What's a good museum in NYC?
peter nelson
a museum. Because if all the parking and similar hassles
in the big city, this country boy wants to pick just one museum
to spend a long time at. We usually go to the MOMA on
our occasional trips to The Big Apple, or sometimes the
Metropolitan, so this time we want to go someplace else.
What we're looking for is a top museum with an eclectic
collection covering works for the last several centuries
up to the latest modern works. Although I like all kinds
of art, I especially want to see paintings on this trip.
It should be large enough to spend a long time there (I
could study one painting for hours but my wife will want to
stroll around).
Thanks for any suggestions.
---peter
John Haber
permanent collection ordinarily on display, and the temp shows aren't
a ball of fire. The Whitney maybe, then, although it's only American
art? But check their Web site, too, to see if they're still going to
be hanging the big extravaganza coming up.
Or try something more modest. The Met's ok for the previous century,
and it does have a modern wing, although its modern collection is
considered limited or eccentric. The Dia Center for the Arts, 548
West 22nd Street, New York, has some cool contemporary shows. I
really like their Robert Irwin installation now. Even P.S. 1 (see I
think it was Erik's post) is always busy with things.
John
JCMandel
>collection covering works for the last several centuries
>up to the latest modern works. Although I like all kinds
>of art, I especially want to see paintings on this trip.
>
>It should be large enough to spend a long time there (I
>could study one painting for hours but my wife will want to
>stroll around).
>
>Thanks for any suggestions.
Peter, this is quite a specific list of requisites... I'm afraid the Met is
really the only museum that fits the bill as you have laid it out here. The
permanent collection offers infinite pleasures that span the millennium, and
there's a current show of Picasso's ceramics that I hear is quite good. Picasso
is also on view at the Guggenheim-- his paintings from the war years-- minus
Guernica.
mark webber
> We'll be in New York City on Thursday and want to go to
> a museum.
(snip remainder of request)
Peter,
I don't know if anyone recommended the Frick to you; it is not a large
museum but it fits the bill in all other respects. The collection is
excellent, with important work from many periods. (There aren't many
other places in the Western hemisphere to see Piero della Francesca.)
There are really fine Veroneses, Rembrandt, Corot, Ingres, Frago, Titian,
Turner, Goya, some impressionism... much more... and it isn't spread out
over a huge number of rooms which are overhung with a lot second rate and
third rate filler.
Except the gallery of English paintings.
If spending a great deal of time there is what you want, you could spend
all day with the Bellini.
The Frick is on 70th street and Fifth ave. If you haven't been there
before, I would recommend it.
Let us know what you think,
Mark
John Haber
back from the Getty....
John
Vi...@ordinaire.com
Start with the museum of modern art on 54th st. Then head uptown to the
70s and 80s. You can take in the Frick, Whitney, Guggenheim, and, over at
the park, the Metropolitan. of course this will take a few days, at least!
prepare to be dazzled.
peter nelson
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, peter nelson wrote:
>
>> We'll be in New York City on Thursday and want to go to
>> a museum.
>
>(snip remainder of request)
>
>Peter,
>
>I don't know if anyone recommended the Frick to you; it is not a large
>museum but it fits the bill in all other respects. The collection is
>excellent, with important work from many periods. (There aren't many
>other places in the Western hemisphere to see Piero della Francesca.)
I went to their website and it looked like it was the private
collection of someone who died in 1935, and it hasn't
been updated since. Since my tastes in art run over
a very wide range, I would be reluctant to not see some
more contemporary works than what this implies.
Eclectic really is the key to my tastes. I not only like
a variety of styles, but I like them close together so the
echoes of one are still ringing in my eyes when I see
another one. It's the same way I listen to music - when
I listen to music I juxtapose Bach and Keith Jarret, or
Debussy and Tori Amos. I have over 500 CD's in my
music collection and they're in alphabetical order by
artist with no attempt to invent categories like jazz,
classical, rock, etc.
So it's beginning to look like the Met is it.
Oh, well.
---peter
John Haber
does not extend seriously into this century and does not have any
recent or contemporary works. So definitely you're right: it may not
suit your needs.
Hope you liked the VR Web site. I try to control my walk through the
galleries and always end up pointing to the floor or walking into
walls. Enormous fun, actually. The only Old Master video game.
It's only recently it's included so much as temporary exhibitions, and
the museum press office is the best in the city, but it's still
wonderfully old-fashioned. No children allowed. That and the quality
makes it one of those special places, despite a room of Boucher.
Too many highlights to mention. My favorite late Rembrandt
self-portrait (and the much-disputed Polish Rider). A candidate for
best Renaissance painting in America, Bellini's Saint Francis in the
Wilderness. Millard Meiss once wrote that it's a miracle indicated
almost solely by the scene's natural sunlight.
John
mark webber
> The Frick has changed greatly since its founder left it, but the art
> does not extend seriously into this century and does not have any
> recent or contemporary works. So definitely you're right: it may not
> suit your needs.
I understand why you mention this to him, John, but I still think if he
hasn't been there he ought to go have a look. What if we all only went to
museums when they are known to exhibit what we already want to see?
>
> It's only recently it's included so much as temporary exhibitions, and
> the museum press office is the best in the city, but it's still
> wonderfully old-fashioned. No children allowed. That and the quality
> makes it one of those special places, despite a room of Boucher.
Wondering what exactly you mean by the Boucher remark.
>
> Too many highlights to mention. My favorite late Rembrandt
> self-portrait (and the much-disputed Polish Rider). A candidate for
> best Renaissance painting in America, Bellini's Saint Francis in the
> Wilderness. Millard Meiss once wrote that it's a miracle indicated
> almost solely by the scene's natural sunlight.
>
> John
>
>
I agree, again, and I'll add that the Veroneses are marvelous, two of a
set of five, a third of which ("Venus and Mars United by Love") is up the
street in the Met.
There is also the wonderful Ingres, which Gabriel and I have repeatedly
used as an example of the argument that Ingres didn't give a damn about
"reality."
