Religious art
Iian Neill
> In my case, I selected a 3-piece series of Jesus sculptures as my final work
> in an art class. I'm asking no help with those.
>
> While doing background work, I noticed that altar-pieces appear in art history
> up to 18th century. After that I recall only Dali having something with
> religious content. - Yes of course Nam June Paik, too, has some Buddha motives
> Still I believe that churches are decorated now and then.
>
> Has the quality of works deterioted, or has the definition of fine art
> changed. My question is, does anybody know 20th century religious art of
> decent quality anywhere. I am most curious about Africa and SOuth America.
For examples of 19th century art-work, Lauri, I would refer you to my home-page,
the "Renaissance Cafe". Many of the artists on there were commissioned at some
time or other to create religious paintings/sculptures. If the artists on there
are not enough for you, I can check my (more complete) collection at home and
forward you any pictures that you desire.
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
Incidentally, you might want to check out the work of Pietro Annigoni - a 20th
century Italian painter working in oil/egg tempera and in the tradition of the
Renaissance. He is perhaps most famous for his portraits, but he was also a great
religious painter - his "Sermon on the Mount", for example, is superb. I have seen
a few Classical Realists around today who still create religious art, and would
refer you to Richard Gandy's home-page for examples of their work:
http://www.gandynet.com/art/index_main.htm
Best regards,
Iian Neill
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
In my case, I selected a 3-piece series of Jesus sculptures as my final work
in an art class. I'm asking no help with those.
While doing background work, I noticed that altar-pieces appear in art history
up to 18th century. After that I recall only Dali having something with
religious content. - Yes of course Nam June Paik, too, has some Buddha motives
Still I believe that churches are decorated now and then.
Has the quality of works deterioted, or has the definition of fine art
changed. My question is, does anybody know 20th century religious art of
decent quality anywhere. I am most curious about Africa and SOuth America.
- lauri
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
A. B. Sieze
>Has the quality of works deterioted, or has the definition of fine art
>changed. My question is, does anybody know 20th century religious art of
>decent quality anywhere. I am most curious about Africa and SOuth America.
Aside from my own which hangs in the church of my childhood
you mean? Seriously though, I know of all sorts of art that has
religious content and the closer to religions such as Catholicism
you get the more prevalent it becomes. It may not be mainstream
art and I'm assuming that's what you're looking for. The work
of Michael Tracy comes quickly to mind in terms of well-known
contemporary artists working with religious iconography. But
there are also all the artists who work with anti-religious themes
that are just as 'religious' in their message/content as the
pro-religion is. I'm thinking here of Piss Christ which caused
such a furor recently -- and the story of why the artist chose
to do the work in the first place -- his bio -- makes interesting
study of religious influences on a contemporary artist.
Cheers, Abby.
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> While doing background work, I noticed that altar-pieces appear in art history
> up to 18th century. After that I recall only Dali having something with
> religious content. - Yes of course Nam June Paik, too, has some Buddha motives
> Still I believe that churches are decorated now and then.
>
> changed. My question is, does anybody know 20th century religious art of
> decent quality anywhere.
whoa lauri-
classic case of detaching art from it's father history. that's a bit sad
lady. with a bit of investigation, or actually a simple bit of thinking,
you'll realize that it is not the deterioration of quality, but the
progression of technology in this century coupled with the further
exploration of modern political theory that has somehow been instigating the
regression of religion... art has for the most part redefined itself from
religious to spiritual... and you as an art student should be more that
aware that the church's long time standing history of being patron to artists
has become so pathetic, it's non-existent. no money from church, no
incentive to create religious art on the scale it was before.
but that's a very limited scope here, you say 'religion' ... it reads
judeo-christian tradition despite your nod at buddhism..... is that what you
want? pooh, too bad, there is still so much beautiful arabic art being
created today its neglect is profane.
however, if you are really looking for some prime religious art, 'religious'
meaning christian, you can do no better than alfonz muncha's stained glass
and christian artifacts created and displayed in prague, czech republic and
it's sister vienna, austria to help replace much of what was lost in world
war II.... either that or the surfacing of some rather beautiful christian
pieces from mexico and south america.... this is probably your best bet as it
is very easily researched, very contemporary and almost every art magazine
for the last five years has had a major story on it.
check 'art in america' ... if you're at a university, you've probably a
library... no?
nichole
Jiri Borsky
> My question is, does anybody know 20th century religious art of
> decent quality anywhere.
Marc Chagall (do not overlook his Bible illustrations)
Stanley Spencer
Craigie Aitchinson
Norman Adams
(the last three are British)
--
remove all zzz from address
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/borsky/
Bob C
>
> lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
>
> > My question is, does anybody know 20th century religious art of
> > decent quality anywhere.
>
> Marc Chagall (do not overlook his Bible illustrations)
> Stanley Spencer
> Craigie Aitchinson
> Norman Adams
> (the last three are British)
Did anyone add Georges Rouault to the list yet?
In DC, there are several of his paintings at the Phillips Collection.
The painting "Circus Trio" (1924) is one of the most emotionally moving
paintings I've ever seen and one of my favorite paintings on display
anywhere in the city. Although it's not overtly religious, much of his
other work was and most of his work is generally considered to have
strong religious references.
- Bob C.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
I got a couple of good hints, and also a good reminder
that I was sloppy with my homework. Sure I should have mentioned
Chagall and Roualt, at least.
While asking for religious object to analyze,
I had a sidethought to provoke why some subjects,
like religion and flowers, are OUT in western art.
Nicole:
>classic case of detaching art from it's father history. that's a bit sad
>lady. with a bit of investigation, or actually a simple bit of thinking,
>you'll realize that it is not the deterioration of quality, but the
>progression of technology in this century coupled with the further
>exploration of modern political theory that has somehow been instigating the
>regression of religion... art has for the most part redefined itself from
>religious to spiritual...
-lauri:
I can trace that further back.
In renaissance the artists like Leonardo and Michelangelo
raised the status ( and monetary expectations) of artists.
Unfortunately the Protestant movement cut down the demand
of pictures a bit later.
The dutch protestant painters had to invent a new market niche of
Paintings as opposed to interior design.
When the classical painting stagnated in the Academies of Paris
revolutionary canon was established. Against anything, Marx included.
Nicole:
>and you as an art student should be more that
>aware that the church's long time standing history of being patron to artists
>has become so pathetic, it's non-existent. no money from church, no
>incentive to create religious art on the scale it was before.
lauri: Yeah, the abovementioned Dutch middleclass markets preferred food
still-lebens. What really caught my attention was your phrase no money- no
incentive. As an amateur I was surpriced of your commercial cynicism.
Nicole
>but that's a very limited scope here, you say 'religion' ... it reads
>judeo-christian tradition despite your nod at buddhism..... is that what you
>want? pooh, too bad, there is still so much beautiful arabic art being
>created today its neglect is profane.
lauri: For my own work, I wanted referencies of Jesus-image. My posting was
more vague, because I expected more discussion of modern concepts of
acceptable and unmentionable subjects of current art. You know, flowerpower
not nuclear power, marxism not reaganism, exhibitionism not idealism etc.
Nicole:
>however, if you are really looking for some prime religious art, 'religious'
>meaning christian, you can do no better than alfonz muncha's stained glass
>and christian artifacts created and displayed in prague, czech republic and
>it's sister vienna, austria to help replace much of what was lost in world
>war II...
lauri:
only for the record, Mucha died 1939 and repaired windows broken in
world war I. Prag was saved from the WW II. :-)
Thanks for the tip anyway.
Nicole:
>either that or the surfacing of some rather beautiful christian
>pieces from mexico and south america.... this is probably your best bet as it
>is very easily researched, very contemporary and almost every art magazine
>for the last five years has had a major story on it.
>check 'art in america' ... if you're at a university, you've probably a
>library... no?
lauri
I was fishing for the names of these, I live in countryside, quite far from
university libraries, so I was hoping for baits to fish in the Web.
Jiri Borsky wrote:
> Marc Chagall (do not overlook his Bible illustrations)
> Stanley Spencer
> Craigie Aitchinson
> Norman Adams
> (the last three are British)
lauri: thanks,
Bob C:
>Did anyone add Georges Rouault to the list yet?
lauri:
One of my Jesus-sculptures is partly inspired by his paintings
and I forgot to mention the name!
lauri to Nicole:
What do you know about modern arabic religious art.
