is art fading away?
F B
Many museums of modern art have been build in many countries across the
whole world, and never were so many books published about art.
Was the effect of this enthusiasm also as much accelerating in the quality
of the living modern art, comparing to the first 60 years of the 20th
century.
Has contemporary art become history and has the challenge of art taken over
by electronic techniques?
Or is the concept of creating new and original images becoming a neglected
virtue?
I don't know who invented the new-ism during the last century, but it seems
obvious to me that in the last 30 years the innovate aspect of art was the
central issue
of art discussion. Once there were times art did not need to be innovative.
My question is: are we returning to such an era or are we just tired of the
new?
Or has the vision of art, in spite of all interference of art managers and
art educators failed and did their sympathetic attitude in the last 40 years
no good to the actual spirit of art?
if this not enough http://www.cuci.nl/~fbloemen/
lake
unwieldy. I'm a painter, & prefer to talk about painting.
It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that the entire
twentieth century focused on innovation in painting. People were
preoccupied with discovering ever - new interpretations of what
painting is. This tendency seems to have reached a peak in the late
60's with "op-art". After that, public attention was drawn away from
painting towards other kinds of art-gallery events like installations,
earthworks and so on. So the pressure of "new-ism" as you call it, was
taken away from painting. Painting became, in the public eye, a
sub-category of a much broader definition of art. For a while, it was
even considered passe by many.
But one of the odd things about painting is, that the best painting
is almost always highly original. Goya for instance, or Rembrandt or
Van Gogh - they were innovators. I think this is as true today as it
ever was. But good painting also needs a solid classical foundation.
Painters need to emmulate their predecessors before originality can
mature. They need to find their place in history.
Fashions come and go, trends rise and fall, and painters will jump
on this or that bandwagon as a way of relating to society at large. But
the essence of good painting is deep in the soul of the individual
painter. The innovative aspect is almost secondary, or incidental to
something deeper, and heart-felt.
-Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Kay
"F B" <fblo...@cuci.nl>:
: Is modern art fading away since 1960 in the last 40 years?
Modernism is dead. We are now beyond post-modernism into post-POMO, which no
one really knows about.. However, the "Pluralist Era" of the 1970s has not
finished IMO and that is what we are continuing with.
: Many museums of modern art have been build in many countries across the
: whole world, and never were so many books published about art.
It *is* becoming a big business!
: Was the effect of this enthusiasm also as much accelerating in the quality
: of the living modern art, comparing to the first 60 years of the 20th
: century.
You raise a good issue here because the first part of the 20th century
certainly was dynamic in terms of the *new*. Then mid-century with AbEx,
Color Field, etc. Now??? Maybe the emerging dominance of installation,
photography and the death of sculpture and painting? (According to many
critics)
: Has contemporary art become history and has the challenge of art taken
over
: by electronic techniques?
That would depend on a strident definition of "contemporary" which is too
broadly defined from installation to "farm scenes" with a "message". We
don't really have "standards" which exactly define contemporary so everyone
is uncertain. Electronic techniques? I don't know much about them, but
they may well be the wave of the future, even if they fail to gain dominance
over the other arts they certainly are becoming more acceptable into the
"mainstream" contemporary art world and I would be surprised as technology
increases, if the electronic arts don't grow as well. It reminds me, at
this point, of the emergence of photography as an art form. Rejected at
first and embraced at this time.
: Or is the concept of creating new and original images becoming a neglected
: virtue?
I don't know any new or original things. But, happily, during my readings
today I realized that neither did the old masters. I mean, how many
different and unique ways can you depict a Madonna & Child or Crucifixion?
So, we likely face a problem that has existed through many centuries.
: I don't know who invented the new-ism during the last century, but it
seems
: obvious to me that in the last 30 years the innovate aspect of art was the
: central issue
: of art discussion. Once there were times art did not need to be
innovative.
I am not quite sure what you mean here but I would guess that you mean
different methods or materials in traditional forms such as Julian
Schnabel's mosiac tiles on canvas instead of paint?
: My question is: are we returning to such an era or are we just tired of
the
: new?
I blame it all on TV! In the past we would have to travel to Paris, NYC,
London, Madrid, etc. to actually see what everyone is excited about and then
we would return to our home countries with an *influence* of what we have
seen. Now, we have too many images too many stylistic tendencies and too
darned much information that we are bombarded with. However, this is also
part of the world we live in. Plurality & Diversity.