And Titians. And the very fine early Corot. And the Fragonard room. But
what about the Bouchers? Do they bug you? I find a couple of them pretty
fine.
By the way, I meant to mention that I visited your article on Soho and
enjoyed it. Too bad everyone is drawn, like moths, to Shafrazzi, and
often pass on the Prince Street, Bowery and Blue Mountain Galleries
right upstairs. Uneven, but certainly more authentic than downstairs. Less
hip, but less cynical. Sometimes painters actually go out on a limb in the
upstairs galleries.
Looking forward to more of your writing,
Mark
John Haber
more than a party game anyhow, but three cheers (appropriately quiet
ones) for anyone who love the Frick as much as I do. It's still the
treat I hold for myself when I need it.
>I understand why you mention this to him, John, but I still think if he hasn't
>been there he ought to go have a look. What if we all only went to
>museums when they are known to exhibit what we already want to see?
Oh, you're dead on. No quarrel. I was just trying to be a nice guy
and respond to what he was saying. He didn't like our suggestion, so
I wished to say I understood -- but that there were wonderful things
there anyhow he should know he was missing.
I'd honestly suggest Peter don't try to find an art superstore and go
to the mall instead. <grin> Say, start with the Frick for the past;
and if he can bear to leave it, the Whitney's real close for bits and
pieces of the present.
>Wondering what exactly you mean by the Boucher remark.
Simple: can't stand him. I think his last name is appropriate,
butcher of art. Good candidate for worst famous painter who ever
lived. Watteau was a genius, and I can almost admit Fragonard could
draw, but other than that I hate the Roccoco, and Boucher for me is
the worst. Sexism, dull technique, derivative ideas, and sentimental
goo all in one. Of course, just my humble opinion. No one's
interesting when he/she dislikes something about art, only when he/she
sees something that draws others to art. But he is embarrassing all
the same. <grin>
>I agree, again, and I'll add that the Veroneses are marvelous, two of a
>set of five, a third of which ("Venus and Mars United by Love") is up the
>street in the Met. There is also the wonderful Ingres, which Gabriel and
>I have repeatedly used as an example of the argument that Ingres didn't
>give a damn about "reality." And Titians. And the very fine early Corot...
>And the Fragonard room.
I just wanted to mention _something_ among the riches. My favorite
this sec might be the little van Eyck/Petrus Christus. But how to
stop? And I too have often gone right to the Ingres for an example of
the same thing: arm growing out of her chest! But also, I can't help
noticing in your list you just love soft-focus art. Like the old
commercial with lovers in slow motion moving toward each other....
<grin>
>By the way, I meant to mention that I visited your article on Soho and
>enjoyed it. Too bad everyone is drawn, like moths, to Shafrazzi, and
>often pass on the Prince Street, Bowery and Blue Mountain Galleries
>right upstairs. Uneven, but certainly more authentic than downstairs. Less
>hip, but less cynical. Sometimes painters actually go out on a limb in the
>upstairs galleries.
First, thanks so much!! I'm so glad you liked it, and I know what you
mean. Shafrazi, as I wrote, is not a good person, and I have friends
who've shown at the kind of shared mega-gallery space upstairs. Have
you met Dik Liu? He can take apart anyone's drawing! But no, I'd
disagree with you in the end.
I really liked Baechler's show, as I wrote, for all my compunction
about entering Shafrazi. And I have never been convinced that the
kind of realism shown upstairs is that interesting. Sorry, but for me
modern and postmodern art are by no means a digression from real
painting.
The notion of "authenticity" is worth discussing, however, rather than
just using as a standard. One should _both_ not accept the "modern
art is a fraud" stuff _and_ understand its undermining of some
inherited ideas about art -- including art as the authentic picture of
the world or authentic expression of the artist's life.
Thanks again. Sometime soon we should have a newgroup gathering at
the Frick, and you take care.
John (on "modern art is a fraud": www.haberarts.com/fake.htm;
on authenticity versus the multiplicity of the copy in modern art,
../krauss.htm; on the changing meaning of works in series,
../mondrian.htm (my favorite of mine!); on the authentic expression
of the artist's genius, .../viola2.htm; but conversely I get
psychoanalytic a bit with Pollock, .../pollock.htm; last back to the
Frick: on the Bellini, .../bellini.htm)
mark webber
> >Wondering what exactly you mean by the Boucher remark.
>
> Simple: can't stand him.
Fair enough.
> I think his last name is appropriate,
> butcher of art. Good candidate for worst famous painter who ever
> lived.
> Watteau was a genius, and I can almost admit Fragonard could
> draw, but other than that I hate the Roccoco, and Boucher for me is
> the worst.
Well, I certainly know a number of folks I respect quite a bit who feel
similarly, but while the Bouchers in the Frick may not be the best,
there are some fine ones - the Louvre has a killer.
And I would say that there are plenty of other Rococo painters who are
much worse - absolute whores - and next to them Boucher can't be called
the worst of Rococo. I'm thinking of Pater and Greuzes, in particular,
neither of whom moved beyond formulas based in Watteau and Fragonard,
respectively.
Real rot from them, and Boucher can offer real inventiveness at times.
> Sexism, dull technique, derivative ideas, and sentimental
> goo all in one. Of course, just my humble opinion.
I respect your qualifying, but I'd point out that calling Boucher sexist
is rather unfair seeing as he was well within acceptable attitudes during
his day. Soft core porn? No doubt. Derivative? Absolutly. But his
technique was often pretty dazzling, I think. And what *wasn't*
sentimental in 18th century, pre-revolution, French art?
I think there is a built-in hazard to condemning art of other cultures
for not adhering to our own fleeting sense of morality.
Besides, Boucher really isn't more pornographic than Fragonard and some
Watteaus are pretty risque as well.
> No one's
> interesting when he/she dislikes something about art, only when he/she
> sees something that draws others to art. But he is embarrassing all
> the same. <grin>
Interesting point.