I am interested in it, but my understanding of
Islam is much more limited than my esteem.
- lauri
Journeyman of sculpture
P.s. Mark, could it be really possible to meet Gabriel
somewhere in Finland.
Marilyn
What comes to my mind
Kathe Kollwitz (probably more humanist than religious, although
not representing religious icons so much, her work seems to be
"religious"
Morris Graves - American west coast artist who did a lot
of bird paintings & sculpture, like "Spritit Bird" (Buddhist)
Marilyn
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> While asking for religious object to analyze,
> I had a sidethought to provoke why some subjects,
> like religion and flowers, are OUT in western art.
dunno... maybe too 'cute' for the modern cynical market, but then again, i
don't think they are out. i've seen a substantial amount of works featuring
flowers and spiritualism here in nyc.
> Nicole:
sorry, but it's nichole. don't know why that bothers me so.
> >classic case of detaching art from it's father history. that's a bit sad
> >lady. with a bit of investigation, or actually a simple bit of thinking,
> >you'll realize that it is not the deterioration of quality, but the
> >progression of technology in this century coupled with the further
> >exploration of modern political theory that has somehow been instigating the
> >regression of religion... art has for the most part redefined itself from
> >religious to spiritual...
> -lauri:
> I can trace that further back.
>
> In renaissance the artists like Leonardo and Michelangelo
> raised the status ( and monetary expectations) of artists.
> Unfortunately the Protestant movement cut down the demand
> of pictures a bit later.
sorry, but i would say this is totally irrelevant to what i was saying. the
protestant movement did away with the superfluousness of art, actually the
'sinfullness' of creating icons of god and how it detached from the
importants of faith.
... but the point here is not that religion was regressing, because the
protestant movement, for it's area of exposure, raised the influence of
religion, not diminished it.
leonardo was indeed a man of the renaissance, not a man jaded and looking at
the begining of the end to the death of religion. leonardo did not believe
on any level that god did not have his place as lord and master of the
universe. his moments of inspiration only fueled the fire of his faith in
the catholic god.
neither example illustrates the impact of today's status of the alienation of
humanity from religion as influenced by art. i would have suggested more
dadaist or realists... hell, i'd even that the impressionists who were mostly
devoid of religious content as a whole and looking to create images far and
away different from the dreaded camera.
> Nichole:
> >and you as an art student should be more that
> >aware that the church's long time standing history of being patron to artists
> >has become so pathetic, it's non-existent. no money from church, no
> >incentive to create religious art on the scale it was before.
>
> lauri: What really caught my attention was your phrase no money- no
> incentive. As an amateur I was surpriced of your commercial cynicism.
well sadly (or not), no matter how much of an optimist you are trying to be,
imho it tends to look rather true... does it not?
look at it this way for an example: how many painters today are working in
graphic arts an/or on the computer just because their first love doesn't
really pay?
money is a motivator.... not the best motivator, but a big motivator...
unfortunately for humanity as a whole.
> Nichole
> >but that's a very limited scope here, you say 'religion' ... it reads
> >judeo-christian tradition despite your nod at buddhism..... is that what you
> >want? pooh, too bad, there is still so much beautiful arabic art being
> >created today its neglect is profane.
>
> lauri: For my own work, I wanted referencies of Jesus-image. My posting was
> more vague, because I expected more discussion of modern concepts of
> acceptable and unmentionable subjects of current art. You know, flowerpower
> not nuclear power, marxism not reaganism, exhibitionism not idealism etc.
sorry, flowerpower? please elaborate the whole line of thinking here. how
does jesus-image tie into the 60s and reaganism? how are any of these
unmentionable subjects or current art?
imho the problem that plagues contemporary art is that everything is
acceptable and everyone is afraid to find a voice of yeah or nay.
> Nicole:
> >however, if you are really looking for some prime religious art, 'religious'
> >meaning christian, you can do no better than alfonz muncha's stained glass
> >and christian artifacts created and displayed in prague, czech republic and
> >it's sister vienna, austria to help replace much of what was lost in world
> >war II...
>
> lauri:
> only for the record, Mucha died 1939 and repaired windows broken in
> world war I. Prag was saved from the WW II. :-)
> Thanks for the tip anyway.
sorry, my bad.
> lauri to Nicole:
> What do you know about modern arabic religious art.
> I am interested in it, but my understanding of
> Islam is much more limited than my esteem.
www.yahoo.com should product a wealth of them for you. you might also want
to try that site: 'what's the sneeze' ... forget the url though.
i don't understand "Islam is much more limited than my esteem."
for the most part though,a healthy part of arts being produced today in the
middle east is islamic and very ornate. many artists work without names
though. once again, there is a wealth on the web.
nichole
Jennifer Linton
>
> lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> > While asking for religious object to analyze,
> > I had a sidethought to provoke why some subjects,
> > like religion and flowers, are OUT in western art.
I think I just heard Georgia O'Keeffe roll over in her grave ;-)
> dunno... maybe too 'cute' for the modern cynical market, but then again, i
> don't think they are out. i've seen a substantial amount of works featuring
> flowers and spiritualism here in nyc.
I would further that art galleries worldwide are abundant with flowers
and 'spiritual' imagery.
> > >classic case of detaching art from it's father history. that's a bit sad
> > >lady. with a bit of investigation, or actually a simple bit of thinking,
> > >you'll realize that it is not the deterioration of quality, but the
> > >progression of technology in this century coupled with the further
> > >exploration of modern political theory that has somehow been instigating the
> > >regression of religion... art has for the most part redefined itself from
> > >religious to spiritual...
Has *art* redefined itself from the religious to the spiritual? Or is
art merely reflective of the trends that exist in a society as a whole?
I would argue the latter.
How topical this thread regarding religious/spiritual art is for me at
the present (please excuse me, I realize that I'm walking in half-way
into the discussion). This coming December, I'm participating in a
curated group show in Toronto. The theme of this show is "On The
Spiritual In Art" (with a big nod to Kandinsky). For this show, I've
completed a new work which revisits the life of St. Agatha.
So, religion has not *completely* vanished from the postmodern world in
art ;-)
Jen
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jennifer Linton
eyepo...@home.com
Jen's Eye-Popping Online Art Gallery
http://members.home.net/bookenz/
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
Jennifer Linton <eyepo...@home.com> wrote:
> > lauri:
> > > While asking for religious object to analyze,
> > > I had a sidethought to provoke why some subjects,
> > > like religion and flowers, are OUT in western art.
Jennifer:
> I think I just heard Georgia O'Keeffe roll over in her grave ;-)
lauri: I step back, I was thinking here in Europe, that is pre-oriental art
for you of course :-)
Nichole (do you pronounce it soft, too?):
> > dunno... maybe too 'cute' for the modern cynical market, but then again, i
> > don't think they are out. i've seen a substantial amount of works featuring
> > flowers and spiritualism here in nyc.
Jennifer:
> I would further that art galleries worldwide are abundant with flowers
> and 'spiritual' imagery.
lauri:
Sure the backstreet galleries, and in my opinion the real volume of art,
lags 30-30 years behing. Most artists I regard modern, lived at the time
of my grandfather, and I'm not so young.
I promised Nichole to expand my statement. In modern and aftermodern
art social and political statements are appreciated, if they are
feminist, marxist or anti-anything. If they erect a statue to honoour
Colonel Shwarzkopf's victory in Gulf War, it is hardly considered
artistically important, whatever the esthetic value is.
Flowers and other nice things are more or less passé too.
We do have a mental map what is the proper area of artistic expression.
Jennifer:
> Has *art* redefined itself from the religious to the spiritual? Or is
> art merely reflective of the trends that exist in a society as a whole?
> I would argue the latter.
We cannot ignore the trends in society as a whole, but the art world sems
to have own little codes. I do not think that Greenberg's dogm of flat surface
is mere a reflection of superficiality of society.
Jennifer:
> How topical this thread regarding religious/spiritual art is for me at
> the present (please excuse me, I realize that I'm walking in half-way
> into the discussion). This coming December, I'm participating in a
> curated group show in Toronto. The theme of this show is "On The
> Spiritual In Art" (with a big nod to Kandinsky). For this show, I've
> completed a new work which revisits the life of St. Agatha.
>
> So, religion has not *completely* vanished from the postmodern world in
> art ;-)
lauri to Jennifer:
My final work is a three piece series of Jesus; The Messias, The Tormented
and The benevolent moron servant of church!
lauri to Nichole:
I understand your feelings of my mis-spelling ( I was writing offline).