: Or has the vision of art, in spite of all interference of art managers and
: art educators failed and did their sympathetic attitude in the last 40
years
: no good to the actual spirit of art?
I'm not clear of your meaning on the last question because I can't actually
remember many art educators agreeing on one certain style, form or method
and the spirit of art is only within us.
Thanks for an interesting post. I will check out your site later.
Kay
http://KayKane.homestead.com
: if this not enough http://www.cuci.nl/~fbloemen/
:
:
Kay
: : if this not enough http://www.cuci.nl/~fbloemen/
Fons (or "F B")
Your work is certainly some of the best I've seen on this newsgroup and the
influence of New Guinea is apparent.
And...
You've written a book as well!
You can only hope for a negative review from the resident art doom-and-gloom
critic, Mani!
I've scanned the book and will have to come back and read it later but it is
a very intelligent and aestheticly pleasing website!
: :
:
Erik A. Mattila
> I am not quite sure what you mean here but I would guess that you mean
> different methods or materials in traditional forms such as Julian
> Schnabel's mosiac tiles on canvas instead of paint?
Mosaic tiles? I thought they were broken plates. Schnabel 'appropriated' that
idea from Simon Rodia's "Watts Towers." By the way, there's a pretty original
work of art. Rodia didn't have any formal art training, either. It was just
him and the muse, as I understand it.
http://www.deuceofclubs.com/rv/cal217.htm
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Watts_Towers.html
Erik
>
>
> : My question is: are we returning to such an era or are we just tired of
> the
> : new?
>
> I blame it all on TV! In the past we would have to travel to Paris, NYC,
> London, Madrid, etc. to actually see what everyone is excited about and then
> we would return to our home countries with an *influence* of what we have
> seen. Now, we have too many images too many stylistic tendencies and too
> darned much information that we are bombarded with. However, this is also
> part of the world we live in. Plurality & Diversity.
>
> : Or has the vision of art, in spite of all interference of art managers and
> : art educators failed and did their sympathetic attitude in the last 40
> years
> : no good to the actual spirit of art?
>
> I'm not clear of your meaning on the last question because I can't actually
> remember many art educators agreeing on one certain style, form or method
> and the spirit of art is only within us.
>
> Thanks for an interesting post. I will check out your site later.
>
> Kay
> http://KayKane.homestead.com
>
> :
> :
John Haber
Maybe it's just the quality of posts here that is fading away.
John
Kay
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
news:38C5BC57...@tomatoweb.com...
: Kay wrote:
:
: > I am not quite sure what you mean here but I would guess that you mean
: > different methods or materials in traditional forms such as Julian
: > Schnabel's mosiac tiles on canvas instead of paint?
:
: Mosaic tiles? I thought they were broken plates. Schnabel 'appropriated'
that
: idea from Simon Rodia's "Watts Towers." By the way, there's a pretty
original
: work of art. Rodia didn't have any formal art training, either. It was
just
: him and the muse, as I understand it.
:
: http://www.deuceofclubs.com/rv/cal217.htm
: http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Watts_Towers.html
:
: Erik
Thanks for the correction, Erik. I feel especially stupid since I've been
going to garage sales, buying cups, plates & saucers & smashing them with a
hammer and making "ceramic" mosiacs for my planters! Duh!
Watts Towers by Rodia is now a historical monument. It is so unique! He
must have been considered the neighborhood nut when he was doing it for so
many years. I wonder if his wife and family were embarrassed? If readers
here don't know about this wonderful structure, check it out - you should
know!
Kay
http://KayKane.homestead.com
(now updated and adding links)
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
>Mosaic tiles? I thought they were broken plates. Schnabel 'appropriated' that
>idea from Simon Rodia's "Watts Towers."
yes, plates. One of them fell off the wall right in front of my eyes at
Leeds National Art Museum ... the attendant just wandered over and
picked up all the pieces and said they are always doing that ;-)
Alison
Erik A. Mattila
plates", and when I though broken plates I thought Watts Towers. As far as I
know, Schnab could have used mosaic tiles - I think I misssed the whole
adventure of Schnabel and Chia and all that (I was out in the woods or
something.)
