please define "fine arts"
ExcelJed
using it, but I think incorrectly.
Thanks.
dov gordon
Blue Moon
gor...@pilotmail.net says...
>
>Can someone please explain the meaning of "fine arts" to me. I have been
>using it, but I think incorrectly.
Are you referring to the DICTIONARY?
If you ask a dozen artists you'll likely get a dozen
differing replies. For ME, 'fine art' is that in the
arts that will still be valid and valuable 300 years
from now.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"ExcelJed" <gor...@pilotmail.net> wrote:
> Can someone please explain the meaning of "fine arts" to me. I have been
> using it, but I think incorrectly.
Normally it's used to describe some piece of shit that no one would want to
look at for more time than it takes to walk to the next piece.
As opposed to "illustrations" which the "fine artists" call anything that is
recognizable. For example, Wyeth is typically "dismissed" as "illustrations"
by "fine artists".
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"ExcelJed" <gor...@pilotmail.net> wrote:
> Can someone please explain the meaning of "fine arts" to me. I have been
> using it, but I think incorrectly.
>
> dov gordon
>
But people here cannot form a consensus on what 'art' is, let alone 'fine
art.' You can only define any of the terms from within a specific context,
otherwise they are quite meaningless.
Erik Mattila
tomi...@hotmail.com
> Can someone please explain the meaning of "fine arts" to me. I have been
> using it, but I think incorrectly.
for _me_, it's the stuff (paintings etc) before modern and contemporary art.
paolo beneforti
L. Drew Davis
wrote:
>Can someone please explain the meaning of "fine arts" to me. I have been
>using it, but I think incorrectly.
"Fine arts" are those in which a craft is plied for aesthetic
reasons, rather than for utility. Painting a canvas to communicate
a message or for its own sake is "art", while painting your house
to keep it from rotting is not. There's plenty of confusing middle
ground for works that involve much the same skills and materials
as fine arts, but have a utilitarian purpose (say, illustration for a
textbook), or for works where utility is necessary, yet the expression
goes beyond mere utility (say, architecture, or furniture). Fine arts
evolved from crafts, and society has changed (and will change) its
opinion on what a "pure" art is. Sometimes pottery is "just" a
craft, and sometimes potters are producing works of "art".
Note that quality has nothing to do with it. You can produce
bad fine art, or astounding works of craftsmanship.
Iian Neill
Depending on what century you are in - and what philosophy you hold - the definition of "fine art" is understood differently. For example, around about the middle of last century "fine art" denoted art that combined intellectual and sensual (aesthetic) concerns - the highest forms of "fine art" were considered to be mythological paintings or historical genre works, in the mode of Ingres, Delaroche, and so on. With the Realist revolution in aesthetics non-Classical and non-Christian subjects were considered worthy of life-size treatment in painting - these too eventually became to be accepted as "fine art"."ExcelJed" wrote: > Can someone please explain the meaning of "fine arts" to me. I have been > using it, but I think incorrectly. Normally it's used to describe some piece of shit that no one would want to look at for more time than it takes to walk to the next piece. As opposed to "illustrations" which the "fine artists" call anything that is recognizable. For example, Wyeth is typically "dismissed" as "illustrations" by "fine artists".
In the middle of last century, when every major painter and sculptor was in command of formiddable technical skills, the very idea of considering unfinished or barbaric work to be "fine art" was not even considered. The Impressionists, it is true, opened up the way for a looser technique and the renewed emphasis of colour over form, but even so they cannot be held as responsible for the crisis that followed. Broadly speaking, it is the philosophy of an individual that determines the way he creates, and what he deems to be "fine art". When we speak of a certain "style" in art we are in fact finding similarities between these underlying philosophies - generally speaking these similarities are easier to find in, say, a particular country and period - but that is by no means set in stone. If we look through history we will see the recurrence of baroque, romantic, and classical styles; these styles never really die out - they are representative of something fundamental to the human creative process. Each generation they manifest themselves in different ways, and we call these particular manifestations "styles" or "movements".
To the Masters of the 19th century "fine art" denoted exquisite crafstmanship, aesthetic sensitivity coupled to a keen intellect. This intellectual aspect often expressed itself in the subtle interplay of an art-work's subject matter - what we might call the psychological aspects of a painting, or sculpture. There was no question whatsoever that art involved the highest mastery of technique in the service of expression and communication. With the rise of the Post-Impressionists and the proliferation of nihilistic theories in philosophy, we see paintings that reflect fragmented, phantasmagorical worlds - universes where shapes are inconstant, where forms are shattered into dislocated planes, where colours are high-pitched, grossly exaggerated - where depravity, disease, depression become the highest themes for "fine art". Finally, there was the rise of the dictum, "Art for Art's sake", which essentially gives an artist carte blanche rights to retreat into a subjective universe, to declare war on the communication of universal feelings, to sneer at intelligible and witty subject matter. The ultimate realization of this ideal is to be found in the belief that any painting that is intelligble or beautifully constructed is inferior to one that is shocking, ugly, and meaningless.