Name is quite a personal thing, I'm not happy when mine is written
in the feminine form Laurie.
- lauri
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> > > > While asking for religious object to analyze,
> > > > I had a sidethought to provoke why some subjects,
> > > > like religion and flowers, are OUT in western art.
> Nichole (do you pronounce it soft, too?):
heh, only when i drink. :)
> > > dunno... maybe too 'cute' for the modern cynical market, but then again, i
> > > don't think they are out. i've seen a substantial amount of works
featuring
> > > flowers and spiritualism here in nyc.
> Jennifer:
> > I would further that art galleries worldwide are abundant with flowers
> > and 'spiritual' imagery.
>
> lauri:
> Sure the backstreet galleries, and in my opinion the real volume of art,
> lags 30-30 years behing. Most artists I regard modern, lived at the time
> of my grandfather, and I'm not so young.
agreed, but i have to make the reservation that as a whole, i think
a number of what might be 'great artists' of our age could simply
be falling to the stereotype that they just never receive recognition
in their lifetime.
i do have a question though, are you using the word 'modern' as in
the movement 'modern art' or is it referring to contemporary art
in our relative time?
my problem is, and you can dispute me on this, that while it's indeed
beautiful that the bounds of art has expanded under 'art for art's
sake' and art can be anything, that principle too has somehow diffused
the impact we perceive art has on our selves/condition.
so to speak: the most beautiful, and the biggest tradgety of art today
is that anyone can do it... it's hurting the rest of the population that
should do it.
> I promised Nichole to expand my statement. In modern and aftermodern
> art social and political statements are appreciated, if they are
> feminist, marxist or anti-anything. If they erect a statue to honoour
> Colonel Shwarzkopf's victory in Gulf War, it is hardly considered
> artistically important, whatever the esthetic value is.
ok, i can see how you would take this stance, but (heh) i would
disagree with you. imho, art is the natural reflection of human history,
and having a somewhat degreed background in political history, i would
say that these icons are / and can be just as powerful as any other
piece of work you could name. they are symbols of ideology, the
human condition and the dynamic, often dramatic human chronicals.
therefore, imho they are vitally important and almost superior to
say: waterlillies.
can we legitimately erase the importants that art is married to
human thought, and if so does that not innately make such entities
vitally important to the art world since the art world strives to
mirror human thought... no matter what their actual duration?
art is often symbollic, no? maybe i'm missing something here?
> Flowers and other nice things are more or less passé too.
> We do have a mental map what is the proper area of artistic expression.
sorry, but please explain to me this 'mental map,' as i may be
opinionated (*gasp! me?*) but haven't shared in this vision.
> We cannot ignore the trends in society as a whole, but the art world sems
> to have own little codes. I do not think that Greenberg's dogm of flat surface
> is mere a reflection of superficiality of society.
if it is not 'of,' and 'for' humanity, what then?
> lauri to Nichole:
> I understand your feelings of my mis-spelling ( I was writing offline).
> Name is quite a personal thing, I'm not happy when mine is written
> in the feminine form Laurie.
heh. isn't that odd, so much time disputing titles and somehow
misspelling names cracks the foundation of that.... but thanks,
i appreciate tht.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
Nichole:
>i do have a question though, are you using the word 'modern' as in
>the movement 'modern art' or is it referring to contemporary art
>in our relative time?
lauri:
I did mean modern in the classical sense :-) 1870-1930.
Nichole:
>my problem is, and you can dispute me on this, that while it's indeed
>beautiful that the bounds of art has expanded under 'art for art's
>sake' and art can be anything, that principle too has somehow diffused
>the impact we perceive art has on our selves/condition.
lauri:
I agree very much with the above. The art has conquered new frontiers
so eagerly that the home ground is left to mallow.
If all is art, nothing is art, though anything can be art.
Nichole:
>so to speak: the most beautiful, and the biggest tradgety of art today
>is that anyone can do it... it's hurting the rest of the population that
>should do it.
lauri:
Nonsense! Anyone can do *lookalikes* of modern art. If someone uses
old means (1950-1986) to express old ideas (1930-1960) it is his/her problem.
If it erodes your sales, you just have to do better.
Making lookalikes of old art (1400-1850) takes some more practise but is still
only crafts.
lauri:
The language of modern, AB EX or PoMo is deceptively simple to learn.
Mastering the language does not help *if one have nothing to say*.
If you visit exhibitions you see immediately the difference
between art and lookalikes,
even when the latter are made by known artists.
Empty words are empty words in any language.
lauri:
> > I promised Nichole to expand my statement. In modern and aftermodern
> > art social and political statements are appreciated, if they are
> > feminist, marxist or anti-anything. If they erect a statue to honoour
> > Colonel Shwarzkopf's victory in Gulf War, it is hardly considered
> > artistically important, whatever the esthetic value is.
Nichole:
>ok, i can see how you would take this stance, but (heh) i would
>disagree with you...
lauri:
thanks for understanding, and I appreciate your disagreement.
imho you are an exception that confirms my rule.
The fine art connosseurs are much more shortsighted.
Nichole:
>can we legitimately erase the importants that art is married to
>human thought, and if so does that not innately make such entities
>vitally important to the art world since the art world strives to
>mirror human thought... no matter what their actual duration?
lauri:
I feel handicapped here. Your thoughts -in Dutch/French? - when expressed
in English, escape my comprehension in Finnish.
Art is related to thought only by marriage, not by blood.
Art deals with something deeper, ideas beyond the words.
On some preconscious level, I do not refer to mere emotions here.
Nichole:
> art is often symbollic, no? maybe i'm missing something here?
lauri:
For me art *makes use of symbols* of course, but not as given tokens.
It is not ambiguity that discriminates poetry from business prose,
it is the opposite, the simultaneous use of double meanings and connotations.
I believe art is perceived immediately, not by symbol substitution.
Nichole:
>sorry, but please explain to me this 'mental map,' as i may be
>opinionated (*gasp! me?*) but haven't shared in this vision.
lauri:
As an art student I am novice. I was very much surprised how
narrow was my prejudice what is Art. Based on childhood experience.
We all have an unexpressed theory of art, be it
idealism
expressionism
illusionism
socialistic realism or whatever.
The enlightment came when I realized that my theory was not even my own,
simply a conditoned reflex: what is called Art/crap/kitch/oldfashioned.
lauri:
> > We cannot ignore the trends in society as a whole, but the art world sems
> > to have own little codes. I do not think that Greenberg's dogm of flat
surface
> > is mere a reflection of superficiality of society.
Nichole:
> if it is not 'of,' and 'for' humanity, what then?
lauri:
Yeah, if it only were for humanity, not of and for the
inhuman society.
Maybe, Nichole, we have drifted far from my original question about
referencies to contemporary visual religious expressions. I am not worried.
I am always grateful when someone allures or forces me
to think further than two neurons deep.
An old mind needs decalcification.
yours
- lauri
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> Reposting. Do not know what happened to the previous one.
dunno... did i miss something?
> Nichole:
> >i do have a question though, are you using the word 'modern' as in
> >the movement 'modern art' or is it referring to contemporary art
> >in our relative time?
> lauri:
> I did mean modern in the classical sense :-) 1870-1930.
thanks, that clears a bit of it up. problem with people for me is that terms
are used too freely without explanation.
> Nichole:
> >my problem is, and you can dispute me on this, that while it's indeed
> >beautiful that the bounds of art has expanded under 'art for art's
> >sake' and art can be anything, that principle too has somehow diffused
> >the impact we perceive art has on our selves/condition.
> lauri:
> I agree very much with the above. The art has conquered new frontiers
> so eagerly that the home ground is left to mallow.
> If all is art, nothing is art, though anything can be art.
nice. it's rare that i meet someone on this eye level.
> Nichole:
> >so to speak: the most beautiful, and the biggest tradgety of art today
> >is that anyone can do it... it's hurting the rest of the population that
> >should do it.
> lauri:
> Nonsense! Anyone can do *lookalikes* of modern art. If someone uses
> old means (1950-1986) to express old ideas (1930-1960) it is his/her problem.
> If it erodes your sales, you just have to do better.
