Top Artists of the 20th Century!
Kay
centuries' end. So, I thought I'd see what people have to say (their
preferences) about the artists of this specific century.
Kay
My list isn't composed yet, but besides the obvious:
1. Picasso
I'd include (to begin)
2. Marcel Duchamp
ran...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ran...@my-deja.com
mark webber
(snip)
> My list isn't composed yet, but besides the obvious:
>
> 1. Picasso
>
> I'd include (to begin)
>
> 2. Marcel Duchamp
I'll play, Kay! Why not? Let's be festive!
(I'm only thinking painters, by the way.)
Cezanne (he did live until 1906)
Matisse
Picasso
Braque
Derain
Klee
Mondrian
Bonnard
Balthus
Dekooning
Yes, only one American - and he was Dutch.
If there was room, I'd add Soutine, Duchamp, Gorky and Pollock.
I'll add that while lists of this sort are silly, mine is above criticism
and can't be disputed because it is perfect.
Top ten of the previous nine centuries, while we're at it?
Giotto
Piero
Michelangelo
Titian
Caravaggio
Vermeer
Poussin
Watteau
Chardin
Corot
Again, I'd love to be able to add Massaccio, Raphael, Ambrogio
Lorenzetti, Duccio, Cimmabue, Carpaccio, Bellini, Mantegna, Giorgione,
Veronese, Tintoretto, El Greco, Rembrandt, Latours, Claude, Fragonard,
Courbet, Monet and a few others, but there isn't room for even these
geniuses in a top ten. That's the game, right?
Ok, fire away!
And happy new year!
Mark
mesken
<webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Kay wrote:
>
>(snip)
>> My list isn't composed yet, but besides the obvious:
>>
>> 1. Picasso
>>
>> I'd include (to begin)
>>
>> 2. Marcel Duchamp
>
Duchamp was a bloody copyist :-)
>
>I'll play, Kay! Why not? Let's be festive!
>
>(I'm only thinking painters, by the way.)
>
Me too
>Cezanne (he did live until 1906)
>Matisse
>Picasso
>Braque
>Derain
>Klee
>Mondrian
>Bonnard
>Balthus
>Dekooning
>
>Yes, only one American - and he was Dutch.
>
Ofcourse he didn't tell he was expelled from the Netherlands because
he couldn't draw women ;-)
>
>If there was room, I'd add Soutine, Duchamp, Gorky and Pollock.
>
>
>I'll add that while lists of this sort are silly, mine is above criticism
>and can't be disputed because it is perfect.
>
He! You must be delusional. I'm the final authority here :-)
In no particular order:
Alberto Vargas
M.C. Escher
Norman Rockwell
Salvador Dali
Edgar Degas (he died in 1917)
Henry Tanner
Olivia de Berardinis
Simon Bisley
George Bellows
Frank Frazetta
More americans this time and a more "political correct" list ;-)
Brian Shapiro
It's interesting to note that Bouguereau died in the same year as Cezanne,
and in fact can be considered a '20th century artist' because he completed
several major works after the century began.
--Brian Shapiro
mark webber
> It's interesting to note that Bouguereau (snip)
Bouguereau and Frazetta and Dali and Rockwell.... come now boys, try to
overcome your cultural retardation. When you see how insipid this trash is
let me know and then we will have a discussion.
We were, I believe, talking about "the greatest art", not the "most
masturbatory illustration."
And unless you work very hard at preventing a bonfire of the inanities,
unless you *insist* on retaining a love for the childish, you will outgrow
this pap. It is a natural, nearly algorithmic process. Don't fight it.
And most important: don't fuck with my list. It is absolutely correct and
you would do well to study it and agree.
Happiest of holidays!
Mark
br...@wralaw.com
Of the artists we know about this century without a doubt Dali, is
the top artist... His skill and insight is high enough to even
out-obscure the intelligencia!