This becomes the meaning of "fine art" for a while. Art degenerates further, sheds the skin of reality, of feeling, and wraps itself up in the insulation of ivory-tower aesthetics. Technical skill is thrown out with the baby and the bath-water. When the only real objective aspect to art is banished from criticism, what is left but subjective, mystic interpretations? - Who can contradict a critic's dithyrambic paeans on a Jackson Pollack when one accepts the notion that technical skill is unnecessary at best, and retrogressive at worst (as always with these critics, there always seems to be some political connotation to 'retrogressiveness' - as if realistic art were somehow only to be rightfully found in "The Old Order".) How can one even pretend to objectively discuss art when you eliminate craft as its foundation-stone? Why should we listen to any musical critic - for example - if they reject the idea that technical skill is essential for the greatest performances? How could people let themselves be duped by the notion that skill is irrelevant in the visual arts, when they accept its importance in all other branches? - In drama, literature, in music and its performance?
Well, perhaps that is not entirely correct - it should be said that our esteemed critics DID recognize the importance of realistic art - only so long as it ended at 1900. After that it had gone past its use-by-date. Perhaps it was even generally agreed that individuality was irrelevant in art - because if a Modernist or Post-Modernist critic TRULY championed individuality, then they would not attack a contemporary realistic artist on the basis that he IS contemporary AND realistic. The very idea that an artist MUST conform to a certain style because "it expresses the spirit of the times" is a contemptible one - it is a form of intellectual censorship, of critical bully-tactics. In these mafia-style critical skirmishes the words "progressive" and "retrogressive" become calls to arms.
A certain artist is "progressive" - why? Because his works are fragmented, violently colourful, jagged, miasmic, or simply shocking - in short, because his paintings are a physical manifestation of the "accepted" philosophies. Another artist is "retrogressive" because he depicts beautiful human beings, because his works may tell a story, or the figures in them are recognizable - or simply because he considers it important to pay more than just insincere lip-service to the life-drawing classes he undertook at art school. The two important words are "progressive" and "retrogressive". All of those Post-Modernists out there who pride themselves on being able to ferret out the power relations in various discourses should know what I am talking about. We often hear from the Orientalist critics that such and such a work is racist because it promotes the Occident at the expense of the Orient. Well, you soothsayers of aesthetic-political discourse, consider the use of the terms "progressive" and "retrogressive" by your own art critics. Turn your deconstructive critical gaze back upon yourselves. Post-Modernist ... deconstruct thyself.
To put it simply, the term "progressive" is meant to promote an artist, and the term "retrogressive" is meant to denigrate him. Underlying this is the belief that one's own paradigm is progressive, whilst conflicting ones are retrogressive. Well, some of these philosophies disagree, even violently - what of it? There is nothing wrong with that. What is disturbing about these critics is that their statements imply that only their conception of modernity (reality) is acceptable - and that their conception of reality so often seems to be a negative, anti-humanist one. One need only look to the architecture of our century for a manifestation of this - gigantic, mechanical, soulless, inhuman - these words come to mind when looking at the innumerable glass boxes that are a blight on our cities, or if one looks at the bulk of cheap public housing - miserable flats, soulless cities. Who could possibly condemn a population to live there? - What philosophy could possibly champion such a nightmare world?
In any case, the term "progressive" with the moderns comes to be associated with these kind of works - and inherent in it, of course, is the assumption that it is naturally so, that it is the rightful heir to a long tradition - that art-works which represent a different paradigm (one perhaps more similar to the 19th century love of beauty and intellect) is necessarily "retrogressive". "Retrogressive" in this context means more than just antiquarian, or even inferior. It means that something is not even to be included with the bounds of "fine art" - that it is vacuous, superficial, representative of an old, apparently tyrannical order. Some artists nowadays seem to equate the freedom to create with the imperative not to quantify or criticize. How often does one hear even on this newsgroups cries of, "I don't judge art! It cannot be judged! There is nothing objective in a judgement of it, so I would be perpetuating a lie!" Well, I grant you that these folks are at least honest with themselves - they are strong enough to stand by their philosophies - they aren't hypocrites. If they truly believe that "fine art" means nothing, they at least stick by that - they are consistent. The ones to be truly despised are those who deny the importance of technical skill whilst at the same time claiming that they have some kind of authority to judge art. Such critics would include anyone who praises a Pollock above an Ingres, or a Carpeaux, or a Bouguereau. It is not the denigration of realists that is odious with these people - it is their claim that they have the right to judge even when they have abandoned the objective standards involved in judgement. They are not just simply giving their opinion - they are enforcing it with their prestige.
So, what is "fine art"? "Fine art" is the expression in art of "fine philosophy" - your highest ideals, your most sacred truths - if you have any - are hailed as "fine art" when you find them represented in paint, marble or words.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
______________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in fine art from its greatest masters, then feel
free to visit my art archive, the Renaissance Café.
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
http://members.spree.com/sip/gerome/index.html
Ed Dickison
> So, what is "fine art"? "Fine art" is the expression in art of "fine
>philosophy" - your highest ideals, your most sacred truths - if you have
>any - are hailed as "fine art" when you find them represented in paint,
>marble or words.
> Iian Neill.
What if your most sacred truth is honest painting. Painting, not to make a
statement of technical virtuosity, and not to be a vehicle for ideas
external to the painting: ideas about gender, race, politics, history,
religion etc. etc.