But yea, the Towers are really lovely things. What makes me mad is that I
could have rode my bike over there when I was a kid and watched Rodia work on
them. Maybe even talked to him. That's a bummer.
Did you ever see a picture of the famous Roman mosaic "the Unswept Floor?"
Extremely kewl. It's a mosaic floor which depicts all the things that might
have fallen off the table, including a dead rat, as I recall. Those Romans!
Sort of Post-ProtoClassic Kitsch, I guess.
Erik
Kay wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
> news:38C5BC57...@tomatoweb.com...
> : Kay wrote:
> :
> : > I am not quite sure what you mean here but I would guess that you mean
> : > different methods or materials in traditional forms such as Julian
> : > Schnabel's mosiac tiles on canvas instead of paint?
> :
> : Mosaic tiles? I thought they were broken plates. Schnabel 'appropriated'
> that
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>>Is modern art fading away since 1960 in the last 40 years?
>
>Maybe it's just the quality of posts here that is fading away.
>
>John
I guess you will just have to work harder then, John ;-)
F B
> twentieth century focused on innovation in painting. People were
> preoccupied with discovering ever - new interpretations of what
> painting is. This tendency seems to have reached a peak in the late
> 60's with "op-art". After that, public attention was drawn away from
> painting towards other kinds of art-gallery events like installations,
> earthworks and so on. So the pressure of "new-ism" as you call it, was
I can imagine young artists will never agree on that. What would a real
artist (like you call Rembrandt Goya or v Gogh motivate to create if he
should admit beforehand it all has been done before allready? He would
certainly enter history as recreative artist. The driving force behind this
can, if you ask me, only be the knowledge or even hope to make something
which never have come out before. I called this new, but I certainly meant
something different than a new kind of washing soap.
The innovative aspect is almost secondary, or incidental to
> something deeper, and heart-felt.
So on this point I agree, I only hate these heavy words "heart felt".
You must be a an art-teacher Lane!
Because you use ideals to point your statements.
My questions were not about eternal ideals, but of the actual artdevelopment
of the last 40 years. I believe there is a strange paradox between the
oppertunities of these years and the quality of art (not only paintings)
made in these years. And in the light of the near future I am (untill now)
convinced these 40 years will be different valued in the future.
but you made me curious what is it you make? Send me your url?
Fons Bloemen
http://www.cuci.nl/~fbloemen/
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> schreef in berichtnieuws
065f8722...@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com...
melvi...@my-deja.com
"F B" <fblo...@cuci.nl> wrote:
I don't know who invented the new-ism during the last century, but it
seems obvious to me that in the last 30 years the innovate aspect of
art was the central issue
If I paint something, I enjoy it because it's a new experience for me.
The finished picture is then mostly useless to me because it's served
it's purpose. Other people may find the picture innovative or not
depending on their interpretation- it dosn't bother me much. It all
depends who you are painting for. Is this a very selfish attitude do
you think?
Melvin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lake
Me, I have to keep a certain barrier between my own work and all the
comparisons of society. If I am always thinking about judgements and
placements and classifications, the work has no breathing-space, no
chance to become itself. The focus should always be on creation, not on
interpretation.
But sooner or later you've got to step back to see where you've been -
in relation to where you think you might be wanting to go. Only thing
is, you have to be careful not to do it too often.
lake
can't get away with using words like "heart-felt" these days. I
certainly did not mean to imply that 'everything has been done before'
- rather that we may be looking for innovation in the wrong places.
While we are searching for new categories we may be overlooking certain
fundamental facts about categories in general.
I will have a URL very soon, and I can hardly wait to get some
feedback on my paintings. Unfortunately I am
atechnologically-challenged individual, and I only got a computer a few
months ago, so people will have to be patient with me.
- Lake
Geoff Atkin
question the meaning of painting as a pretext for doing it?
Anyone inquiring about such things only need remind him/herself
about why painting came about in the first place. It's the great
mystery, as old as civilization. How can inert substance be
transformed into living substance?