> Making lookalikes of old art (1400-1850) takes some more practise but is still
> only crafts.
hm, lauri... you know i have to go against you here, and maybe i didn't make
myself clear in what i was stating. i think it's wonderful that people
endeavor their hands at making art, it's human, it's what art is supposed to
be, it helps remind us of what's important in life.... but that the world and
critics and artists *themselves* have somehow come to accept some very crappy
artists as gods. hell, artists themselves have come to accept that it doesn't
matter if their work is done with integrity, only that it's done....
what kind of art world can people expect when the artists themselves have
given up on education of the world around them? when they've given up on
working with integrity and when they believe that the ultimate of a creation
of a piece is not in it's genesis, but it's fame?
shock art tells nothing anymore because ... what envelope is being pushed?
yet there's some asshole artist down here (new york) who runs around puking
on other people's work in protest of 'mundane art' ... problem is, i haven't
seen this guy produce anything of note *ever* ... the guy's a fraud, and
people in the 'art world' are afraid to speak up and tell him he's nothing
more than a head case. why?
this is the tragedy of the art world today.... and what i was refering to.
> lauri:
> The language of modern, AB EX or PoMo is deceptively simple to learn.
> Mastering the language does not help *if one have nothing to say*.
> If you visit exhibitions you see immediately the difference
> between art and lookalikes,
> even when the latter are made by known artists.
> Empty words are empty words in any language.
true. i could almost say that the above is an argument for my own.
> Nichole:
> >can we legitimately erase the importants that art is married to
> >human thought, and if so does that not innately make such entities
> >vitally important to the art world since the art world strives to
> >mirror human thought... no matter what their actual duration?
> lauri:
> I feel handicapped here. Your thoughts -in Dutch/French? - when expressed
> in English, escape my comprehension in Finnish.
eh? nope, sorry american. thoughts may be jumbled, but definitely in
english... but i wasn't aware of the language barrier, your english is
certainly better than my finnish. i'll try to keep it simple.
> Art is related to thought only by marriage, not by blood.
> Art deals with something deeper, ideas beyond the words.
> On some preconscious level, I do not refer to mere emotions here.
i can't believe that. i can't believe that art is something more magical
then the human condition itself. i can't put art up like a god to have faith
in. and i won't. art isn't magic, it isn't spirit, it is as real as water
and thought and earth and also shit. an artist is no prophet of doom or
greatness but of less worth then a simple farmer and certainly not better
than a highly trained thief.
you're bounding art up like some others do that it's a 'hands off' faith
factor. i don't believe that art is something fluffy and undefined... indeed
i believe it is supremely defined by the human condition itself.
> Nichole:
> > art is often symbollic, no? maybe i'm missing something here?
> lauri:
> For me art *makes use of symbols* of course, but not as given tokens.
> It is not ambiguity that discriminates poetry from business prose,
> it is the opposite, the simultaneous use of double meanings and connotations.
> I believe art is perceived immediately, not by symbol substitution.
i can't agree with you here. i can't make art some sort of diety, some
beautiful fantasy above and beyond 'man' in his finest hour. i can't make
art something untouchable, some deva to be worshiped. art is nothing more
than the natural reflection of human history... for all it's faults and
epiphanies... but it's a dirty business.... and i would say that symbolism is
*yes* one of the incarnations of art.
> Nichole:
> >sorry, but please explain to me this 'mental map,' as i may be
> >opinionated (*gasp! me?*) but haven't shared in this vision.
> lauri:
> As an art student I am novice. I was very much surprised how
> narrow was my prejudice what is Art. Based on childhood experience.
> We all have an unexpressed theory of art, be it
> idealism
> expressionism
> illusionism
> socialistic realism or whatever.
>
> The enlightment came when I realized that my theory was not even my own,
> simply a conditoned reflex: what is called Art/crap/kitch/oldfashioned.
you lost me.... and i'll admit i was being sarcastic. there is no mental map
i think, please explain this concretely or let's dismiss it from this
conversation.
> Nichole:
> > if it is not 'of,' and 'for' humanity, what then?
> lauri:
> Yeah, if it only were for humanity, not of and for the
> inhuman society.
please lauri, i'm enjoying this far too much to resort to flaming. your
response was completely inappropriate as i was asking a legitimate question.
if art is not 'of' and 'for' humanity ... as you had eluded to ... what is it
then? who is it for? i could care less about the current status of the world
in general as it has no bearing on the topic on the table, if it's a truth
then it is irrelevant to beating this particular dog.
> Maybe, Nichole, we have drifted far from my original question about
> referencies to contemporary visual religious expressions. I am not worried.
> I am always grateful when someone allures or forces me
> to think further than two neurons deep.
> An old mind needs decalcification.
heh, don't set yourself up so easily.
Marilyn
As an eavesdropper,
I noticed something very interesting in Nichole's response.
Nichole writes:
>
> hm, lauri... you know i have to go against you here, and maybe i didn't make
> myself clear in what i was stating. i think it's wonderful that people
> endeavor their hands at making art, it's human, it's what art is supposed to
> be, it helps remind us of what's important in life.... but that the world and
> critics and artists *themselves* have somehow come to accept some very crappy
> artists as gods. hell, artists themselves have come to accept that it doesn't
> matter if their work is done with integrity, only that it's done....
>
> what kind of art world can people expect when the artists themselves have
> given up on education of the world around them? when they've given up on
> working with integrity and when they believe that the ultimate of a creation
> of a piece is not in it's genesis, but it's fame?
>
> shock art tells nothing anymore because ... what envelope is being pushed?
> yet there's some asshole artist down here (new york) who runs around puking
> on other people's work in protest of 'mundane art' ... problem is, i haven't
> seen this guy produce anything of note *ever* ... the guy's a fraud, and
> people in the 'art world' are afraid to speak up and tell him he's nothing
> more than a head case. why?
>
> this is the tragedy of the art world today.... and what i was refering to.
>
and later:
> beautiful fantasy above and beyond 'man' in his finest hour. i can't make
> art something untouchable, some deva to be worshiped. art is nothing more
> than the natural reflection of human history... for all it's faults and
> epiphanies... but it's a dirty business.... and i would say that symbolism is
> *yes* one of the incarnations of art.
>
> > Nichole:
So if "art is nothing more than the natural reflection of human history,"
then the art world that you describe in the first paragraph is reflecting our
present human condition. We may not like the product,
but we don't like global warming,
nuclear waste, over-population,
animal extinction,
(complete your personal list) either.
Sure some people have jumped on the bandwagon, thinking "I can do that" and
have produced junky stuff, but to dismiss the art world of today, we dismiss
"the natural reflection of human history" as well.
Marilyn
tlo...@cci-29palms.com
conversations I've read in a long time. I've followed it over the last month.
Lauri's enthusiasm for delving into the genuine nature of her spiritual
involvement with life and art is impressive and I find Nicole's reserve and
insight a beacon into the same matter.
Forgive me if I'm butting into what may have become a private conversation,
but I'd like to add something of my own which places less significance on
"Art/Society" and more on the individual. Perhaps this is what really gives
"modern/contemporary" art it's modernity and/or its religiousity...that is,
the effect the art making process has on the individual in her/his own human
development. From this POV, relevance has more to do with the success of each
person to come to grips with their own iconography which may be used to the
extent of their own skills and insight into themselves.
For me, the Art-Stars that emerge into the marketplace are less a measure of
greatness than a measure of the entire market-making apparatus of our media
hungry world. With this position, Art may aspire to spirituality to the degree
that the artist has achieved their own merger of skill and self-knowledge.
Determining the degree of that attainment from the audience's perspective is
likewise a function of achievement.
Of course, not all artists, and not all art, and certainly not all buyers
or critics care or are themselves concerned with these issues. To which I say,
to each their own.
Good arting!
tom
http://members.tripod.com/~TomLoretta
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
> > Nichole:
> > >so to speak: the most beautiful, and the biggest tradgety of art today
> > >is that anyone can do it... it's hurting the rest of the population that
> > >should do it.
(snip)
Nichole later:
> ... the guy's a fraud, and
> people in the 'art world' are afraid to speak up and tell him he's nothing
> more than a head case. why?
> this is the tragedy of the art world today.... and what i was refering to.
> > lauri:
> > ...If you visit exhibitions you see immediately the difference
> > between art and lookalikes,
> > even when the latter are made by known artists.
> > Empty words are empty words in any language.
Nichole:
> true. i could almost say that the above is an argument for my own.
lauri:
We seem to think very same way, and misunderstand in thousand different ways.
It a strange feeling.
OTOH maybe I exaggerated when I said that you can immediately
tell art from lookalikes. As you said, the critics cannot, anymore.