Not to be primarily a representation or documentation of something else:
but instead, the real thing.
Don Nelson
Ariane
To me 'fine art' is the communication of a private world which, through
handling paint, language, sound, moving the body, etc. moves another to
feel your world.
A.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
> Post-Modernist ... deconstruct thyself.
> Iian Neill.
I love it, Iian -- best line you've written.
But here's my problem with your interesting post. My understanding of post-
modern includes the idea of eclecticism, or more properly the collapse of any
'rules' that may have existed in society (under 'modernism') that would
illegitimize academic painting. I know of some very academic painters who
produce work under the 'post-modern' rubric. What I mean by this, is
attention to technique -- the artists absolute control over the medium --
very focused illusionistic painting -- in short many of the things we
generally associate with French academic painting. That being the case, I
don't understand why you can't celebrate post-modernism as a liberating
force. I could be that some of the approaches to art that you don't like
overshadows the academic painting that is being produced today -- which in my
view isn't the responsibility of the philosophical underpinnngs of Post
Modernism.
So the architectural examples you cited have essentially been toppled by
post- modern architecture, which has a much stronger reference to classical
architecture than the previous 'modern architecture.' As a matter of fact,
look at the famous compitition for the Chicago Public Library a few years
back -- the winner was a firm that designed a direct interpretation of a
classical theme, and the critics went ballistic (not all the critics, of
course) since they argued that there was no relationship between contemporary
Chicago culture and classical Greece or Rome. But the Library is defined as
'post-modern' architecture.
That's all I wanted to say. I think it is exactly the post-modern that allows
many artists to indulge themselves in revivalistic movements, and feel good
about it (and even sell there works!).
Oh, no, there is something else. At some point in my learning skills about
art I was interested in absolute totalitarian control over paint -- I wanted
to make it do exactly what I wanted to do. Equally, I exercised the same
libidinal hyperbole over drawing, sinking into a deep state of
anal-retentiveness about the products of my endeavors. I'm not claiming that
I reached the level of 'mastery' of some of the models I used, even Ingres
and Vermeer, but I got far enough along with the project where I could dazzle
my friends with virtuosity, and then grew exactly tired of the whole thing.
Why? Because it seemed pointless to me. Mind you, it wasn't because I felt
that I was out of vogue, since I've never paid any attention to fashion
systems in the first place. I just felt very deeply that it was an exercise
in pointlessness. What's the big deal about descriptive rendering or control
of paint? That's what I was asking myself. So I just stopped doing it, as a
project. What I gained was the ability to do it, which I draw on from time
to time, although it is no longer the 'point' but rather just another tool
among many. From that perspective, I see the criteria that you describe as
the standard of high art exactly as Art about Art. You don't find any sort
of technical prefection in nature to match what one may want to impose on a
painting, nor do you find this perfection in the imagination, or in
philosophy.
"Fine Art' is self-defining. What you were addressing is only 'art' as it
exists in Western European Culture, and others elsewhere have a much
different history and ideas about the matter. Anyone has the right to
proclaim their chicken scratches 'fine art' if it was their intent to create
'fine art' in the first place. After that, the artist must convince others
that it is 'fine art' and there's no easy way to do that, regardless of how
cleverly the piece is put together. (Someone may come out of the woodwork and
shout "That's retogressive!" -- others may shout 'revisionist' -- others may
shout 'No Skill' and so on).
Erik Mattila
cher...@webtv.net
Couple of questions. Would you give an example of a painting that you
feel meets this criteria of an honest painting. What prompts a person to
paint if there is no statement of any kind? Or is the statement simply
the movement of the brush and paint across the board?
Mehran Habibi
Iian Neill wrote:
Lian,
I read your post with a great deal of interest(though, to be honest, a
lot of went over my head). I'm currently lurking here from rec.martial-arts
because we've seem to come to cross roads: hopefully, you and your co-horts
can help. In short, we can't decide what the hell it is we're doing. Some of
us are of the opinion that our 'art' is art because it's beautiful, holds up
tradition, brings peace of mind, etc. Others are of the opinion that we're
practical and effective, and thus, by reaching a certain threshold of
practicality and effectiveness, transcend craft and become 'art'. I'm not
sure how much you know or don't know about MA, but generally, there are two
schools: the first is traditional, and asserts a strong order (this rank,
this style, based on lineage, etc.) the other is more modern, and asserts
pragmatism ( no ranks, eclectic styles, based on personal experience, etc.
). I guess we're trying to decide on a definition of 'art'. Any thoughts?
Mehran
Kay Kane
Kay Kane
Kay Kane
Iian Neill wrote in message <36DD42EB...@microtech.com.au>...
>Hello Erik,
>
>
>>But here's my problem with your interesting post. My understanding of
>post-
>>modern includes the idea of eclecticism, or more properly the collapse
>of any
>>'rules' that may have existed in society (under 'modernism') that would
>
>>illegitimize academic painting. I know of some very academic painters
>who
>>produce work under the 'post-modern' rubric. What I mean by this, is
>>attention to technique -- the artists absolute control over the medium
>--
>>very focused illusionistic painting -- in short many of the things we
>>generally associate with French academic painting. That being the
>case, I
>>don't understand why you can't celebrate post-modernism as a liberating
>
>>force. I could be that some of the approaches to art that you don't
>like
>>overshadows the academic painting that is being produced today -- which
>in my
>>view isn't the responsibility of the philosophical underpinnngs of Post
>
>>Modernism.