Bryn,
Jean-Jacq...@ubuwanadoo.fr
>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:35:01 EDT, mark webber
><webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Kay wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>> My list isn't composed yet, but besides the obvious:
>>>
>>> 1. Picasso
>>>
>>> I'd include (to begin)
>>>
>>> 2. Marcel Duchamp
>>
>Duchamp was a bloody copyist :-)
Duchamp give the liberty to art.
after him, no more regulations.
What a pity that nobody make nothing of this liberty.
--
UBU
Les hommes sont comme les abeilles,
leurs produits valent mieux qu'eux.
br...@wralaw.com
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> (I'm only thinking painters, by the way.)
> Cezanne (he did live until 1906)
> Matisse
> Picasso
> Braque
> Derain
> Klee
> Mondrian
> Bonnard
> Balthus
> Dekooning
> Yes, only one American - and he was Dutch.
> If there was room, I'd add Soutine, Duchamp, Gorky and Pollock.
Well this proves my point conclusively, Dali's power this century
has been so intense that he is intentionally excluded in an attempt
to recalibrate the modern meter of art... But Dali (and others)
did exist thus the attempt will fail in less than 1,000 years
when the Idea of mid-20ths century art is replaced by late 2nd
millenial art... Who today cares about a poorly cut piece of
greco-roman art, who's profundity in its time was exclusively its
pooor craftsmenship?
> I'll add that while lists of this sort are silly, mine is above
criticism
> and can't be disputed because it is perfect.
> Top ten of the previous nine centuries, while we're at it?
> Giotto
> Piero
> Michelangelo
> Titian
> Caravaggio
> Vermeer
> Poussin
> Watteau
> Chardin
> Corot
> Again, I'd love to be able to add Massaccio, Raphael, Ambrogio
> Lorenzetti, Duccio, Cimmabue, Carpaccio, Bellini, Mantegna, Giorgione,
> Veronese, Tintoretto, El Greco, Rembrandt, Latours, Claude, Fragonard,
> Courbet, Monet and a few others, but there isn't room for even these
> geniuses in a top ten. That's the game, right?
Great, great, but which artist this century can hang next to one of
these artists and still have it be Modern... So far it is only
Dali, other modern artists appear to lack skill, newer photorealists
are +really by our standards postomodern+ landscape painters like
Wyeth are timeless, not modern... Dali has become the central
phobia of modern and postmodern art...
Never say his name again for it is always present!
> Ok, fire away!
> And happy new year!
> Mark
Bryn Ayers
br...@wralaw.com
> > It's interesting to note that Bouguereau (snip)
> Bouguereau and Frazetta and Dali and Rockwell....
I pretty sure Deli focusses on Rockwell to piss the novelle art
establishment off! Ingres young painters grow up to be Bougereau!
I was never afraid of Bougereau, he is just french, simply put
if most mainstream impressionists had his talent they would fit
neatly between Ingres and Bougereau.
I spent time in the 80's listening to punk bands who once they
finally learned to play their instruments turned into wimpy
new wave or heavy-metal cockrock;
> come now boys, try to
> overcome your cultural retardation. When you see how insipid
> this trash is
> let me know and then we will have a discussion.
> Happiest of holidays!
>
> Mark
To nothing much happening on the Millenium!
Bryn
lake
half of the century. Not a vote cast for Warhol or Stella or Richter,
nor any of the other post-fifties folks.
Is that because they're too close to see properly, or what?
- 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!
Erik A. Mattila
> More americans this time and a more "political correct" list ;-)
PC is it. OK...