>
> I just wanted to mention _something_ among the riches. My favorite
> this sec might be the little van Eyck/Petrus Christus. But how to
> stop? And I too have often gone right to the Ingres for an example of
> the same thing: arm growing out of her chest! But also, I can't help
> noticing in your list you just love soft-focus art. Like the old
> commercial with lovers in slow motion moving toward each other....
> <grin>
I actually don't prefer (to use Wolflin's terminology) painterly to
linear. I prefer the earlier, more hard-edged Corot to the later
proto-impressionist one, and the latter is about as soft-focused and
sentimental as he gets.
No, I don't think that's the best way to characterize my taste.
> First, thanks so much!! I'm so glad you liked it, and I know what you
> mean. Shafrazi, as I wrote, is not a good person, and I have friends
> who've shown at the kind of shared mega-gallery space upstairs. Have
> you met Dik Liu?
Now, does Dik show at Bowery? I don't think I've met him. Does e write
here as well?
> He can take apart anyone's drawing! But no, I'd
> disagree with you in the end.
>
> I really liked Baechler's show, as I wrote, for all my compunction
> about entering Shafrazi. And I have never been convinced that the
> kind of realism shown upstairs is that interesting.
I find "realism" to be very much a minority approach at Prince
Street/Bowery/Blue Mountain. For someone trying to write responsible,
thoughtful criticism, one can't dismiss these galleries as simply
"realist", nor is it accurate to see it as all of equal interest.
(In case I haven't made this clear, I should probably state that I show at
Prince Street Gallery.)
At any rate, I find a rather large range of interest, styles and quality
at the upstairs galleries and find Shafrazzi to be primarily catering to
fashion-oriented dilettantes. Opinion, of course.
> Sorry, but for me
> modern and postmodern art are by no means a digression from real
> painting.
Again, we've only "met" at the Frick - I have no difficulty finding
genius in the 20th century. What postmodern means, besides as a marketing
label, is beyond me.
>
> The notion of "authenticity" is worth discussing, however, rather than
> just using as a standard.
Good point.
> One should _both_ not accept the "modern
> art is a fraud" stuff _and_ understand its undermining of some
> inherited ideas about art -- including art as the authentic picture of
> the world or authentic expression of the artist's life.
I agree.
>
> Thanks again. Sometime soon we should have a newgroup gathering at
> the Frick, and you take care.
>
I would like that. Again, keep up the stimulating writing.
Mark
June Bloye
and wonder if there is anything specific I should know before I do a large
work. ANy suggestions would be appreciated.
mark webber wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, John Haber wrote:
>
> > The Frick has changed greatly since its founder left it, but the art
> > does not extend seriously into this century and does not have any
> > recent or contemporary works. So definitely you're right: it may not
> > suit your needs.
>
> I understand why you mention this to him, John, but I still think if he
> hasn't been there he ought to go have a look. What if we all only went to
> museums when they are known to exhibit what we already want to see?
>
> >
> > It's only recently it's included so much as temporary exhibitions, and
> > the museum press office is the best in the city, but it's still
> > wonderfully old-fashioned. No children allowed. That and the quality
> > makes it one of those special places, despite a room of Boucher.
>
> Wondering what exactly you mean by the Boucher remark.
>
> >
> > Too many highlights to mention. My favorite late Rembrandt
> > self-portrait (and the much-disputed Polish Rider). A candidate for
> > best Renaissance painting in America, Bellini's Saint Francis in the
> > Wilderness. Millard Meiss once wrote that it's a miracle indicated
> > almost solely by the scene's natural sunlight.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
> I agree, again, and I'll add that the Veroneses are marvelous, two of a
> set of five, a third of which ("Venus and Mars United by Love") is up the
> street in the Met.
>
> There is also the wonderful Ingres, which Gabriel and I have repeatedly
> used as an example of the argument that Ingres didn't give a damn about
> "reality."
>
> And Titians. And the very fine early Corot. And the Fragonard room. But
> what about the Bouchers? Do they bug you? I find a couple of them pretty
> fine.
>
> By the way, I meant to mention that I visited your article on Soho and
> enjoyed it. Too bad everyone is drawn, like moths, to Shafrazzi, and
> often pass on the Prince Street, Bowery and Blue Mountain Galleries
> right upstairs. Uneven, but certainly more authentic than downstairs. Less
> hip, but less cynical. Sometimes painters actually go out on a limb in the
> upstairs galleries.
>
April Showers
says...
>
>Can anyone give me any techniques for using a pallette knife. I use acrylics
>and wonder if there is anything specific I should know before I do a large
>work. ANy suggestions would be appreciated.
That's like asking someone how to use a paintbrush.
First of all, there are 'palette' knives and there
are 'painting' knives. Palette knives are sometimes
referred to as mixing knives. They are distinguished
from painting knives by their flat profile and
stiffer blades. Painting knives are thin and flexible
and the blade is offset from the handle to make painting
possible. Painting knives can double as mixing knives
but the reverse is not very practical.
Also, painting knives come in all sorts of shapes
and sizes from which you and you alone can make the selection
that will suit your needs best.
Dik F Liu
laid it out here. The permanent collection offers infinite pleasures that span
the millennium, and there's a current show of Picasso's ceramics that I hear is
quite good. Picasso is also on view at the Guggenheim-- his paintings from the
war years-- minus Guernica. <
The Met's Picasso ceramics show is fine if you like that sort of things. I
think the world has enough fruit bowls and candy jars thank you very much.
The Guggenheim show is a real dog. And I like Picasso. But, looking at this
show you would think that Picasso was a hack. It anoyed me to schlep from my
Brookly studio to go way uptown to the Guggenheim only to be treated with
fourth-rate Picassos. Whoever curated this show didn't have very good eyes.
That, or he didn't care because the average museumgoers don't know the
difference between good and bad Picassos.
Or may be this show is just someone's tax write-off.
Dik
Larry Seiler
acrylics
> and wonder if there is anything specific I should know before I do a
large
> work. ANy suggestions would be appreciated.