>
>that I have on occasion lunged at a very LARGE windmill; to put it
>somewhat less surrealistically, I have in the past lumped together
>certains aspects of contemporary aesthetic-philosophy that I despise,
>and called that "Post Modernism". Part of this is due to the fact that
>the teachers who instructed me in contemporary aesthetics referred to
>the more odious aspects of it as "Post Modernism". The truth of it,
>though, seems somewhat more complex.
>
>>So the architectural examples you cited have essentially been toppled
>by
>classical
>>architecture than the previous 'modern architecture.' As a matter of
>fact,
>>look at the famous compitition for the Chicago Public Library a few
>years
>>back -- the winner was a firm that designed a direct interpretation of
>a
>>classical theme, and the critics went ballistic (not all the critics,
>of
>>course) since they argued that there was no relationship between
>contemporary
>>Chicago culture and classical Greece or Rome. But the Library is
>defined as
>>'post-modern' architecture.
>
>production made in, say, the past ten or twenty years - regardless of
>whether it looks Modernist, Gothic, Renaissance, or Classical?
>
>>That's all I wanted to say. I think it is exactly the post-modern that
>allows
>>many artists to indulge themselves in revivalistic movements, and feel
>good
>>about it (and even sell there works!).
>
>only certain aspects of it. I suppose the question now is: how dominant
>are these particular aspects of it?
>
>>Oh, no, there is something else. At some point in my learning skills
>about
>>art I was interested in absolute totalitarian control over paint -- I
>wanted
>>to make it do exactly what I wanted to do.
>
>complete mastery of the inner process? The question might seem semantic,
>but I don't think it is.
>
>>Equally, I exercised the same
>>libidinal hyperbole over drawing, sinking into a deep state of
>>anal-retentiveness about the products of my endeavors. I'm not
>claiming that
>>I reached the level of 'mastery' of some of the models I used, even
>Ingres
>>and Vermeer, but I got far enough along with the project where I could
>dazzle
>>my friends with virtuosity, and then grew exactly tired of the whole
>thing.
>>Why? Because it seemed pointless to me. Mind you, it wasn't because I
>felt
>>that I was out of vogue, since I've never paid any attention to fashion
>
>>systems in the first place. I just felt very deeply that it was an
>exercise
>>in pointlessness. What's the big deal about descriptive rendering or
>control
>>of paint? That's what I was asking myself. So I just stopped doing it,
>as a
>>project.
>
>possible for me to convince you otherwise. This is not meant as a
>criticism, merely as a fact: - If you had indeed gained technical
>mastery of your medium, and then grew tired of it and could find no
>reason to continue improving your skills in this area, then there is
>really nothing I could say that would make you think differently. What
>took place was a fundamental change in your approach to art - while it
>is possible to bandy logic and philosophy around, asserting that for
>whatever reason realism is superior in this or that regard, in the end I
>think it would be a fruitless affair.
>
>Thank you for an interesting letter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill
>
Kay Kane
Iian Neill
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> wrote:
> I think that you may be right. One of the problems with my approach is
> that I have on occasion lunged at a very LARGE windmill; to put it
> somewhat less surrealistically, I have in the past lumped together
> certains aspects of contemporary aesthetic-philosophy that I despise,
> and called that "Post Modernism". Part of this is due to the fact that
> the teachers who instructed me in contemporary aesthetics referred to
> the more odious aspects of it as "Post Modernism". The truth of it,
> though, seems somewhat more complex.
The 'windmill' metaphor is appropriate, at least in this respect. Carlos
Fuentes wrote a wonder essay on Cervantes, in which he described his belief
that Don Quixote was 'about' the transition from the medieval to the early
modern eras. Our hero was simply trying to make the transition complete, by
killing all the remaining medieval dragons. Fuentes, naturally, would have
described the fact that they were, in fact (empirically) really only
'windmills' as a way of differenciating between 'real' and 'cultural'
objects.
>
> In this case, is the label "post modern" merely applied to any artistic
> production made in, say, the past ten or twenty years - regardless of
> whether it looks Modernist, Gothic, Renaissance, or Classical?
I agree with you here, absolutely. The category itself seems to address more
the social context than the specific attributes of the object. But that may
where you disagree, since that kind of distinction (attaching the context to
the object-and apprehending the work of art as a representation of both)
seems to be at issue in the many exchanges in this news group. In fact, this
has become rather programatic in popular culture. In contemporary
advertising, often, the object is dropped altogether and only the context is
marketed -- as if owning the object will recreate the desirable context (and
those who claim that 'Marxism is dead" should think about this -- it's alive
and well in the advertising industry -- the commodity as fetish). In film we
now have an endless play of codes that may refer to a stereotype of a period
-- the '50s, '40s, The Court of Louie IV, Medieval Japan and so on -- and
these ideas are all represented by reference to sets of signs and codes that
we moderns read as the historical reality--for all practical purposes (which
of course is entertainment, the only practical purpose). At any rate, all
this is called 'post modern' simply because of the social and historical fact
of its production.