The intellectuals who aren't familiar with this mystery, the
partaking in that extraordinary transformation, will of course
take a perspective based on the medium they are familiar with:
the word, the text. It seems the domain of painting has been
overtaken by literary critics and deconstructionists who are bent
on wrecking the western tradition, as if all the great art of the
last 2000 years, including Velazquez, including Rembrandt,
including Caravaggio (just of a few of the extraordinary
humanists who were also great painters), carries with it the
permanent stain of white male supremacy. Of course, if you ignore
the nature of the medium in question, it's easy to devise overly
simplistic categories for your analysis, e.g., Velazquez and some
19th century Aestheticist hack should be lumped together under
the label "Academicism". Far from it, 'Las Meninas' will always
cast the spell it does not for some literary mystery it hides and
has been analyzed ad nauseum about, but simply for how it was
painted. Other examples in it of contextual cleverness and
philosophical depth contribute to an appreciation of the
painting, but only one condition is both necessary and
sufficient: how it was painted. What it required to get
everything right in that work, the balance, the restraint, the
looking at the general and the local simultaneously, was nothing
short of a leap of faith and a movement of great character for
the artist. Art is important because it reveals the truth of that
moment. Hence it is an eternal testament to the best qualities of
people: strength, compassion, sensitivity, wisdom. Art does not
say anything about an artist. But it says everything about the
moment in which the artist gave everything of himself to present
a small truth. And that lesson is enough for a world to live by.
Erik A. Mattila
"intellectuals" aren't in the 'sanctum sanctorium' of art mysticism because
they use the word and the text, and on the other you go on to define art as
'the great mystery' using the word and the text. Isn't this what the critics
and intellectuals are doing?
I submit to you that the statement "What it required to get everything right in
that work, the balance, the restraint, the looking at the general and the local
simultaneously, was nothing short of a leap of faith and a movement of great
character for the artist" is, in fact, a literary statement. Not a bad one, I
might add. What you seem to be saying is that it would be amiss if someone
like Carlos Fuentes added "and we see the same--the looking at the generl and
the local simultaneously--in Cervantes, who Valesquez was very fond of..." (I'm
just making that up, of course, I don't think that Fuentes ever said that, but
if you are familiar with Fuentes, an intellectual, you will know that it would
not be out of character.)
In the end, both mean the same thing anyway. I just don't see how you would
object to a historical contextualization a critic might make. You've got to
remember what 'criticism' is -- it is nothing more than saying how something
came to exist, in a time, a place, and how it was understood by its audience.
To denounce all that in favor of putting it all in the form of a massive
generality such as 'it is a great mystery' merely reduces the whole affair,
which is held to have been historically significant, to very shallow spectacle,
thus impovrishing the meaning and significance of the work of art.
Also, I am not clear on why you say tht Valesquez, Rembrant and Carvaggio are
'extraordinary' humanists. Do you mean 'humanist' in the same sense that
Martin Luther, François Rabalis and Erasmus are 'humanists?' Or do you mean
that they are just, er...well, 'human?'
"Art is important because it reveals the truth of that moment. Hence it is an
eternal testament to the best qualities of people: strength, compassion,
sensitivity, wisdom." Now this is something that I can imagine Michel Foucault
writing, with a little stretch of the imagination. Foucault argues for the
concept of the 'episteme' of any given moment in history, which is more or less
the 'core epistemological structure' that defines a period, era or epoch. Your
words are not much different -- "But it says everything about the
moment in which the artist gave everything of himself to present a small
truth." But of course Foucault was an intellectual, and his tools were the
word and the text. He would make statements like this and back it up with a
long and intriguing argument. He never would have left a statement like that
just dangle, to take on the appearance of wisdom and truth. He always fought
for credibility.
Erik Mattila
Geoff Atkin
"On the one hand you've said "intellectuals" aren't in the
'sanctum sanctorium' of art mysticism because they use the word
and the text, and on
the other you go on to define art as 'the great mystery' using
the
word and the text. Isn't this what the critics and intellectuals
are doing?"
How can I not agree that it is problematic to explain the
subtleties of one medium by way of another? And it makes me feel
clumsy and awkward, even burdened by a kind of futile desperation
to do so. However, the discursive nature of newsgroups forces me
to attempt some kind of verbal representation of the state of
mind
which takes over when either I've painted something truthfully,
or
I've felt that truth through another's work. There's a great
line
by Kierkegaard, from his "Fear and Trembling" (and I'm sure it's
a
notion echoed by many, expecially in some of the great religious
texts): "The poet cannot speak." I think we can liken the nature
of poetry to the nature of painting to an extent. Both
achievements involve a surrender of directed thought and use of
language as a means of linear narrative/description in favor of
the irrational or unspeakable. Though poetry "uses" language, it
is more interested in the unspoken elements: sound, music, the
voice of the speaker. It's interested in the moment of making
language. Painting, too is concerned with a moment, the moment
of
seeing.
