is thrown
on the table for discussion, the response is often a menagerie of ill-focused,
abstract, evaluative, and ambiguous terminology. So I'm just trying to sort
through all of that.
I think I'm at a disadvantage, however. Many years ago KSAN in San Francisco
often played Les McCann Ltd's wonderful piece "Trying to make it
real...compared to what?" I heard this song too many times after I dropped
Acid, so the existential question burned on my mind, making it impossible not
to ask the question of my subsequent life experiences. I'm just trying to make
it real, which may be an exercise in futility.
Erik Mattila
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>But many artists don't like this sort of inquiry, because you always have to
>come face to face with your personal fictions. I can't see any weakness in the
>idea that art has become, in society, a grand play that is rife with
>metaphysical assumptions, valorization of art itself, and heroic attributes
>assigned to the artist. Since I am very focused about understand art, I'm
>willing to look at these ideas and theories and evaluate their merits, or lack
>of merits. What I am finding, however, if one or all of these ideas is thrown
>on the table for discussion, the response is often a menagerie of ill-focused,
>abstract, evaluative, and ambiguous terminology. So I'm just trying to sort
>through all of that.
Your asking good questions, Erik. I just don't have time to do justice
to this post at the moment but understand where you are leading. I'll
get back to it over the weekend if that's ok.
James W. Foster
-james
Norman Strand~ <nst...@hal124.ch.intel.com> wrote in message
news:7v1sku$9...@chnews.ch.intel.com...
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>I wonder, Alison, -- about the difference. Of the classes of 'most focused'
>individuals I've known, kids playing computer games are at least among the
>top-ten. So what's so compelling about computer games? I think the answer is
>close to that sense of detachment, which can also be described as
>'distraction,' that you refer to. From what are we either distracted or
>detached? Obvously the 'norm' -- the everyday hum-drum of existence and the
>mental state which meets those demands. More or less that which Proust
>describes (in almost psychotic detail) in his magnum opus.
I prefer the word *absorption*, Erik. The child enters a different world
- literally - when he plays a computer game. I've watched my nephews and
nieces and they all become highly agitated, excited and *absorbed*. Its
the same in any activity that you focus on and art is one of them. Most
of the world become absorbed in their *work* of some description - the
businessman, the politician, the artist. It provides the feeling of
*meaning* that seems essential to our presence.
>
>Of course the implication here is that artists are attracted to art making by
>the seduction of the experience of detachment. I think this can be true, but
>it isn't a good axiom since it doesn't apply to 'all artists." Again, some
>artists can produce the most angst ridden work without ever feeling that way,
>but certainly with the understanding, on a functional level, of the colors,
>shapes and contents that would produce a sense of angst in the viewers. Lauri,
>if I understand him correctly, calls this 'forgery.' My position is the
>opposite, since I really feel that the biographical element of a painting is
>irrelevant once the work of art hits the streets. Actually, in my own studies
>I've discovered on numerous occassions that a work of art that appears to have
>been dashed off in a fit of emotional gestures wasn't, but rather meticulously
>contrived to appear that way. This also is true of less overtly 'angst ridden'
>work -- a painting that appears to have been made with rather careless
>application of gobs of paint turns out to have been heavily calculated and not
>random in any way.
>
I agree with all of this, although as an artist I have to admit that I
make art that is deliberately *beautiful*. Choosing colours,
composition, textures and form that implies beauty and harmony - which
would mean my work is *contrived* because I make a deliberate decision
on those aspects of my work. The physical experience of making the work
is what really interests me ... the absorption in the process and the
pleasure of the experience. The same experience as the child has with
the computer games. This, to me, is what a sublime experience today is.
>As for astral projection, what can I say?
<snip>
>But I don't see what these kinds of things have to do with making art. But
>I've never been able to resolve these kinds of experiences with my rational
>life -- they just remain on the periphery.
>
Astral projection is a voluntary leaving of the body by the mind. A
deliberate move away. It is not a state of dreaming - you are aware of
the move and able to control it. I know two people who can do this, both
artists. Both describe the fear of it, but also the immense excitement
of the danger of it. The closest I ever got was in the hands of a
cranial osteopath - at the time I attributed the experience to the
energy that was passing from his hands to me. I was able to feel the
mind struggling to leave the body but was also aware of my resistance to
it which created the tension that resulted in an energy draining
experience. Most of us are incapable of allowing our minds free from our
bodies.
>But Alison, this is Yuppy quasi-ideology, reeking of Reaganism and
>Thatcherism. What's at risk, anytway? What you are describing may be the
>ramifications of dietary defficiencies at early childhood, or a huge range of
>circumstancial environmental factors. The truth is that there are a great
>number of artists, even some who are thought of as 'masters,' who have not
>taken particular 'risks.' Once late modernism congealed in western society, we
>were able to use the modernist bifocal to reevaluate art history, and see the
>past with a different view. The idea of 'risk,' as insubstantial as it is,
>became endemic to the discourse of modernism, since the models were artists who
>had traversed the road to Bohemia. Art making, after all, may be nothing more
>than neurosis.