I think the ultimate post-modern act would be the ressurection of French
Academic Painting -- keeping in mind that it would be, by definition, a
ressurection and not the real thing (regardles of its own inherent virtues).
Probably where such a project would get in trouble, in my opinion, is that it
would never attain the level of authority that the historical model did, so
it wouldn't be a hegemonic project that other arts could react and rebell
against. I think that in itself is possible grounds for disappointment by
advocates of this approach to painting -- since by the post-modern view, at
least, the cultural authority of French Academic Painting was part of its
contextual reality. The ressurection project would be simulacra, which
Baudrillard would claim is the only possiblity (a reproduction of something
that has no original - - and this idea depends on accepting that our
historical understand is in itself something other than the actual events of
history).
> If this is true, then I have no problem with "Post Modernism" as such -
> only certain aspects of it. I suppose the question now is: how dominant
> are these particular aspects of it?
Yes, its a question of dominance. But that question rests in the periphery
of the work of art itself -- i.e. the 'art world' and all the great
promotional schemes that are devised to sell art, often selling art that may
be less virtuous that art that won't sell, measured by various standards. I
think that's a legitmate complaint for any artist. Jeez, it's hard to get
your foot in the door regardless of what you produce. I used to print
underground comic books -- we were handling all the top name cartoonists like
Crumb, O'Niel, Jaxon, Moscoso etc. Artists would come in off the street with
their comix that I thought were better than what we were publishing, but I
had to turn them down because this little industry, at the time, was totally
geared to sell Crumb, O'Niel, Jaxon, Moscoso etc. It was really
heartbreaking to have to reject the new artist.
>
> Did you have 'totalitarian control' over the paint itself so much as a
> complete mastery of the inner process? The question might seem semantic,
> but I don't think it is.
What actually happened, and I don't know if this is 'inner' or 'outer', was
that I began to notice that I could no longer see a relationship to tight
rendering and my experience of vision. One day I was musing and I
'discovered' that the human eye has an incredibly short depth of field,
coupled with an incredibly rapid focus mechanism. Quite unlike any camera
lens, of course (yet we accept the photographic image as a 'truth' of
vision). So when I began playing around with my own eyes, and shutting off
the focus, I saw that most of the visual field was a blur -- the opposite of
a Dalí or Ingres painting, for example. Well, I began to assume that Turner,
Monet, Pisarro and so on also knew this, and being influenced by French
Naturalism began a project to correct an 'untruth' championed by the Academe.
Of course the counter argument could be that academic painting sought to
replresent the rapid focus, in creating visual truth.
Next, I began to 'discover' how broad the possibilities were to produce
'believability' in a painting. This boils down to developing an alphebet of
understanding of what the minimum requirement is to represent visual
experience in a way that the mind can organize the experience into a
comprehensible form. I was playing around with representations of tablecloths
in still lifes, and doing some outrageously sloppy rendering just to see if
it could say 'fabric' or whatever. I found out it was a very loose thing --
I mean the most thoughtless brush stroke can say 'fabric.' There were
limits, of course, but I found the range was very broad. Often an "idea" of
a textile pattern, coupled with an 'idea' of some folds and wrinkles, would
pull it off. In the end what I was looking at was something that that was
'fresh' (whatever that means) and crackling as compared to previous
experiments I had done, even drawing from life, where I endeavored to place
every tone, every crease, every thread, in a logically determined space.
Equally, I also understood that the loose renderings, which pushed
believability to the brink of nonsense, required a greater skill on my part,
since I was really 'painting on the edge.' I'm sure that how I am measuring
the tight against the loose is in large part subjective, but it is true that
others who looked at the same preferred the loose. I think it was because if
you looked at the work logically, with the question in mind of 'is it
rendered 'correctly', you are confronted with a paradox -- how can this look
real and yet be so rediculous? Not too different that Olympia's extra spinal
disks, I suppose.
>
> If you had to ask that question at all, then I am not sure it is
> possible for me to convince you otherwise. This is not meant as a
> criticism, merely as a fact: - If you had indeed gained technical
> mastery of your medium, and then grew tired of it and could find no
> reason to continue improving your skills in this area, then there is
> really nothing I could say that would make you think differently. What
> took place was a fundamental change in your approach to art - while it
> is possible to bandy logic and philosophy around, asserting that for
> whatever reason realism is superior in this or that regard, in the end I
> think it would be a fruitless affair.
>
I don't want to claim mastery, believe me. What I've found is that you can
learn to do the things you want to do, providing you have amassed basic
skills and experience. I haven't abandoned learning and improving skills at
all -- at any moment I might become obsessed with what I understand you to
mean by 'realism.' To me all painting is illusionistic by nature, whether it
is non- objective or photo-realism.
But I really think our argument is about authority -- not so much the
physical aspects of the work of art itself. I would go so far as to
speculate that the basis of your discomfort with post-modern theory is its
uniform recognition that the old structures of authority in art have
vanished. If you are inclined to prozlytize for an authority (skill, craft,
realism or whatever) I certainly have no reason to challenge that -- in some
ways I too wish there was an authority. I just go along with the idea that
there is no longer an authority. However, now that the art market has
diversified, fragmented, and pluralized into many different sub-markets,
nearly all of these markets carry a system of 'authority' regarding the
acceptable virtues of specific types of art works. So I'm just saying that
there is no longer a 'uniform field theory' for authority in Art generally.