I took a putty knife, and on a grinding stone shaped it to what would
appear a large diamond shaped palette knife. I add Liquitex's "gelex"
about 1/3rd to 1/2 amount to acrylic paint, and block in the masses. I
might use a smaller palette knife thereafter.....squinting eyes and
focusing on the patterns of negative space, their shapes. For example, to
paint trees, I block in the basic foilage shape, values and color with
putty/palette knife, then squinting my eyes I use brushes such as brights
and rounds, or a smaller palette knife to suggest sky poking through.
As a result, I don't bother with tree species or type...but simply respond
as an artist to its shape. Closely/correctly imitating the shapes of the
sky poking through results in the "illusion" of it appearing as a tree. I
do the same for water, etc; Here is an example off a 24" x 48" waterscape
scene I did of northeastern Wisconsin....and literally 70% of the painting
was done with the palette knife. The gelex holds the texture of the
stroke and gives oil paint like drag. In fact, galleries have made the
mistake a number of times of labelling a painting of mine as an "oil."
After acrylic dries, so much water content evaporates that the paint
flattens out, and it loses its ability to hold the texture of the brush or
knife. Gelex works to maintain that. Now.....here's my painting for you
to see what I'm speaking of....
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler/images/38-500w.jpg
Larry Seiler
artist's web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw
Larry Seiler
hope it doesn't offend you then that I made the attempt to describe a
method...
Larry
Larry Seiler
by plein air painters...there is no real distinction made between a
painting knife, or palette knife. What's worse is, if you asked the
distinction at most of your art supply stores, you'd probably just get some
blank stares.
One reason that the "knife" is often used is that a brush....particularly
stiff bristle, leaves a texture in the paint that literally creates ridges
that not only receive light, but cast shadows. It makes the color appear
not nearly as brilliant. However.....especially landscape painters
attempting to imitate the brilliance of the effect of sun.....a smooth
thick swatch of color minus texture from bristles shows as color only minus
the shadows of texture. It appears as a more intense hue. Much greater
luminosity.
Hawthorne...was a favorite instructor and painter for many including
William Chase.....and other plein air painters. He felt that many
beginners should do nothing but learn to paint with a palette knife
initially, squinting the eyes and responding to blocks of color. In fact,
it can become quite contagious and addictive, and can save on brush
wear/expenses.
Just these few reasonings might well be answer enough to why it ought to be
explored and used. Some get quite deft with the tool. Applying large
smooth swipes of rich color. Using the edge to suggest small lines.
Scraping to create texture and suggestion of detail. Guess the main thing
is, just have fun....!
--
Larry Seiler
artist's web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw
April Showers
>
>> That's like asking someone how to use a paintbrush.
>
>hope it doesn't offend you then that I made the attempt to describe a
>method...
Of course not. My comment was not intended to exclude
someone from trying to explain a personal preference for
working. It WAS intended to point out that using painting
knives is as personal as using a paintbrush. Everyone has
to develop their own particular methods in these simplistic
matters in order to suit them to the end result they seek.
I challenge you to write a useable treatise on using every
kind of paintbrush out there or every kind of painting
knife to be found out there and make it so universal that
everyone will eagerly adapt to your methods.
peter nelson
>
>> The Frick has changed greatly since its founder left it, but the art
>> does not extend seriously into this century and does not have any
>> recent or contemporary works. So definitely you're right: it may not
>> suit your needs.
>
>I understand why you mention this to him, John, but I still think if he
>hasn't been there he ought to go have a look. What if we all only went to
>museums when they are known to exhibit what we already want to see?
But that was why I specified I wanted a museum
with an eclectic collection, so I WOULDN"T just see
the expected.
Anyway, as I noted, I was only going to be there for a
limited time so I had to choose just ONE place to go.
As it was, I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and
spent most of the day there - we had to leave in time to
avoid rush hour leaving the City.
We had a grand time. My main goal on this trip was to study
technique in oil paintings, although we also spent some time
in the Picasso ceramics exhibit, and the Degas pastels exhibit,
which was very dimly-lit to prevent fading. We spent a while
just standing there in the gloomy manmade dusk just waiting
to become fully dark-adapted.
The modern art wing was the usual mixed bag. I found the
Thomas Hart Benton "July Hay" both moving and full of motion,
likewise Fieninger's "Gelmeroda" in an angular way. I
was startled to feel how much Georgia O'Keef's "Black Iris"
drew me into the canvas - there's no sense of that in any print
of it I've seen. I found Paul Cadmus' use of a cross-hatch
shading technique added a fascinating technique to his
"Guilding the Acrobats". And as the chairman of my town's
Recycling Committee, I also found two new candidates for
why we need to start a canvas recycling program: Ellsworth
Kelly's "Blue Panel" (a plain blue canvas - my studio is filled
with such "art" - I used colored gesso's to paint on), and
Barnett Newman's "Shimmer Bright" - a plain white canvas
with two vertical blue stripes.
While I was in the Modern wing I was gratified to hear two
different lecturers receive questions about why this or that
piece was considered "art" - one was in reference to a
giant Pollock they have there and I think the other one was
about piece of sculpture. I've been carrying on a debate
elswhere on this board in whiuch I claim that modern art
has made this a common question,
The 19th century European art section was dominated by
Impressionism and post Impressionism. I have nothing
against Impressionism and even like some of it, but enough
is enough. The current craze for it reminds me of a few
years ago in classical music there was a big Dvorak fad.
You couldn't turn on a classical music station without
hearing the Slavonic Dances. I used to like Dvorak
a lot more before that fad, but I'm tired of him now.
Since one of my goals was to study painting technique
and my technique involves a lot of detail and realism
there was little to be gained from Impressionism's sketchy
methods. I was hoping to see more Pre-Raphaelite and
Victorian painting because their technique is closer to
what I want to achieve.
BTW, between parking, admission, and a modest lunch at
their cafeteria this visit cost us around $75 - if Giuliani REALLY
wants to make visitors happier to come to his city he ought to
make it cheaper!
---peter
mark webber
Hi Peter,
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, peter nelson wrote:
> But that was why I specified I wanted a museum
> with an eclectic collection, so I WOULDN"T just see
> the expected.