What is at risk is the feeling that you, as a human being, are capable
of more. It has nothing to do with the politics of capitalism or the
lure of wealth. It's a basic human instinct to discover and to push the
limits of what we think we know. There would be no so called *progress*
without this - we would have remained static and complacent.
Incidentally, you are very wrong: the great masters all did this.
>I don't. I see artists fully engaged in the ideology of art as it exists in
>culture. My interest is a critical examination of this. By 'critique,' of
>course I mean an examination of the questions "where does this idea come from,
>how is it constituted, what is its significance?" The first task for such an
>inquiry is to begin to take ideas apart and look at them, and certainly make
>some distinctions or typology, i.e. what is objective, concrete, abstract,
>social, codes and signs, and so on down the line.
Absolutely.
>
>But many artists don't like this sort of inquiry, because you always have to
>come face to face with your personal fictions. I can't see any weakness in the
>idea that art has become, in society, a grand play that is rife with
>metaphysical assumptions, valorization of art itself, and heroic attributes
>assigned to the artist. Since I am very focused about understand art, I'm
>willing to look at these ideas and theories and evaluate their merits, or lack
>of merits. What I am finding, however, if one or all of these ideas is thrown
>on the table for discussion, the response is often a menagerie of ill-focused,
>abstract, evaluative, and ambiguous terminology. So I'm just trying to sort
>through all of that.
Perhaps this is not so. Most artists are not good at communicating
through the written word - so they simply do not. What you are left with
are those who want to theorise, who are interested in the socio-cultural
implications of art and those who are not artists. Its a very small
minority. On the other hand, there is also very little good art and
certainly no great art these days.
>
>I think I'm at a disadvantage, however. Many years ago KSAN in San Francisco
>often played Les McCann Ltd's wonderful piece "Trying to make it
>real...compared to what?" I heard this song too many times after I dropped
>Acid, so the existential question burned on my mind, making it impossible not
>to ask the question of my subsequent life experiences. I'm just trying to make
>it real, which may be an exercise in futility.
I expect so, but as long as we take our minds for a walk every so often
maybe they won't get fat and lazy.
--
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
John Haber
>What you describe is automatic pilot. What Lauri is
>pointing to is the state of being focused, which is very different.
I like that. You just get days where your whole head is working
straight and your body has the energy to sustain it, and that may go
beyond some kind of logical deduction, but that's not vegging out
mentally either. It's just called work.
It's not the same thing, but I liked a footnote in the Leja book I'm
reading, on Pollock's stuff not exactly either stream of consciousness
nor a conscious depiction of someone else's symbols: it took work,
too. He is pointing out that they sound different, even opposing, but
they both reduce the art to an old metaphor -- whether the mirror or
copy:
"I hope it will be clear that by 'representing the unconsious' I do
not mean to suggest that Pollock was attempting to depict some
preexisting conception or contents of the unconscious. Quite the
contrary: representation is understood here as a complex process
which in this cse yields not only paintings and drawings believed
somehow to derive from the unconscious but yields as well conceptions
and contents of the unconscious."
John Haber
> Of the classes of 'most focused'
>individuals I've known, kids playing computer games are at least among the
>top-ten. So what's so compelling about computer games? I think the answer is
>close to that sense of detachment, which can also be described as
>'distraction,' that you refer to.
Oh, well. Certainly stepping outside the box in which we live offers
a kind of intense focus, just one more worthwhile that games. Maybe
that's what gives rise to the gobbledygood about out-of-body
experiences.
On the other hand, shouldn't lose one's sense of play from it either.
When I was writing and thinking this week about the critiques of the
Pollock generation as part of the system, one thing that struck me was
how much the writers lose their sense of humor. Anti-capitalism
without a smile somehow becomes anti-artist, too. At one point, after
a superb use of film noir to get at the sensibility of the age, he
apologizes for the humor he notes in those movies: it undermines the
movies' serious critique of human values and all that. Maybe not
video games, but at least jokes seem to me as good a way of detaching
oneself from the you-know-what in life as can be.
John Haber
>I prefer the word *absorption*, Erik.
I'm taking you out of context, but it reminds me of my caution against
generalizing too much from any approach to art -- the Romantic
sublime, your own, whatever -- to some universal process. In this
case, have you seen Michael Fried's "Absorption and Theatricality,"
where he finds an interesting use of the word as part of an approach
or content specific to art of its time?
john
webm...@studioproducts.com
reality stands at the polar opposite of art, Wait...hold on before you
fire off that flaming rejoinder and allow me to explain my position.