You can tell immediately, which works speak to you - a subjective judgement.
A critics must try to be less subjective, so he/she has less material
to base a valid judgement on.
Many AB EX people argue that it is the *process of creating* that counts.
It is a private experience and impossible to judge from outside.
( Yes, everyone is priviledged to do that)
That *process* is also independent of skill. In a bathroom I can sing
my hearts full of false notes. The mistake happens if I perform in
public. The music world has no reason to tolerate my "singing".
A performed song or a displayed sculpture must be judged by
its own merits. The process of painting falls in the domain of theatre,
and may or maynot be another art itself.
* * *
lauri:
> > Art is related to thought only by marriage, not by blood.
> > Art deals with something deeper, ideas beyond the words.
> > On some preconscious level, I do not refer to mere emotions here.
Nichole:
> i can't believe that. i can't believe that art is something more magical
> then the human condition itself...(snip)
lauri:
Again we speak of the same thing in different parlance.
The human condition is much more than thoughts. 99 per cent of our
brains deal with life support automata and trivia. The rest is the human
condition,
but again only a fraction of that is thoughts and emotion.
Our consciousnes, self-awareness is but a shallow layer of our mind.
You know how easy it is to fool oneself! The unconscious,
not in Freudian but in pure physiological sense is
major part of what and why we are.
I rather call it preconscious. There we need other means
of expression than everyday prose. Art, no mythical shit.
Nichole:
> you're bounding art up like some others do that it's a 'hands off' faith
> factor.
lauri:
Nothing like that, for me it is a form of communication,
more than self expression. My self esteem is not so high :-)
Nichole:
> art is nothing more
> than the natural reflection of human history... for all it's faults and
> epiphanies... but it's a dirty business.... and i would say that symbolism is
> *yes* one of the incarnations of art.
lauri:
My intention is to communicate my piece of human experience,
with or without symbols as my skills permit.
* * *
> > Nichole:
> > >sorry, but please explain to me this 'mental map,' as i may be
> > >opinionated (*gasp! me?*) but haven't shared in this vision.
> > lauri: Mental map is
> > ... my prejudice what is Art. Based on childhood experience.
> > We all have an unexpressed theory of art, be it
> > idealism
> > expressionism etc.
> ...
> > The enlightment came when I realized that my theory was not even my own,
> > simply a conditoned reflex: what is called Art/crap/kitch/oldfashioned.
Nichole:
> you lost me.... and i'll admit i was being sarcastic. there is no mental map
> i think, please explain this concretely or let's dismiss it from this
> conversation.
Lauri: I try once more to translate my thought above, to a parlance that may
correspond yours.
We LEARN the symbols, on all levels. We LEARN the connotation of the term art.
Different people in different places learn it diiferently. That is why
art noveau - a narrow shool of thought itself - was so different in every
country.
In the works that are honestly our own, we build on somekind of learned
foundation.
That I call a mental map. On one level the use of crucifix and phallos,
on another level use of chiaroscuro and impasto
Even on a level that painting is about colour on canvas - or shit and piss on
canvas.
* * *
> > Nichole:
> > > if it is not 'of,' and 'for' humanity, what then?
> > lauri:
> > Yeah, if it only were for humanity,
> > not of and for the inhuman society.
Nichole:
> please lauri, i'm enjoying this far too much to resort to flaming. your
> response was completely inappropriate ...
lauri:
and so completely misunderstood.
My response referred to the art establishment, as it was one of our main
concerns. I really wish art were of and for humanity, not for money and
publicity!
Yours,
and not only yours but all eavesdroppers' and
other participants of this NG.
. lauri
Helen Fleischer
wrote:
>So if "art is nothing more than the natural reflection of human history,"
>then the art world that you describe in the first paragraph is reflecting our
>present human condition. We may not like the product,
>but we don't like global warming,
>nuclear waste, over-population,
>animal extinction,
>(complete your personal list) either.
>
>Sure some people have jumped on the bandwagon, thinking "I can do that" and
>have produced junky stuff, but to dismiss the art world of today, we dismiss
>"the natural reflection of human history" as well.
Personally, I think the objection is to the limitations placed on that
reflection by an elite that's interested only in shock, in one fragment
of the mirror, to the exclusion of all other pieces and reflections. So
it seems to those who try to sell a different reflection, or want to see
more kinds of reflection available in the museums and art schools.
he...@min.net http://www.min.net/~helen
Helen "Halla" Fleischer,
Fantasy & Fiber Artist in Fairland, MD USA
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
on this:
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> So if "art is nothing more than the natural reflection of human history,"
>
> then the art world that you describe in the first paragraph is reflecting our
> present human condition. We may not like the product,
> but we don't like global warming,
> nuclear waste, over-population,
> animal extinction,
> (complete your personal list) either.
>
> Sure some people have jumped on the bandwagon, thinking "I can do that" and
> have produced junky stuff, but to dismiss the art world of today, we dismiss
> "the natural reflection of human history" as well.
heh. i'm so very glad someone caught this, because it's seems to be the
'hole' in the whole (*sad*) discertation that i rattle off about 'art' ... i
dismiss what is happening, but what might be happening might be the zenith of
'art today.'
but i remain resolved... and remain imho correct.... funny thing is, while
it is a paradox, it is not a flaw in the argument, and the more i think about
it...the better it confirms my whole feeling about the entity: 'art in human
history.'
here's the thing: i still believe that art is a natural reflection of human
history...as you quoted me marilyn.... and history, like art, often suffers
the redundancy and problems of their age. our particular age is marred (both
historically and artistically) on several levels, too many to count, but
let's simplify and say: the sensationalism of the media, the sensationalism
of art, the explosion of technology which might be surpassing our humanity,
the phlegmatic tendencies of people today to violence and brutality, etc....
over exposure of political correctness, the great mediocrity of our
intellectual elite... etc, etc....
... but does that mean that i should be idle in the creation of mediocre or
'bad' art in my generation?
here's the thing about the art world symptomatic of that too: contemporary
art; meaning artists of my generation are somewhat marred with the belief
that 'art for art's sake' is the ultimate tattered banner to fly... of course
there is the exception rather than the rule of people producing really
groovy things, but this is again, the exception rather than the rule... but
*this* generation of artists, *my* generation lacks (and that really does
include artists since the warhol days who fit into the category) ... the
uh... "oomph" of integrity.
they create for economics. they create for notoriety. they create because
they can. they copy or work without inspiration of individuality. no higher
than that.
now, should i accept that just because people have become despaired about
their own position, or lost integrity in the 'real creation' of things...
does that means i should accept it? should i remain idle and stand by while
this is happening in my time?
hardly no, though any rational man would. any rational man would say to
follow the tide and use what you can to your advantage. any rational man
would conform to the world he lives in.... and it is the irrational man who
excepts the world to conform to him.
therefore all progress is made by the irrational man. the art world is no
different.
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
he...@min.net wrote:
> Personally, I think the objection is to the limitations placed on that
> reflection by an elite that's interested only in shock, in one fragment
> of the mirror, to the exclusion of all other pieces and reflections. So
> it seems to those who try to sell a different reflection, or want to see
> more kinds of reflection available in the museums and art schools.
blak!
does anyone understand this?
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
> lauri:
> We seem to think very same way, and misunderstand in thousand different ways.
> It a strange feeling.
i think you're right on some level. i think you and i are children of the
same parents. we might be arguing the same thing. but how about that? odd.
do you feel the same way about contemporary art too?
lauri:
> OTOH maybe I exaggerated when I said that you can immediately
> tell art from lookalikes. As you said, the critics cannot, anymore.
> You can tell immediately, which works speak to you - a subjective judgement.
> A critics must try to be less subjective, so he/she has less material
> to base a valid judgement on.
exactly.... doesn't it make you pissed off sometimes?
> Many AB EX people argue that it is the *process of creating* that counts.
> It is a private experience and impossible to judge from outside.
> ( Yes, everyone is priviledged to do that)
agreed.
> That *process* is also independent of skill. In a bathroom I can sing
> my hearts full of false notes. The mistake happens if I perform in
> public. The music world has no reason to tolerate my "singing".
dunno about this though. there is somethin innately different about singing
in the shower and creation of 'art' ... i can see your point though. so let's
dissect it:
1. i sing in the shower, but i am not a skilled singer.
2. i enjoy singing.