1. Tjisimmie Begay (Navajo Sandpainter mentor of J. Pollock)
2. Tonbago Kas Tuanga (Bene maskmaker ripped-off by Picasso)
3. N'huvi Bongaga (Sepik River carver maestro of Nolde & Kirschner)
4. Boolabon Billy (Arunta painter influence on Klee)
5. Abraham Tish (Tewa hunter who gave G. O'Keffe her first Bison skull)
6. Farmer Ulakakin (Ukranian housepainter who inspired Kandinsky)
7. Lamumga Koi (Congolese nail-fetish mentor of Francis Bacon)
8. Francisco Huerta (Mx.City Pulqueria muralist maestro of Diego Rivera)
9. Efran Arnaud (Basque fur teacup ceramicist inspiration of Man Ray)
10. Marshmello Mariachi Yogurt (Bengali inventor of the 'zip')
But really, if culture isn't responsible for great art, how come all these
lists are 'coincedentally' western? Does this mean that the rest of the
world just stands by as witness?
Erik
br...@wralaw.com
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> PC is it. OK...
> But really, if culture isn't responsible for great art, how come all
these
> lists are 'coincedentally' western? Does this mean that the rest of
the
> world just stands by as witness?
Millenial time constraints is a Western(mid-eastern) concept, since
the Easter Culture is 5,000 rather than 2,000 years old they don't
count to us...
Besides there could easily be an alien Culture somewhere in the
Universe making art right now... Who then is the "artist of this
century"?
> Erik
A happy troll!
Tomi Holmberg
> Besides there could easily be an alien Culture somewhere in the
> Universe making art right now... Who then is the "artist of this
> century"?
sure, there are many.
i see "artist of this century" as nothing but a proof of good marketing
forces. when it's about art, i think it's equal to kindergarten's
competition "who's dad have the biggest jack?"
--
Art Suxors!!
www.sci.fi/~tomppa1
ran...@my-deja.com
Looking back, some of the greatest artists of Western culture (Giotto,
Michelangelo, Picasso, to name a few) are not perhaps exemplary examples
of conceiving an original idea or accomplishment. Rather, they
possessed a brilliant ability to synthesize - to acknowledge the pieces
of the puzzle, asses their relationships, and assemble a truly unique
and revealing hybrid - a blending of different cultures and influences.
It’s unfortunate that our historical perspective is limited by cultural
bias. Reviewing the topical “Best of -Most Influential” lists that seem
to develop towards the end of the century, the absence of women and
Non-Western figures is absolutely astonishing. Realizing this enormous
deficit places our ability to accurately asses history at an extreme
disadvantage. We can only evaluate that which we actually know to be
fact. Now that does not alleviate our responsibility to pursue
alternatives, but regrettably our hands are tied
mark webber
> It's remarkable that most of the painters mentioned are from the first
> half of the century. Not a vote cast for Warhol or Stella or Richter,
> nor any of the other post-fifties folks.
>
> Is that because they're too close to see properly, or what?
>
> - Lake
No, they simply aren't good enough to endure. I mean Warhol obviously had
an important effect on art, whether we like it or not, but the other two
don't even have that credit on their resumes. For me, Pop art is too
gimmicky to take seriously. I understand that it is important to a lot of
people but to me, when put along side the great art of the last 27 odd
centuries, it seems very insignificant and even a little sad.
lake
Surely there is at least one painter, post 1950, who merits a place
along side the masters! For heavens sake there are at least a dozen
between 1900 and 1950 - and if not, then maybe we better start
wondering what's happening.
mdeli
<webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Brian Shapiro and Mesken babbled on such-like:
>
>> It's interesting to note that Bouguereau (snip)
>
>Bouguereau and Frazetta and Dali and Rockwell.... come now boys, try to
>overcome your cultural retardation. When you see how insipid this trash is
>let me know and then we will have a discussion.
>
>We were, I believe, talking about "the greatest art", not the "most
>masturbatory illustration."
For someone who paints third rate sub-"mastrubatory illustration"
barely able to make it in a furniture store, I can understand your
position. Your self proclaimed cultural superiority is just plain
vanity.
Strange, when I visit poster stores, a place where people are able to
express an honest opinion, the artists of "cultural retardation" are
ever present while the stuff favored by Modern Art theology is almost
all conspicuously absent.