I understand, but unless you see everything before the 20th century as the
same sort of thing - so much so that everything from Byzantine Icons to
late 19th century would not be considered eclectic ... well it isn't that
important to me, I was just trying to help.
I do see a very eclectic mix from a variety of periods and I can easily
spend hours there. Don't get me wrong - I love the Met too. But the Frick
has a concentrated exquisitiness to it.
> The modern art wing was the usual mixed bag. I found the
> Thomas Hart Benton "July Hay" both moving and full of motion,
> likewise Fieninger's "Gelmeroda" in an angular way. I
> was startled to feel how much Georgia O'Keef's "Black Iris"
> drew me into the canvas - there's no sense of that in any print
> of it I've seen. I found Paul Cadmus' use of a cross-hatch
> shading technique added a fascinating technique to his
> "Guilding the Acrobats". And as the chairman of my town's
> Recycling Committee, I also found two new candidates for
> why we need to start a canvas recycling program: Ellsworth
> Kelly's "Blue Panel" (a plain blue canvas - my studio is filled
> with such "art" - I used colored gesso's to paint on), and
> Barnett Newman's "Shimmer Bright" - a plain white canvas
> with two vertical blue stripes.
>
I don't disagree, and I'm glad to see specific reasons as in the Benton
remarks - I find him more interesting than Kelly and Newman as well.
Kelly and (to my mind) to a lesser degree, Newman were both more drawn to
a painting that seems more tied to fashion, trend. These particular
fashions have died and as a result, encountering their work is a lot less
exciting for me than it was twenty years ago, and probably pretty damn dry
to those whove been encountering it for 30 or 40 years.
Somehow, Benton, while in no way a genius, still surprises me from time to
time - perhaps even more than when I first began noticing him.
So, yes, if not actually recycling canvas we could do well to recycle wall
space.
> While I was in the Modern wing I was gratified to hear two
> different lecturers receive questions about why this or that
> piece was considered "art" - one was in reference to a
> giant Pollock they have there and I think the other one was
> about piece of sculpture. I've been carrying on a debate
> elswhere on this board in whiuch I claim that modern art
> has made this a common question,
Well you aren't alone in that claim - however, let's not forget that late
20th century folks have visual arts and stimuli which they spend much more
time with and aren't as predisposed to appreciation as they may have been
in the past.
Please include, in your discussion of the mystification of modern art,
this hypothetical situation in which there are no radios in cars:
Imagine if everytime you got in your car you turned on the art history
imaging machine instead of the pop music history regurgitation machine.
Aside from the higher incidence of head-on collisions, everybody would be
as well versed in art history as they currently are in pop music history.
Imagine: ignition, image of Watteau's "Mezzatin" appears, and you say, "Oh
yeah, I love this one! This is a great picture! Watteau, Rococo! Yeah!
Then after three and a half minutes up splashes a Greek Kouros - all this
while you're pulling into the tasty-freeze - and you say "Damn, that was a
great period! That easing from the stylization to the Classical Heroicism
was never better exemplified than in this particular sculpture!"
Now, as you glide through the automatic teller, here's Titian's "Flaying
of Marsyas". You are overcome, once again, by the beauty and irony of the
violins and violence, the lap dog lapping blood. You, and everyone else
tuned into this particular Oldies Station, are all overcome - but more
important, it is, like most of the rest of the history of art, very
familiar to you.
These Sunday driver/painters wouldn't ask if a Pollock was art. The
question of whether or not it is *great* art would still be there, but not
whether or not it *is* art.
> BTW, between parking, admission, and a modest lunch at
> their cafeteria this visit cost us around $75 - if Giuliani REALLY
> wants to make visitors happier to come to his city he ought to
> make it cheaper!
Rudy and I decided that we don't want the best stuff to appear too
inexpensive to the common folk, or else the place would be swamped all the
time. But I'll let you in on a little trick. We don't pay $10 to get in to
the Met. That is only the suggested price. I pay a quarter and Rudy pays a
dime. Of course, we go all the time....
Peter, good talking with you. But stay away from that Pre Raphaelite crap.
It's the most insipid shit you can possibly get stuck under your
fingernails!
warmly,
Mark
peter nelson
> Now.....here's my painting for you to see what I'm speaking of....
>
>http://cwinc.net/larryseiler/images/38-500w.jpg
This is beautiful. Actually all of your work is very pleasing,
which coming from me is saying a lot because I don't
generally care much for landscapes and similar subjects.
Id be interested in seeing them on a larger scale - are
you likely to have any of them exhibited in the Boston
area in the foreseeable future?
---peter
peter nelson
mark webber wrote in message ...
>Peter, good talking with you. But stay away from that Pre
>Raphaelite crap. It's the most insipid shit you can possibly get
>stuck under your fingernails!
What makes it insipid is the subject matter - middle class
English people dressed up in Medieval or Greek Classical
garb. But the technique was exquisite - attention to detail
and texture which most of today's painters can't match to
save their lives.
In a sense that's one of the problems I have with Impressionism.
Impressionism was two revolutions, and so in doing so they
skipped over a big opportunity. The original Impressionists
like Manet, Degas, etc, were revolting against the Salon and
the French Academy, which imposed both thematic AND
stylistic limitations on painting. So Impressionism revolted
against both. But I always wondered what would have
happened if they had just revolted against one? (Either one,
actually). I think there are many interesting artistic possibilities
to explore along those lines.
---peter
Dik F Liu
<pne...@ultranet.com> writes:
>The original Impressionists like Manet, Degas, etc, were revolting against the
Salon and the French Academy, which imposed both thematic AND stylistic
limitations on painting. So Impressionism revolted against both. But I
always wondered what would have happened if they had just revolted against one?
(Either one, actually).<
Well, that's what one Puvis de Chavannes did, using Impressionistic palette to
depict academic themes. He is known today as an associate of the
Impressionists. Then there were those who depicted landscapes with academic
palette: third-rate nonentities like Paul Flandrin and Theodore Garuelle
d'Aligny. These painters, who revolted either academic style or themes but not
both, did exist. They just didn't inspire any revolution. I wonder why.