3. just because i enjoy singing, doesn't make me ready to be a rock star.
or
1. i like to paint, but am not a skilled painter, nor have i the faculties to
create something that transcends time. 2. i still enjoy painting. 3. just
because i enjoy painting, does make me ready to be an artist.
... while the music world has a very real way of discriminating the 'bad'
from the 'good' ... that being the "ear" ... the art world seems to lack
this. most people these days say: 'just because i don't get it, or i don't
like it... doesn't mean it isn't art."
so how do we rectify this? i say bull to that, i say everyone has their say.
> lauri:
> > > Art is related to thought only by marriage, not by blood.
> > > Art deals with something deeper, ideas beyond the words.
> > > On some preconscious level, I do not refer to mere emotions here.
>
> Nichole:
> > i can't believe that. i can't believe that art is something more magical
> > then the human condition itself...(snip)
>
> lauri:
> Again we speak of the same thing in different parlance.
> The human condition is much more than thoughts. 99 per cent of our
> brains deal with life support automata and trivia. The rest is the human
> condition,
> but again only a fraction of that is thoughts and emotion.
> Our consciousnes, self-awareness is but a shallow layer of our mind.
> You know how easy it is to fool oneself! The unconscious,
> not in Freudian but in pure physiological sense is
> major part of what and why we are.
> I rather call it preconscious. There we need other means
> of expression than everyday prose. Art, no mythical shit.
ok, i can see this, but i can not exempt the brain in the creation of art...
you can't paint these days on 'feeling' alone... or atleast you shouldn't.
there are some very real things to address and people are more educated then
ever before. besides, painting from 'feeling' alone is an empty and very
self-promoting tactic which had it's day but is useless now.
let me put it this way: we expect our doctors to be fully trained or we sue
them for malpractice.... we expect our lawyers and politicians to help write
the code we live and are judged by... so why do we not expect the same
standards from our artists?
how come or artists, who are expected and somehow endowed with a divine image
of creation *not* expected to be worldly educated and fully technically
trained in their field?
sure there are a handful of great artists in the past who somehow transcended
this rule, but for them there are the millions of others who were worldly,
daVinci'esque... men and women of the renaissance.
why not now when our population is more literate, more educated, more
socially and politically powerful then they ever were before? how come
artists have somehow developed inversely to this?
> Nichole:
> > you're bounding art up like some others do that it's a 'hands off' faith
> > factor.
>
> lauri:
> Nothing like that, for me it is a form of communication,
> more than self expression. My self esteem is not so high :-)
heh. mine is, but then again, i'm cute.
> lauri:
> My intention is to communicate my piece of human experience,
> with or without symbols as my skills permit.
heh, i like this. both of us arguing so it suits our argument, not how it
really seems to fit. regardless of *your* art... are not symbols an
incarnation of art?
> Lauri:
> We LEARN the symbols, on all levels. We LEARN the connotation of the term art.
> Different people in different places learn it diiferently. That is why
> art noveau - a narrow shool of thought itself - was so different in every
> country.
>
> In the works that are honestly our own, we build on somekind of learned
> foundation.
>
> That I call a mental map. On one level the use of crucifix and phallos,
> on another level use of chiaroscuro and impasto
> Even on a level that painting is about colour on canvas - or shit and piss on
> canvas.
hm. ok, i get this, but i don't feel like i can respond. sure, i understand
you, i even submit you are right, but i'm feeling... a bit... i don't know...
like this is maybe irrelevant?
or let's say that ok: then if we have this common ground, should we not also
use it to make us better artists and better relate to the world at large?
> > > Nichole:
> > > > if it is not 'of,' and 'for' humanity, what then?
>
> > > lauri:
> > > Yeah, if it only were for humanity,
> > > not of and for the inhuman society.
>
>
> My response referred to the art establishment, as it was one of our main
> concerns. I really wish art were of and for humanity, not for money and
> publicity!
agreed. let's burn down the house!
heh.
nichole
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
> lauri:
> We seem to think very same way, and misunderstand in thousand different ways.
> It a strange feeling.
i think you're right on some level. i think you and i are children of the
same parents. we might be arguing the same thing. but how about that? odd.
do you feel the same way about contemporary art too?
lauri:
> OTOH maybe I exaggerated when I said that you can immediately
> tell art from lookalikes. As you said, the critics cannot, anymore.
> You can tell immediately, which works speak to you - a subjective judgement.
> A critics must try to be less subjective, so he/she has less material
> to base a valid judgement on.
exactly.... doesn't it make you pissed off sometimes?
> Many AB EX people argue that it is the *process of creating* that counts.
> It is a private experience and impossible to judge from outside.
> ( Yes, everyone is priviledged to do that)
agreed.
> That *process* is also independent of skill. In a bathroom I can sing
> my hearts full of false notes. The mistake happens if I perform in
> public. The music world has no reason to tolerate my "singing".
dunno about this though. there is somethin innately different about singing
in the shower and creation of 'art' ... i can see your point though. so let's
dissect it:
1. i sing in the shower, but i am not a skilled singer.
2. i enjoy singing.
3. just because i enjoy singing, doesn't make me ready to be a rock star.
or
1. i like to paint, but am not a skilled painter, nor have i the faculties to
create something that transcends time. 2. i still enjoy painting. 3. just
because i enjoy painting, does make me ready to be an artist.
... while the music world has a very real way of discriminating the 'bad'
from the 'good' ... that being the "ear" ... the art world seems to lack
this. most people these days say: 'just because i don't get it, or i don't
like it... doesn't mean it isn't art."
so how do we rectify this? i say bull to that, i say everyone has their say.
> lauri:
> > > Art is related to thought only by marriage, not by blood.
> > > Art deals with something deeper, ideas beyond the words.
> > > On some preconscious level, I do not refer to mere emotions here.
>
> Nichole:
> > i can't believe that. i can't believe that art is something more magical
> > then the human condition itself...(snip)
>
> lauri:
> Again we speak of the same thing in different parlance.
> The human condition is much more than thoughts. 99 per cent of our
> brains deal with life support automata and trivia. The rest is the human
> condition,
> but again only a fraction of that is thoughts and emotion.
> Our consciousnes, self-awareness is but a shallow layer of our mind.
> You know how easy it is to fool oneself! The unconscious,
> not in Freudian but in pure physiological sense is
> major part of what and why we are.
> I rather call it preconscious. There we need other means
> of expression than everyday prose. Art, no mythical shit.
ok, i can see this, but i can not exempt the brain in the creation of art...
you can't paint these days on 'feeling' alone... or atleast you shouldn't.
there are some very real things to address and people are more educated then
ever before. besides, painting from 'feeling' alone is an empty and very
self-promoting tactic which had it's day but is useless now.
let me put it this way: we expect our doctors to be fully trained or we sue
them for malpractice.... we expect our lawyers and politicians to help write
the code we live and are judged by... so why do we not expect the same
standards from our artists?
how come or artists, who are expected and somehow endowed with a divine image
of creation *not* expected to be worldly educated and fully technically
trained in their field?
sure there are a handful of great artists in the past who somehow transcended
this rule, but for them there are the millions of others who were worldly,
daVinci'esque... men and women of the renaissance.
why not now when our population is more literate, more educated, more
socially and politically powerful then they ever were before? how come
artists have somehow developed inversely to this?
> Nichole:
> > you're bounding art up like some others do that it's a 'hands off' faith
> > factor.
>
> lauri:
> Nothing like that, for me it is a form of communication,
> more than self expression. My self esteem is not so high :-)
heh. mine is, but then again, i'm cute.
> lauri:
> My intention is to communicate my piece of human experience,
> with or without symbols as my skills permit.
heh, i like this. both of us arguing so it suits our argument, not how it
really seems to fit. regardless of *your* art... are not symbols an
incarnation of art?
> Lauri:
> We LEARN the symbols, on all levels. We LEARN the connotation of the term art.
> Different people in different places learn it diiferently. That is why
> art noveau - a narrow shool of thought itself - was so different in every
> country.
>
> In the works that are honestly our own, we build on somekind of learned
> foundation.
>
> That I call a mental map. On one level the use of crucifix and phallos,
> on another level use of chiaroscuro and impasto
> Even on a level that painting is about colour on canvas - or shit and piss on
> canvas.
hm. ok, i get this, but i don't feel like i can respond. sure, i understand
you, i even submit you are right, but i'm feeling... a bit... i don't know...
like this is maybe irrelevant?
or let's say that ok: then if we have this common ground, should we not also
use it to make us better artists and better relate to the world at large?