>
>And unless you work very hard at preventing a bonfire of the inanities,
>unless you *insist* on retaining a love for the childish, you will outgrow
>this pap. It is a natural, nearly algorithmic process. Don't fight it.
>
>And most important: don't fuck with my list. It is absolutely correct and
>you would do well to study it and agree.
Better look at his painting and you will see why he imagines you will
eventually agree.
BTW Rockwell is coming to the Gugg. and Dali hangs in most every major
museum to the utter embarrasment of artzy fartzy curators and our net
intellectual giant, Webber.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:41:08 +0100, mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:35:01 EDT, mark webber wrote
>>Duchamp was a bloody copyist :-)
>
>
>Duchamp give the liberty to art.
>
>after him, no more regulations.
>
>What a pity that nobody make nothing of this liberty.
>--
>UBU
Duchamp was indeed original and little else. However all originality
in Antiquated Modern Art ceased by 1923. Endless incompetent
repitition and Artspeak is all that followed.
mdeli
> Dali's power this century
>has been so intense that he is intentionally excluded in an attempt
>to recalibrate the modern meter of art...
The best examples are illustrated by books with long drawn out
theories on surrealism which make no mention of Dali.
Dali presents Modern Art curators with a painful delema (Dalinoia)
since they have so far managed to keep out most all work exhibiting
really superior qualities except for Dali. . They know the danger of
hanging artwork which exhibits masterly competence along side a
century's worth of technical failure posing as masterpieces.
I have followed this through time at the Lourdes of Modern Art the
MOMA. They rarely take down Dali's "Persistence of Memory, " a
painting universally known for its subject matter but not exhibiting
his very highest technical mastery. However, they rarely hang his
small "portrait of Gala" which rivlals the best of classical work in
all respects while conforming to modern tenets.
When I have seen this portrait hanging I took note on how people are
drawn to take a really close look. The curators are well aware that
their viewers might take a close look at their choice Modern Schmier
and compare.
Modern Art curators most important decisions are about what to keep
out of the museum.
mdeli
>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, lake wrote:
>
>> It's remarkable that most of the painters mentioned are from the first
>> half of the century. Not a vote cast for Warhol or Stella or Richter,
>> nor any of the other post-fifties folks.
One small reason is that they are already has-beens.
>> Is that because they're too close to see properly, or what?
>>
>> - Lake
>
>
>No, they simply aren't good enough to endure. I mean Warhol obviously had
>an important effect on art, whether we like it or not, but the other two
>don't even have that credit on their resumes. For me, Pop art is too
>gimmicky to take seriously. I understand that it is important to a lot of
>people but to me, when put along side the great art of the last 27 odd
>centuries, it seems very insignificant and even a little sad.
What about the Cubist and Fauvist etc. "gimmicks?"
It always amazes me that many who dismiss charlatans like Warhol, who
at least had some ideas, talent and could draw a shoe, have orgasms
about total nothings like Pollock, Rothko and de Kooning.
There are those who even dismiss these artists yet accept Picasso and
Matisse who are no better. While a student, abstract depressionism was
just taking over as the cat's ass. The older modern teachers who
steadily effused Matisse, Picasso and Cezanne said "Just vot iss
diss?"
mark webber
Hi Mani,
Before I go any further, let me remind you that you never replied to my
"Form" post, which I reposted for you at your request. When you want to
address the issues I raised there we can have a mutually respectful
discussion - which is, I'm sure, what we both want. In the mean time,
however:
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, mdeli wrote:
(snip)
> Your self proclaimed cultural superiority is just plain vanity.
And my self-proclaimed superiority/vanity differs from yours how?
Are you saying that you don't claim to see something others don't see?
What is your web page?
>
> Strange, when I visit poster stores, a place where people are able to
> express an honest opinion, the artists of "cultural retardation" are
> ever present while the stuff favored by Modern Art theology is almost
> all conspicuously absent.