What I'm saying is this: The use of language in the abstract
sense (naming, reference) is perfectly suitable in the realm of
philosophy, but pathetically unsuitable in the realm of talking
about painting or talking about poetry, or music. Yet the only
way I can argue against contemporary trends in criticism and
taste
that have gone way way in the wrong direction in terms of the
over-use of language, is by use of the very same thing I'm
attempting to undermine. It's the classic chase-your-tail
problem.
So, though you say my argument "dangles", I would reply that
I probably said too much already, and should just shut up and
paint. Such a lonely existence...
Geoff Atkin
I'd like to know what you think of my work. I've tried,
sometimes sucessfully, to reveal meaning through light as it is
seen in and out of spaces.
url: http://www.burnettgroup.com:449/geoff/gallery.html
Thanks, Geoff.
Erik A. Mattila
was to associate the images with Michangelo Antonioni, especially the
'bleakness of modern existence he portrayed in his film "L' Aventura.' You
paintings have a sort of 'snapshot' quality, and a feeling of voyuerism (as if
the voyuer was caught in the act.) The focus of all six seem to me to be the
'artist's gaze' which, by extension, could be read as the 'viewer's gaze.'
Strange, isn't it? I get the feeling from your work that I shouldn't be there,
looking at that. It's very interesting. As for liking or disliking your work,
I'll decline on that. I've found this kind of decision often is based on which
side of the bed I got out of each day. Suffice it to say that I found your
paintings to be very interesting, and also, I haven't seen much work with this
kind of focus. In my view it is rather unique. But emotionally they leave me
with a sense of bleakness, almost disconcerting. I don't think you can pin a
value on this, i.e. 'good or bad', but you just take it as it comes.
Geoff Atkin wrote:
> Thanks for your response.
>
> "On the one hand you've said "intellectuals" aren't in the
> 'sanctum sanctorium' of art mysticism because they use the word
> and the text, and on
> the other you go on to define art as 'the great mystery' using
> the
> word and the text. Isn't this what the critics and intellectuals
> are doing?"
>
> How can I not agree that it is problematic to explain the
> subtleties of one medium by way of another? And it makes me feel
> clumsy and awkward, even burdened by a kind of futile desperation
> to do so. However, the discursive nature of newsgroups forces me
> to attempt some kind of verbal representation of the state of
> mind
> which takes over when either I've painted something truthfully,
> or
> I've felt that truth through another's work.
I understand what you are saying. I'm just inclined to argue against the idea
of a real 'schism' between the rationality of writing (or intellectualizing)
and the alleged prelinguistic exercise of visual representations. I don't
think it works like that. I wouldn't argue that the word and the image are the
same thing, but I would argue that each occupys the same hierarchical level in
the array of human symbolic forms. Do you follow me? Such things as Jungian
psychology, and earlier even Kierkegaard, propose a model of aesthetic forms
being 'below' rationality, and that rationality needs to be subverted in order
to gain access to these sub-routines. My understanding is that this is
essentially what Kierkegaard's assault on Hegel was all about.
Personally, I've experienced problems with articulating graphic ideas as well
as verbal ideas. Many ideas arrive in full-form, and there is no problem using
them. But some arrive encrypted in an array of nostalgia, emotions, irrational
identifications and the like. In order to make them useful, they have to be
rationalized. In the model of visual thinking and verbal thinking being
co-equal symbolic practices, a gain in the verbal does not imply a loss in the
visual, or visa versa. In other words, they are not competitors. I would go
further to argue that gains in one also enhances the others, but that's a
separate agument.