> > > Nichole:
> > > > if it is not 'of,' and 'for' humanity, what then?
>
> > > lauri:
> > > Yeah, if it only were for humanity,
> > > not of and for the inhuman society.
>
>
> My response referred to the art establishment, as it was one of our main
> concerns. I really wish art were of and for humanity, not for money and
> publicity!
agreed. let's burn down the house!
heh.
nichole
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
important other than my own curiosity), i'm now ready to respond to this:
tlo...@cci-29palms.com wrote:
> Dear Lauri and Nicole, Thank you both for one of the most engaging
> conversations I've read in a long time. I've followed it over the last month.
> Lauri's enthusiasm for delving into the genuine nature of her spiritual
> involvement with life and art is impressive and I find Nicole's reserve and
> insight a beacon into the same matter.
oh man, that is a real kick in the ass since i'm usually "the wacky one."
heh.
> Forgive me if I'm butting into what may have become a private conversation,
newsgroups by definition are not private. i suppose if lauri and i wanted it
to be private, we would have taken it to email. however, isn't it more
important to have these discussions in the open?
i'm going to have to split up your post tom in order to address it.
> but I'd like to add something of my own which places less significance on
> "Art/Society" and more on the individual. Perhaps this is what really gives
> "modern/contemporary" art it's modernity and/or its religiousity...that is,
> the effect the art making process has on the individual in her/his own human
> development. From this POV, relevance has more to do with the success of each
> person to come to grips with their own iconography which may be used to the
> extent of their own skills and insight into themselves.
this above involves several issues, here's what i think:
first: the individual in the whole of the art world
1. when you take art on the personal level, you are no longer addressing
it's effect on the outside world. we see ... let's say... michelangelo's
david... we know he has some issues about his sexuality... but does that
degrade or uplift the piece itself? not for me, and i would say that the
general masses as a whole aren't knowledgeable enough to even be able to
comment.
2. (cont...) i would go so far as to say that the general masses know that
'david' is great, but not really why... in fact, i would say that many art
students only know so much as to regurgitate what they've been taught in
school... and little else.
3. (cont...) this generally makes the individual's plight only a human
interest story to many in the general masses, and really unimportant to the
whole. we know so much about da vinci and michelangelo, but so little about
them: the individuals. same with van gogh and picasso... generally we only
know slips and papers about them.
4. i'll grant you that my opinion is not very romantic or indulgent.
next: the development of the individual as an artist.
A. here is where the real paradox comes in, because although the 'art world'
in general isn't historically concerned with the individual over the art,
there is a reason for this.
ok, this is hard, so follow me here:
1. the art justifies the artist, not the other way around. that means that
simply because i exists does not make everything i do art ... or even good
art.
2. however, the more i struggle to attain that fluid and tainted thing called
'art' .. the more i think and plan and educated myself in both mind and
technical skill, the better my art is.
3. the better my art is, the better i am affirmed in being an 'artist.'
it's a bit simple, but necessarily so in order to make the level explanation.
B. now, here's the paradox of our day: in complete contrast to previous
centuries, we have somehow fell into the trap that the more 'notoriety' the
artist has, the better he must be, right?
i can't bring it further than this without getting angry.
... but where does 'you' and 'i' the individuals fall in? i could not even
fathom to tell you because 'you' as an individual is not my domain to comment
upon. do we really struggle with religious tidings of history? do we really
have to fight to cast off the lessons or symbols of the past? i would say
that this is up to you and different for everyone.
as an individual, you have that right.
> For me, the Art-Stars that emerge into the marketplace are less a measure of
> greatness than a measure of the entire market-making apparatus of our media
> hungry world.
in the contemporary art world, i do whole-heartedly agree with you.
like i said: the spice girls had a bigger opening record than the beatles in
terms of short and timely sales. who is the better artist?
>With this position, Art may aspire to spirituality to the degree
> that the artist has achieved their own merger of skill and self-knowledge.
i wonder, this particular statement seems to be off-track from the above?
> Determining the degree of that attainment from the audience's perspective is
> likewise a function of achievement.
ok, i have no problem with other people liking someone's art... infact i
think that's wonderful.... but ok, not essential.
whew! i hope the above made sense, my mind's a bit off center today.
Marilyn
There was no hole in your arguement, rather it came full circle like a
good conversation.
Now you leave me with two oxymorons:
contemporary history
irrational argument
I recommend the book, just out "Most Art Sucks" - its a compilation of
the art journal "Coagula" (past 5 years). or try www.coagula.com. They are
more or less saying the same thing that you are saying.
The problem we are all having, I think, is trying to understand our own times.
Is it possible to understand the times as we live in them? Or is that to be
left to historians?
a bientot,
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
> In article <36716675...@news.min.net>,
> he...@min.net wrote:
> > Personally, I think the objection is to the limitations placed on that
> > reflection by an elite that's interested only in shock, in one fragment
> > of the mirror, to the exclusion of all other pieces and reflections. So
> > it seems to those who try to sell a different reflection, or want to see
> > more kinds of reflection available in the museums and art schools.
>
> blak!
>
> does anyone understand this?
>
> nichole
>
Hmmm no, but it reminds me of an old poem,
"and now as broken glasses* show
a thousand lesser faces, so
my rags of heart..."
*"glasses" old word for mirrors
M.
tlo...@cci-29palms.com
I find myself searching for a position or a reply that matches the depth of
your detailed response to my posting. I certainly agree with your statement
that it's the art (stupid!) that justifies the artist, not the other way
around. And I'm certain that Michaelangelo had trouble with his sexuality, as
did the Pope that hired him, and as do the populations that observe the work,
and as I do too. Maybe this struggle with sexuality is really the nature of
spirituality in art. It wouldn't surprise me. I mean, to someone who isn't a
Christian, and who doesn't believe, except as metaphor, in the God that the
Sistine portrays, the work is more of an example of artful delusion than
spiritual uplift.
During this last summer I read a couple of Vivian Gornick's books dealing
with the curve of personal development as it relates to art, literature and
social progress. She's a feminist only because much of her work looks
directly at the female condition through history, but she speaks entirely for
both genders, or rather for the people we are that isn't a matter of gender
but for consciousness itself. She was convincing in her assessment of people
being very messed up and in need of some serious self-development.
Now, how all this gets applied to art, I'm still lost. For example, yesterday
I happened into a private showing of a neighbor's art work. It was a work on
paper. The paper is a heavy-duty watercolor scroll about 4ft x 8ft. There
were two giant worm figures that met in the middle. All around them was an
incredibly detailed and minute background of tiny hieroglyphics. The entire
sheet was covered with these itty-bitty images. She said that it was the
story of opposites struggling in an environment of God and that all those
incredibly detailed idiosyncratic hieroglyphics were the story of her own
communion with God. She said that her agent may have found a buyer for this
work and she's expecting a check for ten thousand dollars in the mail. She
was elated.
I kept quiet because to me it looked like the work of a psychopath that told
the story of her illness and not her religious attainment. But I'm not
expecting any checks in the mail, either.
I just don't know what's going on, anymore. I think I'll look for some more
answers in this thread as time goes on.
Cheers,
tom
http://members.tripod.com/~TomLoretta
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
******
Re: Religious art
nbeaul2880
Nichole:
> do you feel the same way about contemporary art too?
lauri:
I feel very little about contemporary PoMo art.
There are some things I like, and much that I ignore.
Minimalism attracts me for some reason,
I love Esher and MAgritte but conceptualism in general
falls below that intellectual level.
Only one work, The Buddha looking himself in television
by nam June Paik, is really important to me.
lauri:
> > A critics must try to be less subjective, so he/she has less material
> > to base a valid judgement on.
Nichole:
> exactly.... doesn't it make you pissed off sometimes?
lauri:
Not at all, I am a diletant, I need no fame or promotion.
Let anyone who needs it have her/his fifteen minutes of celebrity.
Once more:
> lauri:
> > > Art is related to thought only by marriage, not by blood.
> > > Art deals with something deeper, ideas beyond the words.
> > > On some preconscious level, I do not refer to mere emotions here.
(Snip)
Nichole:
> ok, i can see this, but i can not exempt the brain in the creation of art...
> you can't paint these days on 'feeling' alone... or atleast you shouldn't.
lauri:
I have excluded emotions/feelings twice already in this context.