Such is the post-modern condition -- as disquiting as it is.
Cheers,
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
???
But I didn't read any of your words in your reply, Kay? I've seen some other
responses like this, a clip of the referenced post, but no new text. What
kind of plot is this. (I'm a paranoid, so this makes me uncomfortable, but I
think it's a Dejanews plot!)
Erik
Kay Kane
Kay
P.S. I'll make a note not to post when I take pain pills. I burned my hand
& somehow think it is a good idea to communicate when I'm seeing double...
Sorry, I thought I was resubmitting posts to alt.feminism, which leads me to
wonder (worry) WHAT I sent them!
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7blbni$nlp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
jerald blackstock
while..at least it echos my own thoughts. I understand po/mo and painting
thusly:..under the tyranny of Greenburg we could only paint in a certain
manner..his rules made u or broke u..This reflects a cycle that has been
repeating all through history,,conventions followed by a period of
freedom..we just happen to call that period of freedom postmodernism..
In one sentence, to me, it is this: I am an artist I can do anything I want
.
Kay Kane <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message
MdjD2.6707$YV6....@news2.giganews.com...>>In article <36D947D4...@microtech.com.au>,
>> Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Post-Modernist ... deconstruct thyself.
>>
>>> Iian Neill.
>>
>>
>post-
>>modern includes the idea of eclecticism, or more properly the collapse of
>any
>>'rules' that may have existed in society (under 'modernism') that would
>>illegitimize academic painting. I know of some very academic painters who
>>produce work under the 'post-modern' rubric. What I mean by this, is
>>attention to technique -- the artists absolute control over the medium --
>>very focused illusionistic painting -- in short many of the things we
>>generally associate with French academic painting. That being the case, I
>>don't understand why you can't celebrate post-modernism as a liberating
>>force. I could be that some of the approaches to art that you don't like
>>overshadows the academic painting that is being produced today -- which in
>my
>>view isn't the responsibility of the philosophical underpinnngs of Post
>>Modernism.
>>
classical
>>architecture than the previous 'modern architecture.' As a matter of
fact,
>>look at the famous compitition for the Chicago Public Library a few years
>>back -- the winner was a firm that designed a direct interpretation of a
>>classical theme, and the critics went ballistic (not all the critics, of
>>course) since they argued that there was no relationship between
>contemporary
>>Chicago culture and classical Greece or Rome. But the Library is defined
>as
>>'post-modern' architecture.
>>
>allows
>>many artists to indulge themselves in revivalistic movements, and feel
good
>>about it (and even sell there works!).
>>
about
>>art I was interested in absolute totalitarian control over paint -- I
>wanted
>>libidinal hyperbole over drawing, sinking into a deep state of
>>anal-retentiveness about the products of my endeavors. I'm not claiming
>that
>>I reached the level of 'mastery' of some of the models I used, even Ingres
>>and Vermeer, but I got far enough along with the project where I could
>dazzle
>>my friends with virtuosity, and then grew exactly tired of the whole
thing.
>>Why? Because it seemed pointless to me. Mind you, it wasn't because I
>felt
>>that I was out of vogue, since I've never paid any attention to fashion
>>systems in the first place. I just felt very deeply that it was an
>exercise
>>in pointlessness. What's the big deal about descriptive rendering or
>control
>>of paint? That's what I was asking myself. So I just stopped doing it,
as
>a
jerald blackstock
of composing a symphony would be an interesting enough exercise, but imagine
playing all the instruments as well as conducting the piece.. now you have
some idea of the complexity of 'simply moving the brush and paint across the
board'.
I refer you to Cezanne with a quote from Nicolas Pioch
(http://www.fhi-berlin.mpg.de/wm/)...."Cézanne is an artist's artist. He was
obsessed with form rather than content, so subject matter was always
secondary to the act of painting itself. He wanted the methods and skills of
the painter to be more important than the image. That meant the subject of
the painting couldn't be so dynamic as to overshadow the artist's act of
creation."
JeraldjejD2.6708$YV6....@news2.giganews.com...
Ariane
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, jerald blackstock wrote:
> From: jerald blackstock <jerald_b...@shaw.wave.ca>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine, alt.artcom, rec.arts.misc, us.arts,
> alt.postmodern
> Subject: Re: please define "fine arts"
>
> The clearest version of postmodernity and painting that I have seem in a
> while..at least it echos my own thoughts. I understand po/mo and painting
> thusly:..under the tyranny of Greenburg we could only paint in a certain
> manner..his rules made u or broke u..This reflects a cycle that has been
> repeating all through history,,conventions followed by a period of
> freedom..we just happen to call that period of freedom postmodernism..
> In one sentence, to me, it is this: I am an artist I can do anything I want
=== An interesting example of Hegel's dialectic at work. I couldn't agree
more.
> >> Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Post-Modernist ... deconstruct thyself.
> >>
> >>> Iian Neill.