Dik, stifling a yawn
John Haber
Papers" about Ingres' looming over Picasso throughout the teens and
1920s. She says anyone who wanted to paint frontally on a canvas with
a unified subject, to think of art as French, to let line run free,
and to have an interplay between modeling and violations that create
flat areas of color had to come back to Ingres a lot.
Her book gets a little wacko, though. She talks about Picasso's work
as "reaction-formation," but it's never clear just who has a disease.
John
mdeli
snip
> there's a current show of Picasso's ceramics that I hear is
>quite good.
>
>The Met's Picasso ceramics show is fine if you like that sort of things. I
>think the world has enough fruit bowls and candy jars thank you very much.
>
>The Guggenheim show is a real dog. And I like Picasso. But, looking at this
>show you would think that Picasso was a hack.
He was. Look at his earlier work.
> It anoyed me to schlep from my
>Brookly studio to go way uptown to the Guggenheim only to be treated with
>fourth-rate Picassos. Whoever curated this show didn't have very good eyes.
>That, or he didn't care because the average museumgoers don't know the
>difference between good and bad Picassos.
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/
Larry Seiler
> Id be interested in seeing them on a larger scale - are
> you likely to have any of them exhibited in the Boston
> area in the foreseeable future?
>
> ---peter
Not any time real soon....but, I'm open to the possibility of it! ;^)
always looking for a new gallery or exhibition, you know how that goes!
thanks for your kind words.
John Haber
>show you would think that Picasso was a hack.
Dik, I know exactly what you mean. Felt the same way. Maybe the
curator is the hack.
John
mark webber
Hi John,
I'm not sure whether you saw this reply to you so I thought I'd repost it.
(I'm dealing with a pretty archaic server, and sometimes mystuff doesn't
get posted and sometimes I miss others' replies to me. Sorry if this has
happened.)
> On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, John Haber wrote:
>
> > >Wondering what exactly you mean by the Boucher remark.
> >
John Haber
of them, but I can't recall which. He's posted recently here and is
worth saying hello to.
Do you know Michael Fried's series of books on the evolution of French
painting? The first one (and probably the most daring) _Absorption
and Theatricality_, actually makes a fascinating case for Greuze's
interest. As you know, it's sometimes hard to write that off as "just
of historical interest," because once you start finding connections
and interpretations, you start to feel things clicking as art should.
I'll still use the phrase "just of historical interest" for Greuze
(darn it! <grin>) , but it's a cool book. He came out most recently
with one on Manet that's also good.
And no, I don't feel any emotion or technical wizardry for Boucher. I
try to like for its own sake the interweave of red & cream bodies
against that bright blue, but I can't. It refuses to turn into _Nude
Descending a Staircase_ or Pollock or something: it's just those same
uniform colors in a cheap, handy mess, if you ask me.
As for sexism, sure it's in the mode of its time. So what? That
could justify weaknesses in any commercial product in any age.
When you see a nude and wish to shout sexism, you generally should
hold on. You should ask what role the image had in its time. You ask
how that role is of value and insightful. Even more important, you
ask how the painter illuminates or confronts that role. For a male
nude in the Renaissance, for an obvious example, you don't worry about
Jesse Helms: you think of the implications for the dignity of human
form, for painting's new contact with visual, volumetric, and earthly
reality, for the relation of human experience to the myths around it,
for sexuality in the artist's or viewer's emotional respose to art,
etc., etc. All the usual textbook lectures.
For another nude, perhaps Manet's _Olympia_, you ask how it confronts
the viewer's expectations, the ownership of the gaze, and all that
from modernist and feminist critiques. For Watteau, you see clothers
rather than nudes as another way of giving the subject individuality
and dignity; and yet you also see the flimsiness of the clothers and
postures, reflecting the vulnerability of people living as mere actors
in a staged comedy, with the sense of mortality connecting their
longing to a terrifying human comedy as well.
All textbook lectures. I don't mean to improve on them or be
original. But when I see the Boucher nudes, I see nothing. No
thought. Just the equivalent of t-shirts for frat-house boys (who in
that age happened to be nobility demanding interior decor).
John
mdeli
wrote:
Maybe there wasn't anything much better to choose from. Picasso was a
super hack.
Dik F Liu
>Now, does Dik show at Bowery? I don't think I've met him. Does e write here as
well?<
Just once. John wrote a review of that show. I am no longer associated with
them.
> Watteau was a genius, and I can almost admit Fragonard could draw, but other
than that I hate the Roccoco, and Boucher for me isthe worst.<
> Well, I certainly know a number of folks I respect quite a bit who feel
similarly, but while the Bouchers in the Frick may not be the best, there are
some fine ones - the Louvre has a killer.<
I love Boucher.
Three, four years ago, My friend Tom and I were at the Frick looking at
Boucher's The Four Seasons. Tom was focusing at the one with the women hanging
out in the garden in their birthday suits. In the middle of that painting was a
typical Boucher woman with her disproportionally large buttocks facing the
viewer and exposing it to the elements. Tom stared at the painting for a long,
long time. Finally, he sighed and whispered in a slow, tender voice, "Whatever
you'd say about Boucher not measuring up to the great technical painters of his
time, you look at a woman like that, and you just want to go up there and warm
up those buns with a nice big hug."
Dik
mark webber
> Thanks for reposting all that. Lots of good sense. Dik showed at one
> of them, but I can't recall which. He's posted recently here and is
> worth saying hello to.
Your very welcome, thank you, and I will.
>
> Do you know Michael Fried's series of books on the evolution of French
> painting?
No, I'm not familiar with them, but they sound intersting, and I'll have a
look for his work.
> The first one (and probably the most daring) _Absorption
> and Theatricality_, actually makes a fascinating case for Greuze's
> interest. As you know, it's sometimes hard to write that off as "just
> of historical interest," because once you start finding connections
> and interpretations, you start to feel things clicking as art should.