But in practical work I am hindered by too much mental control.
In the part sipped abowe I did not refer to skill.
Only when one has acquired the skill, then the best work is done
with "spinal cord". Not with feelings, nor by conscious construction.
The best works just come out.
Training means swet and blood and dicipline. After the training
you can let it go.
Nichole:
> so why do we not expect the same
> standards from our artists?
Lauri:
Yes I do.
I 'm not speaking for NYC 'fine arts elite'
luckily they are far enough from here.
lauri's footnote: (referring to previous discussions,
I do not think art died with Ingres. There are works
of professional quality among contemporary artists, too.
end-of-footnote)
Nichole:
> why not now when our population is more literate, more educated, more
> socially and politically powerful then they ever were before? how come
> artists have somehow developed inversely to this?
lauri:
I do not know. The population is more literate - do they read better books?
...more educated - are they less prejudiced?
Is it television that sucks the mental power from people?
marilyn to Nichole:
> then the art world that you describe in the first paragraph is reflecting our
> present human condition. We may not like the product,
> but we don't like global warming,
> nuclear waste, over-population,
> animal extinction,
> (complete your personal list) either.
Maybe Marilyn has it right; the artists are only more sensitive
deeper in the degradation of humanity.
Nichole:
> ... but then again, i'm cute.
lauri:
Glad to hear that
Nichole:
> regardless of *your* art... are not symbols an
> incarnation of art?
lauri: No objection, as long as you do not ask for
general acceptance for your invented, private symbols.
Symbols are conventions, something I called mental map.
Nichole:
> or let's say that ok: then if we have this common ground, should we not also
> use it to make us better artists and better relate to the world at large?
lauri:
that cuts down the time I can devote to this conversation.
Necessary but unhappy conclusion.
Nichole:
let's burn down the house!
lauri:
Why bother, we have better things to do
and we can do better things.
> he...@min.net wrote:
>> Personally, I think the objection is to the limitations placed on that
>> reflection by an elite that's interested only in shock, in one fragment
>> of the mirror, to the exclusion of all other pieces and reflections. So
>> it seems to those who try to sell a different reflection, or want to see
>> more kinds of reflection available in the museums and art schools.
Nichole:
> blak! does anyone understand this?
lauri:
surprise, this poetic piece makes sense to me
I even agree
Nichole wrote to tloret:
>ok, this is hard, so follow me here:
>1. the art justifies the artist, not the other way around. that means that
>simply because i exists does not make everything i do art ... or even good
>art.
lauri: Even if I have strong genuine feelings to express
when I paint or sing in the bathroom
...
>3. the better my art is, the better i am affirmed in being an 'artist.'
Lauri: Unfortunately I cannot give any guarantee for that
Vestigia terrent.
>B. now, here's the paradox of our day: in complete contrast to previous
>centuries, we have somehow fell into the trap that the more 'notoriety' the
>artist has, the better he must be, right?
lauri:
In market value. Even in curiosity value in future books of art history.
Their artistic influence remains to be seen later.
i can't bring it further than this without getting angry.
tloret:
>> For me, the Art-Stars that emerge into the marketplace are less a measure of
>> greatness than a measure of the entire market-making apparatus of our media
>> hungry world.
Nichole:
>in the contemporary art world, i do whole-heartedly agree with you.
Tloret:
>> Determining the degree of that attainment from the audience's perspective is
>> likewise a function of achievement.
Nichole:
>ok, i have no problem with other people liking someone's art... infact i
>think that's wonderful.... but ok, not essential.
lauri:
here I disagree, Art is supposed to mean something to the audience.
In Nichole's example not only entertainment like Spice Girls
but like Beatles.
- lauri
Helen Fleischer
>In article <36716675...@news.min.net>,
> he...@min.net wrote:
>> Personally, I think the objection is to the limitations placed on that
>> reflection by an elite that's interested only in shock, in one fragment
>> of the mirror, to the exclusion of all other pieces and reflections. So
>> it seems to those who try to sell a different reflection, or want to see
>> more kinds of reflection available in the museums and art schools.
>
>blak!
>
>does anyone understand this?
>
A comment was made that art holds up a mirror to society, then a
complaint that so much of the current art in the museums is of the shock
value genre. It was suggested that such art is still a mirror of our
society. I suggest that what people are complaining about is that such
art is merely one fragment of mirror held at one particular angle and
the rest of the possible reflections of society are being excluded.
nbeau...@my-dejanews.com
> A comment was made that art holds up a mirror to society, then a
> complaint that so much of the current art in the museums is of the shock
> value genre. It was suggested that such art is still a mirror of our
> society. I suggest that what people are complaining about is that such
> art is merely one fragment of mirror held at one particular angle and
> the rest of the possible reflections of society are being excluded.
really? or is it simply the reverberation of uncreative artists who simply
can't think of anything better to do?
i was not aware that 'shock art' was invented in the 90s... oh the revelation!
look, let me put it this way: i exist now, i am a member of this society,
like a disfunctional society i am both an administrator and a slave to this
society. if i exist now, should i not speak up about what i believe?
br...@wralaw.com
he...@min.net wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 22:01:26 GMT, nbeau...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> A comment was made that art holds up a mirror to society, then a
> complaint that so much of the current art in the museums is of the shock
> value genre.
To a certain extent post-avant gard did try to shock, as an attempt
to aleviate their own boredom. The neo-avant guard is becoming more
weary of this since this type of artwork is obviously contrived.
What has interested me is that the mindset of the post-modern, post-
logical-irrational critic, is exactly the same as that of an
underground punk rock teenager who hoards their culture and dominates
it under an inneffible, imperialistic, hyper-individualistic, and
moderately non-objective, yet eumentic, sense of esthetic. The
downfall of their reasoning has always been a reaction against what
is popular, which leads the meme of art to always reject it's best
Ideas when they become popular since they always become the victims
of rote and insincere replication. The second and most fatal flaw
of the post-irrational and post-logical critic is that the art they
choose is the product of philosophy and not of individual artist,
and that that philosophy was anti-philosophy, of correctly being
against the passe' status quo.
Institutionalized rebellion is pretentious conformity
Lie is at the center of Belief,,,
Sentimentality is often used to justify deleterious circumstances,,,
Dan Fox
Most art does suck. So does most music, dance, fiction, etc. Do you
recall Sturgeon's Law? - 95 percent of everything is crap.
Of course, it's that magical five percent that makes life worthwhile.
I enjoy reading your posts - and I ordered the book.
Dan
Marilyn
>
> Marilyn -
>
> Most art does suck. So does most music, dance, fiction, etc. Do you
> recall Sturgeon's Law? - 95 percent of everything is crap.
Marilyn writes:
Hi Dan,
No I don't recall that law, but I think we are forced to constantly
discriminate and eliminate. Seek the hidden treasures,
& beware of slogans. Like if you look up on a starry night could
you still say "95 percent of that is crap?"
> Of course, it's that magical five percent that makes life worthwhile.
how sweet it is!
> I enjoy reading your posts - and I ordered the book.
>
> Dan
You have discriminating taste (about the book, I mean) since
David Bowie has recently requested to review the Coagula Art Journal
on Bowie's web site.
a votre sante,
Marilyn
Dan Fox
Good point about the beauty of starry nights - Probably Ted Sturgeon (a
science and science fiction writer from about the 1940s through 60s, I
think) was referring to human endeavor. I share your feelings about
slogans, but this one was too good to pass up!
I don't get to this group (or any other) much - too busy - I probably
should make the time. I'm a painter living in Boston. How about you?
Thanks again for the Coagula tip.
Later,
Dan
Marilyn
>
> Marilyn -
>
> science and science fiction writer from about the 1940s through 60s, I
> think) was referring to human endeavor. I share your feelings about
> slogans, but this one was too good to pass up!
>
> I don't get to this group (or any other) much - too busy - I probably
> should make the time. I'm a painter living in Boston. How about you?
>
> Thanks again for the Coagula tip.
>
> Later,
>
> Dan
Hi Dan,
I'm a painter living in Canada.
You are probably too busy actually painting to read newsgroups.
Marilyn
Jiri Borsky
> I don't get to this group (or any other) much - too busy - I probably
> should make the time.
Refreshing reply. Any chance of seeing your stuff on the net?
>I'm a painter living in Boston. How about you?
I am a painter who has visited Boston, liked it, but lives in England.
Jiri Borsky
--
remove all zzz from address
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/borsky/