This is not some cute little postmodernist redefinition of the words
Reality and Art but something long known to those artists who make
their living producing art (not teachers or others who have to take
jobs outside the field of art).
Art is the root word of ARTificial and ARTifice. It has as much to do
with reality as a magic show has. A Martian looking at a Rembrandt and
a paint smeared canvas would see little difference. Their physical
descriptions, weights, lengths, etc. would be identical. Where we
earthlings see value in one and not the other lies the mystery of
illusion. All painting is illusionistic in the sense that it bends a
flat plane. The reality is that the plane of the canvas is flat and the
best artists manage to deceive the eye through various artificial means
such as edge control, color modulation and a few hundred other
stratagems.
The purpose of any artist is to control the emotional responses of the
audience. A singer who can bring tears to your eyes and choke you up
would be less effective if she was crying and choked up. So it is with
the best artists. They do not confuse the reality of the emotions they
wish to create with the artificial devices they use to create those
emotional responses.
Amateurs, teachers and clerks in art shops may disagree, but most
artists who earn their entire living from the fruits of their artistic
labors will, likely, fins=d themselves in agreement.
Rob Howard
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ponderable
>audience. A singer who can bring tears to your eyes and choke you up
>would be less effective if she was crying and choked up. So it is with
>the best artists. They do not confuse the reality of the emotions they
>wish to create with the artificial devices they use to create those
>emotional responses.
>Amateurs, teachers and clerks in art shops may disagree, but most
>artists who earn their entire living from the fruits of their artistic
>labors will, likely, fins=d themselves in agreement.
>Rob Howard
Yo Rob,
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
I earn my entire living as a painter.
I don't know that I've ever even thought about wishing to create emotions in
those who view my work. Maybe as a secondary desire, and that being that they
enjoy the work as much as I.
But mostly, I simply paint that which inspires moi.
Maybe I'm selfish.
Or maybe that is why I am successful. I'm utterly true to myself, and it is
that honesty, that truthfulness, which people respond to in my work.
Anyway. Keep posting.
Tim Folzenlogen
John Haber
>a paint smeared canvas would see little difference.
I've found Martians to be extraordinary art critics. Those extra
sensors in the antennae coming out of their head help a lot.
John
John Haber
jha...@haberarts.com
http://www.haberarts.com/
webm...@studioproducts.com
ponde...@aol.com (Ponderable) wrote:
hello Tim,
I always assume that I'm being true to myself when I work...at least,
to some part of myself, as I work only on commission. If I were making
paintings on speculation (hoping that they'd be sold in exhibits and
galleries) I might have a more inward-looking approach, but I have to
paint people who actually look like the people I'm painting. Not only
that, the pictures have to be somewhat idealised but not so much as to
be an obvious flattery...kind of a tricky balance.
Because these picture have to be thought out in advance, leaving very
little room for those "happy accidents" which usually are very unhappy
accidents, there are lots of sketches in both chalk and paint before
all of the pieces are brought together into one master piece. A big
part of my job is to inform the viewer, not so much of how the sitter
looks (any reasonably skilled painter can do that) but who they are as
a person. In order to do that, I have to use well understood approaches
in composition, color, edge control, lighting and few dozen other
technical aspects of painting. I strive to create the identical emotion
in all viewers. That, of course, is impossible. Just as there will be
some playgoers who think Romeo and Juliet is a comedy, I expect there
to be some people who don't undertand the visual cues I put forth.
For me, painting is a reasonably intellectual pursuit where one records
their feelings but is not encumbered by them when actually painting.
That's clearly inappropriate and better fits withing the realm of 'art
therapy' than the making of art. Much of that silly attitude comes from
the romanticised version of the lives of artists like van Gogh, who has
been portrayed as a seething bundle of weeping, sweating emotion rather
than the careful scholar (who spoke five languages and was widely read)
that he actually was. His understanding of pictorial composition was
the result of dogged study, not waiting for the divine afflatus to waft
across his easel. He CREATED the emotions the viewers feel. The proof
lies in the fact that so many of them feel the same thing. That's the
result of a very careful and thoughtful approach. Reading just a few of
his letters is enough to convince anyone that the vanGogh of reality
was VERY different from the one in Irving Stone's Lust For Life.
...Rob Howard
> Yo Rob,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful post.
>
> I earn my entire living as a painter.
>
> I don't know that I've ever even thought about wishing to create
emotions in
> those who view my work. Maybe as a secondary desire, and that being
that they
> enjoy the work as much as I.
>
> But mostly, I simply paint that which inspires moi.
>
> Maybe I'm selfish.
>
> Or maybe that is why I am successful. I'm utterly true to myself, and
it is
> that honesty, that truthfulness, which people respond to in my work.
>
> Anyway. Keep posting.
>
> Tim Folzenlogen
>
>