> There's a great
> line
> by Kierkegaard, from his "Fear and Trembling" (and I'm sure it's
> a
> notion echoed by many, expecially in some of the great religious
> texts): "The poet cannot speak." I think we can liken the nature
> of poetry to the nature of painting to an extent. Both
> achievements involve a surrender of directed thought and use of
> language as a means of linear narrative/description in favor of
> the irrational or unspeakable. Though poetry "uses" language, it
> is more interested in the unspoken elements: sound, music, the
> voice of the speaker. It's interested in the moment of making
> language. Painting, too is concerned with a moment, the moment
> of
> seeing.
I have a problem with the idea of the 'moment' of painting, Geoff. The 'great
divide' between literature and painting involves time, in that literature relys
on time to do it's work, as well as sequence (synchrony and diachrony). Thus
literature (and poetry) are 'narratives' and paintings are 'antinarratives'
(even narrative painting, strangely). At any rate, I'm inclined to disagree
with Kierkegaard. I think the verbal meaning (semiosis) of a poem ranks equal
to it's formal elements. It's interesting to consider DaDa in this regard.
The 'noise poems' of the Cafe Voltaire seemed to have been pure form, i.e.
sound, cadence, voice but were they really. I mean the 'absence of meaning'
was the point of these utterances. I mean everyone who attended these
performances was aware that the 'narrative' of the gibberish, it's story, was
that natural language had been self-consciously abandonded
>
> What I'm saying is this: The use of language in the abstract
> sense (naming, reference) is perfectly suitable in the realm of
> philosophy, but pathetically unsuitable in the realm of talking
> about painting or talking about poetry, or music. Yet the only
> way I can argue against contemporary trends in criticism and
> taste
> that have gone way way in the wrong direction in terms of the
> over-use of language, is by use of the very same thing I'm
> attempting to undermine. It's the classic chase-your-tail
> problem.
Indeed. That's why I see the schism as a Paper Tiger. The only way to talk
about painting is to talk, right? There are plenty of ways to approach the
problem one may find with contemporary art criticism, but they all involve
setting oneself to the task of understanding what is being said. Without this
knowledge, it is very difficult to say anything beyond overly generic
statements about disquietitude. The problem with generalities is that they
communicate very little in terms of information. They often do, however,
function as 'badges' for a position that an individual may hold in regard to an
isssue.
>
> So, though you say my argument "dangles", I would reply that
> I probably said too much already, and should just shut up and
> paint. Such a lonely existence...
Or you could continue, since you write very well about art. I'm just asking
'OK, now that I see your position, what's it all about?" It could very well be
that you are wrestling with quite a few unarticulated ideas (unrationalized)
which can be quite frustrating (that has been my experience, at any rate.) The
question is would it benefit you to rationalize these things. My bias is that
it would be beneficial, but many people disagree with this.
In my view the best way to approach this is to cease making generic statements,
for example about 'contemporary trends in criticism' and replace the generic
with the specific. Instead of saying 'modern critics do this or that' provide
a concrete example, for example "I think Grennburg's ideas on 'significant
form' are amiss, here's why."
The truth is, in my view, is that much of what passes as 'art criticism' is
nothing more than a fashion systems, and in that I would agree with you that
'over-use of language' is a spectacle, a fashinon statement -- pure hyperbole
carried out for a specific motive, which is create the sense in the reader of
authority. But critics suffer the same fate as artists -- the thousands who
write at any given time suffer the seive of history, and a century later a very
small percentage of the total is remembered. So it's a baby and the bathwater
argument.
Erik Mattila
br...@wralaw.com
"F B" <fblo...@cuci.nl> wrote:
> > It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that the entire
> > twentieth century focused on innovation in painting. People were
> > preoccupied with discovering ever - new interpretations of what
> > painting is. This tendency seems to have reached a peak in the late
> > 60's with "op-art". After that, public attention was drawn away from
> > painting towards other kinds of art-gallery events like
installations,
> > earthworks and so on. So the pressure of "new-ism" as you call it,
was
> > taken away from painting....
Following the mindset of art can be frustrating I suppose. I ironically
believe that "new-ism" must have been with us in the Roman era. I'm
sure that many times in human history "everything has been done"
And that alone is the reason not to do anything since it won't be
new. Many people either lack the presence of mind to 'invent' or
they are too self-inhibitory -perhaps by approaching art verbally-
to discover how they invent internally. I personally don't believe
in invention or creativity, except as accidents or discoveries.
We certainly can breed a thousand new varieties of flowers without
ever making one better than the original.