Poster stores? Furniture stores? Get out of the mall, my friend. You need
to visit some museums if you are to evolve. Even you are above poster
stores, Mani. Poster stores are for the ignorant masses. Do you align
yourself with them?
> ...our net intellectual giant, Webber.
You are too kind, again.
Best holiday wishes,
Mark
mark webber
(snip)
> What about the Cubist and Fauvist etc. "gimmicks?"
This is where the issue of sensibility kicks in, my friend. I'm not
speaking of the followers of Picasso and Braque - the other Cubists were,
yes, gimmicky and riding a bandwagon. But the work of Picasso and Braque
was not Gimmick - it was the authentic expression of sensibility.
In the case of Fauvism, the same can be said of Matisse, Derain and
Braque. Vlaminck and Marquet weren't nearly as successful and were working
through the visual ideas of other, better painters.
But neither of these "isms" was gimmick in their inception, unlike most
modern movements. Dali, however, was quite gimmick laden. You don't
criticize him, though, do you?
best,
Mark
mark webber
> But we're not talking about 27 centuries, we're only talking about one.
> Surely there is at least one painter, post 1950, who merits a place
> along side the masters! For heavens sake there are at least a dozen
> between 1900 and 1950 - and if not, then maybe we better start
> wondering what's happening.
>
> - Lake
Dekooning and Balthus both made great paintings well after 1950 -
Dekooning did some of his best work in the 1970s and Balthus continues to
make very fine things today.
I also think Leland Bell was a fine painter - better than many well-known
modernists from before 1950. Lennart Anderson is currently doing very fine
work. Louisa Mattiasdottir, David Leoffler Smith, Kevin Kinkead are some
others painters whom I think will eventually be seen as much more
important - if some critics with an eye ever start looking and writing.
Is there something wrong now? Yes, I think there is. But it doesn't matter
much. These things get corrected. A nice thing about a good painting is
that eventually someone sees it and champions it.
best holiday wishes,
Mark
mesken
>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:41:41 EDT, mark webber
><webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, Brian Shapiro and Mesken babbled on such-like:
>>
>>> It's interesting to note that Bouguereau (snip)
>>
>>Bouguereau and Frazetta and Dali and Rockwell.... come now boys, try to
>>overcome your cultural retardation. When you see how insipid this trash is
>>let me know and then we will have a discussion.
Don't forget the emoticons ;-) :-) etc. if you're trolling. Ofcourse
you must be trolling. Compare a Vargas Girl with a de Kooning woman
for example. Now, it already takes a stretch of imagination to
recognize a human shape in de Kooning's "achievements" where a Vargas
Girl gets you an instant hard on (which can be seen as an expression
of sensibility as well :-)
For Heaven's sake, I'm ready to believe de Kooning was actually blind
and painted with his feet. Would be a very good explanation for his
abuse of paint and canvas :-)
>>We were, I believe, talking about "the greatest art", not the "most
>>masturbatory illustration."
Well, the two do not exclude each other. As a matter of fact, it gets
into vogue to focus on erotical stuff again. At least: in the
Netherlands, I don't know if it's allowed in the States yet (ouch!)
>Strange, when I visit poster stores, a place where people are able to
>express an honest opinion, the artists of "cultural retardation" are
>ever present while the stuff favored by Modern Art theology is almost
>all conspicuously absent.
Ah, but both Pollock and Dali are artists. The problem is: you
immediately see Dali is a great artist. To realize Pollock is also a
great artist one needs to go through a very thick textbook telling one
why Pollock is such an important artist. Ofcourse: after one has gone
through that textbook then Pollock _needs_ to be a great artist else
one has read it for nothing :-)
Mmm... Perhaps poster stores should sell that kind of stuff with
little booklets explaining why something which is obviously ugly
actually posseses a very deep and intellectual beauty ;-)
>>And unless you work very hard at preventing a bonfire of the inanities,
>>unless you *insist* on retaining a love for the childish, you will outgrow
>>this pap. It is a natural, nearly algorithmic process. Don't fight it.