> I'll still use the phrase "just of historical interest" for Greuze
> (darn it! <grin>) , but it's a cool book. He came out most recently
> with one on Manet that's also good.
I certainly don't want to seem as though I think the only paintings worth
looking at are well-made or great paintings, and there are other reasons
besides esthetic ones which attract me at times. But I definitely much
prefer good paintings to bad ones, and Greuze, as historically interesting
as he may be, is pretty bad to my mind.
This is not to disregard what you are saying - it's merely left over from
the Bathwater thread I was enjoying so much a bit back, which began when I
asked N. if he thought Metzinger or Gleizes could paint.
To sum up, I think they were lousy painters, so so I don't care much what
their theories were - after all, we have to edit somewhere and it might as
well have to do with quality.
(If I thought Mani Deli's paintings were any good, I might pay attention
to him, too. But if I'm going to read what Metzinger had to say about
cubism then I might as well go buy Mani's little book that he is so
desperately hawking here in R.A.F.)
But since I'm unfamiliar with Fried's work on Greuze, I can't say more
than that I'm a bit skeptical that he is of interest in any ways that
Fragonard might also be of interest and Frago is certainly a much better
painter.
>
> And no, I don't feel any emotion or technical wizardry for Boucher. I
> try to like for its own sake the interweave of red & cream bodies
> against that bright blue, but I can't. It refuses to turn into _Nude
> Descending a Staircase_ or Pollock or something: it's just those same
> uniform colors in a cheap, handy mess, if you ask me.
I respect your opinion. There are some, though, that I think have pretty
inventive organization. The ones in the Met, though, and most of those at
the Frick don't blow me away.
There is one, of Diana and her nymphs - I think it's at the Louvre; it has
one of the most delightful visual plays of the 18th century. A little gag
the runs your eye down Diana's torso, down her lower leg, curving down and
then up gently, through some carefully placed but casually appearing
contrasts into the anus of a hunting dog.
There is, I think, some good metaphor at work there which is maybe best
left undiscussed.
>
> As for sexism, sure it's in the mode of its time. So what? That
> could justify weaknesses in any commercial product in any age.
My feeling too.
>
> When you see a nude and wish to shout sexism, you generally should
> hold on. You should ask what role the image had in its time. You ask
> how that role is of value and insightful.
Yes, I don't disagree, but it can, of course be of value for purely visual
reasons. That can be the entire insight, if the painting is done well.
> Even more important, you
> ask how the painter illuminates or confronts that role.
Personally, I don't feel a need to pursue this aspect much.
> For a male
> nude in the Renaissance, for an obvious example, you don't worry about
> Jesse Helms: you think of the implications for the dignity of human
> form, for painting's new contact with visual, volumetric, and earthly
> reality, for the relation of human experience to the myths around it,
> for sexuality in the artist's or viewer's emotional respose to art,
> etc., etc. All the usual textbook lectures.
>
> For another nude, perhaps Manet's _Olympia_, you ask how it confronts
> the viewer's expectations, the ownership of the gaze, and all that
> from modernist and feminist critiques. For Watteau, you see clothers
> rather than nudes as another way of giving the subject individuality
> and dignity; and yet you also see the flimsiness of the clothers and
> postures, reflecting the vulnerability of people living as mere actors
> in a staged comedy, with the sense of mortality connecting their
> longing to a terrifying human comedy as well.
I know a lot of people like to look at these aspects of painting, but they
don't interest me much anymore. No offense intended - I just enjoy these
things as paintings and not as historical documents or political planks.
>
> All textbook lectures. I don't mean to improve on them or be
> original. But when I see the Boucher nudes, I see nothing. No
> thought. Just the equivalent of t-shirts for frat-house boys (who in
> that age happened to be nobility demanding interior decor).
>
> John
>
>
I understand and respect your point of view, however I have seen some of
his paintings where the nudes are integrated pretty well; so much so that
the nude ceases to be the issue and the painting takes over.
Good to hear from you,
Mark
mark webber
>
> >Now, does Dik show at Bowery? I don't think I've met him. Does e write
> here as well?
>
> Just once. John wrote a review of that show. I am no longer associated with
> them.
>
Hi Dik! I'm sorry to have not met you here before.
> > Well, I certainly know a number of folks I respect quite a bit who feel
> similarly, but while the Bouchers in the Frick may not be the best, there are
> some fine ones - the Louvre has a killer.<
>
> I love Boucher.
>
> Three, four years ago, My friend Tom and I were at the Frick looking at
> Boucher's The Four Seasons. Tom was focusing at the one with the women hanging
> out in the garden in their birthday suits. In the middle of that painting was a
> typical Boucher woman with her disproportionally large buttocks facing the
> viewer and exposing it to the elements. Tom stared at the painting for a long,
> long time. Finally, he sighed and whispered in a slow, tender voice, "Whatever
> you'd say about Boucher not measuring up to the great technical painters of his
> time, you look at a woman like that, and you just want to go up there and warm
> up those buns with a nice big hug."
>
> Dik
>
Wait a second now. This story reminds me of another I read here in R.A.F.
a few months back about lusting after Europa in Boston. That wasn't you
was it?
So do you attend the openings at Prince Street/Bowery/Blue Mountain any
more? I hope your ties to the galleries weren't severed under unpleasant
circumstances.
Very nice to meet you! Maybe sometime we should have a beer or something,
with John, too!
Mark
Dik F Liu
F Liu writes:
>but Butchers were peerless<
Ooops, that was Boucher. Put the spellcheckers on automatic pilot and it makes
the best slips.
Dik
Dik F Liu
webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes:
>Wait a second now. This story reminds me of another I read here in R.A.F. a
few months back about lusting after Europa in Boston. That wasn't you was it?<
That was likely me. I love Europa's thigh. Titian painted great, delicious
thighs; but Butchers were peerless with it came to large buttocks and overripe
bosoms. Of course, neither one of them matched Prud'hon for teasing a woman's
hairless armpit, or Corot for stroking for her tummy. And no one from planet
match Vermeer for painting the highlight of a girl's slightly moist lips.