> >>
> >>I love it, Iian -- best line you've written.
> >>
> >>But here's my problem with your interesting post. My understanding of
> >post-
> >>modern includes the idea of eclecticism, or more properly the collapse of
> >any
> >>'rules' that may have existed in society (under 'modernism') that would
> >>illegitimize academic painting.
=== `Modernism' was quite iconoclastic in its own right. PoMo seems to me
to be `modernism' taken to its logical extreme. In this sense, PoMo's
existence is entirely dependent on its reactively nihilistic stance
vis-a-vis modernist culture. Just a thought.
I know of some very academic painters who
> >>produce work under the 'post-modern' rubric. What I mean by this, is
> >>attention to technique -- the artists absolute control over the medium --
> >>very focused illusionistic painting -- in short many of the things we
> >>generally associate with French academic painting. That being the case, I
> >>don't understand why you can't celebrate post-modernism as a liberating
> >>force.
=== Geez, I see 20th century modernist works as liberating. PoMo work (to
generalize) has always struck me as being somewhat formulaic and reactive.
Contrariness for its own sake. But then again, this is a generalization.
I could be that some of the approaches to art that you don't like
> >>overshadows the academic painting that is being produced today -- which in
> >my
> >>view isn't the responsibility of the philosophical underpinnngs of Post
> >>Modernism.
> >>
> >>So the architectural examples you cited have essentially been toppled by
> >>post- modern architecture, which has a much stronger reference to
> classical
> >>architecture than the previous 'modern architecture.' As a matter of
> fact,
> >>look at the famous compitition for the Chicago Public Library a few years
> >>back -- the winner was a firm that designed a direct interpretation of a
> >>classical theme, and the critics went ballistic (not all the critics, of
> >>course) since they argued that there was no relationship between
> >contemporary
> >>Chicago culture and classical Greece or Rome. But the Library is defined
> >as
> >>'post-modern' architecture.
=== Then again, critics need to haggle over tags or they'd be out of a
job. I wonder what tag Gaudi's cathedral, La Pedrera, or his landscape
work at Park Guell in Barcelona would fall under. modernism I suppose? I
suspect that in a place where there exists a few centuries of
conspicuous art history, postmodernism takes its place as just the latest
trend. The less history a place has, the more important postmodernism is.
Again, just a thought.
=== My sentiments exactly.
That's what I was asking myself. So I just stopped doing it,
> as
> >a
> >>project. What I gained was the ability to do it, which I draw on from
> time
> >>to time, although it is no longer the 'point' but rather just another tool
> >>among many. From that perspective, I see the criteria that you describe
> as
> >>the standard of high art exactly as Art about Art. You don't find any
> sort
> >>of technical prefection in nature to match what one may want to impose on
> a
> >>painting, nor do you find this perfection in the imagination, or in
> >>philosophy.
=== Interesting points.
> >>"Fine Art' is self-defining. What you were addressing is only 'art' as it
> >>exists in Western European Culture, and others elsewhere have a much
> >>different history and ideas about the matter. Anyone has the right to
> >>proclaim their chicken scratches 'fine art' if it was their intent to
> >create
> >>'fine art' in the first place.
=== No doubt. Your comments reminded me of an Australian aboriginal
exhibit I saw recently in Montreal. The works were acrylic on canvas,
most obviously designed for exhibition, and were, for all intents and
purposes, fine art. But the content of the paintings were historical,
mythological, and narrative and this, to an extent, dictated the forms of
the work. Fine art? Aboriginal history? No skill, no art? political
documents? all of these? none of these? Objectively speaking, there
really is no answer, only a series of more, or less interesting and
thought-provoking interpretations.
After that, the artist must convince others
> >>that it is 'fine art' and there's no easy way to do that, regardless of
> how
> >>cleverly the piece is put together. (Someone may come out of the woodwork
> >and
> >>shout "That's retogressive!" -- others may shout 'revisionist' -- others
> >may
> >>shout 'No Skill' and so on).
> >>Erik Mattila
a la prochaine,
A.
Kay Kane
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7bn933$ef6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <p6sD2.7740$YV6....@news2.giganews.com>,
> "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>> (Fox to Scully: "The truth is out there...")
>> Kay
>> P.S. I'll make a note not to post when I take pain pills. I burned my
hand
>> & somehow think it is a good idea to communicate when I'm seeing
double...
>> Sorry, I thought I was resubmitting posts to alt.feminism, which leads me
to
>> wonder (worry) WHAT I sent them!
>
>there, but whatever Dik wrote was not there. At least that's how I'm
seeing
>it. I personaly think the 'political monster thread' has over-taxed the
>internet, causing mayhem and chaos. Anyway, I don't think it was pilot
error
>on your part (unless you and Dik are conspiring against me), it's an
>establishment thing.
>
>Your burn sounds serious -- I hope everything is OK. My condolences. Did
you
>burn it making art? (good idea for the name of your upcoming exhibit =
Kay's
>Hot Paintings!--we must always turn misfortune to advantage.)