For example the URL below: shows works of double images using hands
as the structure for figures. Verbally this may be something
entirely new, if interpreted as such, or it may be filed away as
critical Paranoia(hate Dali!).
> Fons Bloemen
> http://www.cuci.nl/~fbloemen/
I think that the present problem today is that art instructors are
mostly waiting for their students to Verbally interpret their art
rather than teaching art... Which means people get PHD's without
learning art and then arent able to teach it when they become art
teachers.
> He would
> certainly enter history as recreative artist.
I don't think some verbal Motivation really makes people go out to
become artists. Wether or not it all has been done before -which
it has- (and hasn't) means very little.
> The driving force behind this
> can, if you ask me, only be the knowledge or even hope to make
something
> which never have come out before. I called this new, but I certainly
meant
> something different than a new kind of washing soap.
Bryn
F B
> believe that "new-ism" must have been with us in the Roman era.
What do you mean by Roman era?
I'm
> sure that many times in human history "everything has been done"
> And that alone is the reason not to do anything since it won't be
> new. Many people either lack the presence of mind to 'invent' or
> they are too self-inhibitory -perhaps by approaching art verbally-
> to discover how they invent internally. I personally don't believe
> in invention or creativity, except as accidents or discoveries.
> We certainly can breed a thousand new varieties of flowers without
> ever making one better than the original.
I had my questions about the recent 40 years of newism and you only
confirmed them.
> For example the URL below: shows works of double images using hands
> as the structure for figures. Verbally this may be something
> entirely new, if interpreted as such, or it may be filed away as
> critical Paranoia(hate Dali!).
>
> > Fons Bloemen
> > http://www.cuci.nl/~fbloemen/
My drawings and paintings were never preesented as new. I wonder were you
picked up that message?
> I think that the present problem today is that art instructors are
> mostly waiting for their students to Verbally interpret their art
> rather than teaching art... Which means people get PHD's without
> learning art and then arent able to teach it when they become art
> teachers.
This I don't know I left the school of art 30 years ago.
You made me curious if you are an artist what is your url? That makes
understanding a lot easier.
thank you and others for your comment
Fons Bloemen
br...@wralaw.com
"F B" <fblo...@cuci.nl> wrote:
> > Following the mindset of art can be frustrating I suppose. I
ironically
> > believe that "new-ism" must have been with us in the Roman era.
> What do you mean by Roman era?
My opinion is that in 20,000 BC. someone saw something new and
everyone in the tribe liked it because it was "new"
While Modern in art has been "new-ism" I think there were other
ages of "newism" (Industrial, Rennaissance) and Classicism (Roman,
Baroque,Postmodern) etc.
> > For example the URL below: shows works of double images using hands
> > as the structure for figures. Verbally this may be something
> > entirely new, if interpreted as such, or it may be filed away as
> > critical Paranoia(hate Dali!).
> My drawings and paintings were never preesented as new. I wonder
were you
> picked up that message?
I didn't know that those drawings were your drawings and paintings...
I simply think that each artwork is unique.
Modern (in my view) simply accepts or rejects a work of art as
"new" based on wether the antiquated critic recognizes the
individual characteristics of a work of art...
If he does and he names them a "new" movement in art is born...
and many artists copy what is named in that work of art in order
to satify the antiquated critic, museums, etc.
I liked the hand imagry by the way.
> This I don't know I left the school of art 30 years ago.
> You made me curious if you are an artist what is your url?
My URL's have been trashed several times... I put another one
up someday...
> That makes
> understanding a lot easier.
> thank you and others for your comment
> Fons Bloemen
Bryn
br...@wralaw.com
Changing yes. The image that art had in the 1960's is fading
if the historians choose to later call the art of today Modern
then no but if they put another label on it Yes.
Remember that in Van Goghs time art critics were mainly focused on art
30 years prior, or following other artist of the present. Yet today
Van Gogh is focused on as relavent to his era.
In a few hundred years Moderately known artists and totally unkown
artists will be seen as the heros du jour, and most of todays heros
will become footnotes.
> Many museums of modern art have been build in many countries across
the
> whole world, and never were so many books published about art.
> Was the effect of this enthusiasm also as much accelerating in the
quality
> of the living modern art, comparing to the first 60 years of the 20th
> century.