I have been painting for as long as I can remember. So, for me paintings stop
being highfalutin and theoretical a long time ago.
>So do you attend the openings at Prince Street/Bowery/Blue Mountain any more?
I hope your ties to the galleries weren't severed under unpleasant
circumstances.<
No, not at all. I am very supportive of these galleries and often attend their
openings. There are some very nice people and good painter there.
>Very nice to meet you! Maybe sometime we should have a beer or something, with
John, too!<
Yes, Mark, that would be fun. We have to get John to come out and play too.
Otherwise, he might spend too much time thinking about art and get all serious.
<g>
Dik
John Haber
>on automatic pilot and it makes the best slips.
Yeah, I keep writing "carboning" in my e-mails for cc's, and the
virtual-reality spell-checker wants to insist on "cartooning."
Sure, we'll have all to get together.
john
John Haber
that. And sorry, didn't mean you had to love any of those
interpretations. Just wanted to say that I could imagine liking art
that derives from sexist leering . . . just not this time! <grin>
We can try to hook up with Dik soon, I hope.
jh
Dik F Liu
Haber) writes:
>Yeah, Gleizes and Metzinger, don't get much lousier than that. And sorry,
didn't mean you had to love any of those interpretations.<
A few years back, there was a movie which was an adaptation of Shakespeare's
Hamlet as seen from the view of two minor characters in the play. I can't
remember the name of the movie. But, I thought that the concept of that movie
akins to the story of Gleizes and Metzinger. They are two minor characters who
matters little to the large scheme of things.
It was either Glieizes and Metzinger - I forget which one - who once asked
Picasso what Cubism means. Picasso responded to him, "Don't talk to the
driver."
Dik
mark webber
>
> A few years back, there was a movie which was an adaptation of Shakespeare's
> Hamlet as seen from the view of two minor characters in the play. I can't
> remember the name of the movie. But, I thought that the concept of that movie
> akins to the story of Gleizes and Metzinger. They are two minor characters who
> matters little to the large scheme of things.
"Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", a play by Tom Stoppard (same guy
who co-wrote "Shakespeare in Love".)
Yes, a good point, Dik - but Stoppard manages to make *their* story
interesting.
Coincidently, there's another Stoppard play - my favorite of his - called
"Travesties" in which James Joyce, Tristan Tzara and Lenin bump into each
other in the Zurich public library while working on notes. (Imagine this
wonderful opening scene which features Joyce reading stream of
consciousness, Tzara reading found poetry out of a hat and Lenin agreeing
with himself, "Da, da!")
Anyway, the climax of the play occurs when Joyce and Tzara have a sort of
art duel. It's been a long time since I've read or seen the play, but the
essence was that Joyce was taking a formalist stance and of course Tzara
was being very anti, and Joyce manages to win.
That particular section of the script could easily be converted into a
series of posts which would fit just fine into R.A.F.
I'm not conveyong the hilarity or beauty at all. Worth reading, though.
> It was either Glieizes and Metzinger - I forget which one - who once asked
> Picasso what Cubism means. Picasso responded to him, "Don't talk to the
> driver."
>
> Dik
>
Love it.
Well, I'll email you and John about grabbing a beer sometime.
Mark
John Haber
play by Tom Stoppard. (Was it his first?) The point is that the
minor, virtually interchangeable characters' point of view is ours,
that of finding meaning in a world in which "great events" just pass
us by leaving us no sense of comprehension.
It's devilishly clever, funny, painful, and sad. It helps to keep in
the back of one's mind that once R & G were Hamlet's closest friend --
and in the course of Shakespeare's play they understand nothing, wish
to help, and yet consciously betray him, sealing their own deaths.
It's still a candidate for "best," and yet somewhat limitied, for it
is his closest to the era before him, of "theater of the absurd" and
existential crises. One can see Stoppard's work as slowly finding
characters who can act for themselves in this world. And I too like
"Travesties" a ton. I reread it three times in college.
jh
mark webber
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9904131...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark
> webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes:
>
> >Wait a second now. This story reminds me of another I read here in R.A.F. a
> few months back about lusting after Europa in Boston. That wasn't you was it?<
>
> That was likely me. I love Europa's thigh. Titian painted great, delicious
> thighs...
And her thigh is what that painting seems to be all about. Yes, I hear
you. But I also love the way those putti are fixed in the sky and the
great red drape. Well, there is an awful lot to love in that painting.
> but Butchers were peerless with it came to large buttocks and overripe
> bosoms. Of course, neither one of them matched Prud'hon for teasing a woman's
> hairless armpit, or Corot for stroking for her tummy. And no one from planet
> match Vermeer for painting the highlight of a girl's slightly moist lips.
>
Ingres sure seems to know how to remove hair... I also think Derain, from
the 30s onward, made some pretty deliciously monumental women.
But let's face it, you can have great paintings with figures that aren't
so attractive either. For me it isn't so much about how attractive
Boucher's nymphs are as how he places them in the picture.
> I have been painting for as long as I can remember. So, for me paintings stop
> being highfalutin and theoretical a long time ago.
Alright! yeah, it ain't so hip to be highfaluttin anymore anyway. Theories
aren't cool. Good pictures are cool.
>
> >So do you attend the openings at Prince Street/Bowery/Blue Mountain any more?
> I hope your ties to the galleries weren't severed under unpleasant
> circumstances.<
>
> No, not at all. I am very supportive of these galleries and often attend their
> openings. There are some very nice people and good painter there.
>
Glad to hear it. Yes, I think there are good shows there, sometimes.
Regards,
Mark
mark webber
> Hi, Mark. Yeah, Gleizes and Metzinger, don't get much lousier than
> that. And sorry, didn't mean you had to love any of those
> interpretations.
No need to apologise (I don't get offended here - think about it, how can
one?)
> Just wanted to say that I could imagine liking art
> that derives from sexist leering . . . just not this time! <grin>
Someone once asked Picasso (here is Picasso story number 4,772, for those
keeping track) what the difference between pornography and art was.
Picasso said he saw no difference.
regards,
Mark