>>
Hehe, I love it. What a prose! :-)
But seriously: what are really your favourite artists?
>>And most important: don't fuck with my list. It is absolutely correct and
>>you would do well to study it and agree.
Don't worry, your list is not "fuckable" ;-)
>Better look at his painting and you will see why he imagines you will
>eventually agree.
>
You got a pointer to Webber's stuff?
>BTW Rockwell is coming to the Gugg. and Dali hangs in most every major
>museum to the utter embarrasment of artzy fartzy curators and our net
>intellectual giant, Webber.
>
Rockwell absolutely deserves Guggenheim (you can't keep a good man
down) I reckon he will be one of the few that will actually be
remembered as a 20th century painter of 100 years.
It's very obvious why critics don't like him. His paintings do not
need any additional explanation which would leave the critics without
a job :-)
mesken
>Rockwell absolutely deserves Guggenheim (you can't keep a good man
>down) I reckon he will be one of the few that will actually be
>remembered as a 20th century painter of 100 years.
>
Oops! Ofcourse I meant "...remembered as a 20th century painter over a
100 years"
He got old but not that old :-)
Brian Shapiro
admire for the intellectual qualities in his works and his achievement of
being able to create allegories in which every detail of the representation
is reflective of the complexity of the ideal object. If you don't understand
how anything could be intellectual in a Bouguereau, it is because you are
the one who is childish---believing what you do simply because it is dogma
and refusing to examine his works like you would any other artist. Or
perhaps you are unintelligent and can't get past the representation to
notice the subtleties of his work. Either way, you will grow over it with
time.
One of my other favorite artists is Mark Tansey, who sees art theory along
the lines in which Bouguereau did even though he might not realize it. "The
Picture in Question: Mark Tansey & The Ends of Representation" is a book
which discusses how Tansey's art is a critique of both minimalistic and
conceptualistic art and their accompanying theories, holding that
representation is unavoidable, meaningful art merges the object and subject
and is figurative/allegorical in nature, and that one should have a 'bottom
up' rather than 'top down' approach to art--letting the painting speak for
itself without the particular style in which it is done being an aversion.
Once again even though he might not realize it, all Tansey is doing is
providing an intellectual basis by which to return to 19th century art
theory (and there is such a thing despite what you may have been taught).
--Brian Shapiro
> Bouguereau and Frazetta and Dali and Rockwell.... come now boys, try to
> overcome your cultural retardation. When you see how insipid this trash is
> let me know and then we will have a discussion.
>
> We were, I believe, talking about "the greatest art", not the "most
> masturbatory illustration."
>
> And unless you work very hard at preventing a bonfire of the inanities,
> unless you *insist* on retaining a love for the childish, you will outgrow
> this pap. It is a natural, nearly algorithmic process. Don't fight it.
>
> And most important: don't fuck with my list. It is absolutely correct and
> you would do well to study it and agree.
>
> Happiest of holidays!
>
> Mark
>
RockOn
I just had to stick my 2 cents worth in. ;) Perhaps I'm feeling
somewhat cantankerous, and since my knowledge of the subject is strong…
So I heard Richter named, I think he is a contender for best painter.
Stella, whose work I don't personally have an affinity for, is also a
remarkable painter. Warhol, I say with arrogance <earned by my own
painting ability> is only an artist, not a painter at all.=-P Oh shit:
just get back on topic.
I have heard no mention of Antonio Lopez-Garcia, an incredible talent,
yet he goes unmentioned. How about Lucien Freud? Ozeus Leduc? Richard
Diebenkorn, or Avingnor Arika? Claudio Bravo, or on and on with just
painters.
How about Magdalina Abokanowitz, or Bill Viola, or
Ansalm Kiefer!
I could sit here all night thinking about my own favs,
but as Erik (Mattila) pointed out, the list so far is western:
PC is it. OK...