>
>(Scully to Fox: "Reality is a crutch")
>
>Erik
Thanks for the concern and no, it was not art-related (that would have at
least been interesting). I guess turning the thermostat down from 85
degrees when lighting the furnace pilot is a REAL good idea! Ball of fire &
explosion, just like in the movies, singed my eyebrows, eyelashes & part of
my hair but didn't burn any skin at all. Left hand was 1st & 2nd degree
burns (I right-handed). Painful & puts all projects on hold for a while but
really, really lucky. Should have been much worse. I guess, in the future,
I will quit looking for gas leaks with a lit match!
Kay
(Are you sure Skully said "Reality is a crutch" to Fox? It sounds like it
should be the other way around)
P.S. How did you find out about Dik and I conspiring against you? Did you
find out about Marilyn, too? I really didn't want to. It was all Dik's
idea - he was the mastermind. Did you open that package yet?
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> (Fox to Scully: "The truth is out there...")
> Kay
> P.S. I'll make a note not to post when I take pain pills. I burned my hand
> & somehow think it is a good idea to communicate when I'm seeing double...
> Sorry, I thought I was resubmitting posts to alt.feminism, which leads me to
> wonder (worry) WHAT I sent them!
The same thing happend to some of Dik's posts -- the reference quote was
there, but whatever Dik wrote was not there. At least that's how I'm seeing
it. I personaly think the 'political monster thread' has over-taxed the
internet, causing mayhem and chaos. Anyway, I don't think it was pilot error
on your part (unless you and Dik are conspiring against me), it's an
establishment thing.
Your burn sounds serious -- I hope everything is OK. My condolences. Did you
burn it making art? (good idea for the name of your upcoming exhibit = Kay's
Hot Paintings!--we must always turn misfortune to advantage.)
(Scully to Fox: "Reality is a crutch")
Erik
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the concern and no, it was not art-related (that would have at
> least been interesting). I guess turning the thermostat down from 85
> degrees when lighting the furnace pilot is a REAL good idea! Ball of fire &
> explosion, just like in the movies, singed my eyebrows, eyelashes & part of
> my hair but didn't burn any skin at all. Left hand was 1st & 2nd degree
> burns (I right-handed). Painful & puts all projects on hold for a while but
> really, really lucky. Should have been much worse. I guess, in the future,
> I will quit looking for gas leaks with a lit match!
OUCH! Get the control replaced. I once had the brilliant idea of pouring
gasoline down a Cadillac's carbuator from a beer bottle, and the carb
backfired, the beer bottle became a flame thrower in my face. Went to the
hospital, got wrapped up like Lawrence of Arabia, got my Darvons, went to a
party and partied on!
> Kay
> (Are you sure Skully said "Reality is a crutch" to Fox? It sounds like it
> should be the other way around)
Shucks, I just made that up. Sorry, didn't mean to cross the X Files protocol
demarkation lines.
> P.S. How did you find out about Dik and I conspiring against you? Did you
> find out about Marilyn, too? I really didn't want to. It was all Dik's
> idea - he was the mastermind. Did you open that package yet?
>
You mean the one the dog just ate- she's acting strange???
Marilyn
>
> Thanks for the concern and no, it was not art-related (that would have at
> find out about Marilyn, too? I really didn't want to. It was all Dik's
> idea - he was the mastermind. Did you open that package yet?
Just a reminder that X-Files was filmed up here in Vancouver, Canada,
but Mulder got tired of the rain.
Was that this Marilyn you mentioned?
I tune in, erase all the political crap, erase every Karen Horn post
before reading any of the same, and by that time I'm too bored to go on.
Signing off,
and just because I'm paranoid, you don't have to plot against me.
M.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mdeli
<jerald_b...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>I refer you to Cezanne with a quote from Nicolas Pioch
>(http://www.fhi-berlin.mpg.de/wm/)...."Cézanne is an artist's artist. He was
>obsessed with form rather than content, so subject matter was always
>secondary to the act of painting itself.
Cezanne couldn't draw form and his subject matter is completly boring
conventional.
> He wanted the methods and skills of
>the painter to be more important than the image.
He had no skills as a painter.
>That meant the subject of
>the painting couldn't be so dynamic as to overshadow the artist's act of
>creation."
>Jerald
If you know what that sentence means explain it.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
<jerald_b...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>The clearest version of postmodernity and painting that I have seem in a
>while..at least it echos my own thoughts. I understand po/mo and painting
>thusly:..under the tyranny of Greenburg we could only paint in a certain
>manner..his rules made u or broke u..This reflects a cycle that has been
>repeating all through history,,conventions followed by a period of
>freedom..we just happen to call that period of freedom postmodernism..
Greenbergian Modernism: a bunch of flat incompetent crap in need of a
constant surge of critical gas to inflate its importance.
Postmodernism. The same crap inflated by a different gas.
>In one sentence, to me, it is this: I am an artist I can do anything I want.
You can't do anything you want. You can only do what you have enough
skill to do.
Marilyn
How long does it take for burning chrome to burn anyway?
Let me know when you see a pile of ashes.
Marilyn
jerald blackstock
comments pedantic and drol...if that is a word. I suggest that you keep
those garish eyesores (both your comments and your 'work') off the net and
leave room for those who have a serious interest in the subject. And yes sir
I would like fries with my order....
Jerald
jerald blackstock
self-importance.
Jerald