> Has contemporary art become history and has the challenge of art
taken over
> by electronic techniques?
I'm afraid that people will believe so, as they did with the mechanical
eye (camera).
Since art is not an isolated act of the secondary object but a whole
act of imagination, percieving, craft, and interaction with the
artwork till completion... The way of the Baroque artist is still
intact, and doable, despite the (mechanical brain)computer and
(mechanical eye)photograph.
> Or is the concept of creating new and original images becoming a
neglected
> virtue?
I hope not.
> I don't know who invented the new-ism during the last century, but it
seems
> obvious to me that in the last 30 years the innovate aspect of art
was the
> central issue
> of art discussion. Once there were times art did not need to be
innovative.
> My question is: are we returning to such an era or are we just tired
of the
> new?
I think the artworld is getting tired of saying it is new...
To be honest I can't think of any artistic styles that are entirely and
completely new. Surrealism had its Bosche, Abstraction had the Moors
persian rugs, and 15000 BC textiles, Minimalism has its tribal
symbols, tibetan Mandras(?), Japanese stone gardens, Mobiles had wind-
chimes... of course its all 'new' in that all artwork is unique...
I think in the recent past the art-world has been idly examining the
arbitrary nature of invention. (Basically they have realized that art
is innovative because someone said it was, and that someone must talk
about that invention for it to be discussed)- In otherwords profound
circular reasoning can be mistaken for the truth...
> Or has the vision of art, in spite of all interference of art
managers and
> art educators failed and did their sympathetic attitude in the last
40 years
> no good to the actual spirit of art?
> if this not enough http://www.cuci.nl/~fbloemen/
Jaxart
>In a few hundred years Moderately known artists and totally unkown
>artists will be seen as the heros du jour, and most of todays heros
>will become footnotes.
If the following holds any water, art may be irrelevant
anyway in sooner than a 'few hundred' years. For the full
text check your local news feature:
Technology leader has a dark warning for mankind's future
By Joel Garreau
The Washington Post
Monday, March 13, 2000
A respected creator of the Information Age has
written an extraordinary critique of accelerating
technological change in which he suggests that
new technologies could cause "something like
extinction" of humankind within the next two
generations.
What worries him is that these (new) technologies collectively create the
ability to unleash self-replicating, mutating, mechanical or biological
plagues. These would be "a replication attack in the physical world" comparable
with the replication attack in the virtual world that recently caused the
shutdowns of major commercial Web sites. "If you can let something loose that
can make more copies of itself," Joy said in a telephone interview, "it is very
difficult to recall. It is as easy as eradicating all the mosquitoes: They are
everywhere and make more of themselves. If attacked, they mutate and become
immune.
. . . That creates the possibility of empowering individuals for extreme evil.
If we don't do anything, the risk is very high of one crazy person doing
something very bad."
Finally, he argues, this threat to humanity is much greater than that of
nuclear weapons because those are hard to build. By contrast, he says, these
new technologies are not hard to come by. Therefore, he reasons, the problem
will not be "rogue states, but rogue individuals."
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
lake
painting as a pretext for doing it?" A very very very good question.
It's because we are modern, that's why. Self-consciously so. Because
the old reasons for painting have eroded out from under our pinkies,
and we find ourselves with little of substance upon which to stand. And
we long for that substance, o how we long for it. And that's why we can
no longer paint like Velasquez, even if we were able to, which we are
not.
You might say, "Paint anyway! The mystery of changing inert matter into
living matter needs no justification!" And you would be right, yes. But
the questions remain: paint what? paint how? paint why? Think about
Sartre and Pollack, all in one breath. Take another breath and think
about Warhol and Johns. What do they mean? Do they mean anything, or
nothing, as mdeli says?
Or do you think we should just ignore these well-known figures, and
paint the corner gas-station as if it were a Corot pastoral? Should we
imitate the camera, place our faith in technology? Is that as real as
it gets?
- Lake
Jaxart
lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid says...
>
>You pose a good question, Geoff Atkin: "why question the meaning of
>painting as a pretext for doing it?" A very very very good question.
And I have a rather simplistic-sounding answer.
Whatever you choose to paint, be it the corner gas station
or your most recent nightmare, paint it so that it becomes
uniquely your own.