1. Tjisimmie Begay (Navajo Sandpainter mentor of J. Pollock)
2. Tonbago Kas Tuang..[snip]..
10. Marshmello Mariachi Yogurt (Bengali inventor of the 'zip')
But really, if culture isn't responsible for great art,
how come all these lists are 'coincedentally' western?
Does this mean that the rest of the world just stands by as
witness?
And really, are there any more global truths? I don't think so. Not
anymore. Which brings it around to a point on technique, I want to make.
Mark Webber wrote:
Again, I'd love to be able to add Massaccio, Raphael,
Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Duccio, Cimmabue,
Carpaccio, Bellini, Mantegna, Giorgione,
Veronese, Tintoretto, El Greco, Rembrandt, Latours,
Claude, Fragonard, Courbet, Monet and a few others,
but there isn't room for even these geniuses in a top ten.
That's the game, right?
At least an intelligent list, and I do agree with your earlier point on
the illustrators Mark, but Geniuses? That went out with global truths,
back in the sixties.
and Bryn replied to Mark:
Great, great, but which artist this century can hang next
to one of these artists and still have it be Modern...
So far it is only Dali, other modern artists appear
to lack skill, newer photorealists are +really
by our standards postomodern+
landscape painters like Wyeth are timeless, not modern...
Dali has become the central phobia of
modern and postmodern art...
I take you here, Bryn, to mean Kiefer, Richter, Freud, and others
'lacked skill?' Go back to the Pierian Spring, my boy, and drink, drink
deep, this time! Just how are you quantifying skill, anyway?
I think it must be along the lines of Manei DeLi, whose skepticism of
Modernism I may agree with, (On his web site he states)
If artwork were judged in terms of quality
rather than by its signature
a lot of art history would change.,
but whose concept of skill I challange! If Mani was educated, as he
states, he would understand the problem with this statement from his
web site:
"One needn't have any great amount of knowledge to appreciate art or to
distinguish competence from utter incompetence."
How do you define art? Do you think art is not dependent on knowlege?
How about competence? Just what is the meaning of this word you are
using?
Art exists beyond technique.
Just my two cents, thanks for listening.
Robert
Kay
RockOn wrote:
(snip)
:How about Magdalina Abokanowitz, or Bill Viola, or
:
:Ansalm Kiefer!
Anselm Keifer! One of my favorites. How about Susan Rothenberg?
(snip)
:
:Art exists beyond technique.
:
AMEN!
Kay
:Just my two cents, thanks for listening.
:
br...@wralaw.com
RockOn <rvonesch...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> And really, are there any more global truths? I don't think so. Not
> anymore.
Stretching Globular truths either way goes nowhere,
> At least an intelligent list, and I do agree with your earlier point
> the illustrators Mark, but Geniuses? That went out with global truths,
> back in the sixties.
The only thing that happened in the sixty's is our stock-junky Baby
boomers declared that they would never ever sell out no matter what!
> and Bryn replied to Mark:
> Great, great, but which artist this century can hang next
> to one of these artists and still have it be Modern...
> So far it is only Dali, other modern artists appear
> to lack skill, newer photorealists are +really
> by our standards postomodern+
> landscape painters like Wyeth are timeless, not modern...
> Dali has become the central phobia of
> modern and postmodern art...
> I take you here, Bryn, to mean Kiefer, Richter, Freud, and others
> 'lacked skill?' Go back to the Pierian Spring, my boy, and drink,
Er?
I would mean here that at least Freud is not a Modern painter by
essense, without a date on the work we wouldn't be able to place
it in time at all. A great deal of Dali's early work is clearly
Modern in this case (true the bread basket and some religious stuff),
Freud is associated with no Movement and Yes one might find flaws
in his execution.
> drink
> deep, this time! Just how are you quantifying skill, anyway?
In the more general and basic intuitive sense of having a vast
array of technique and an ability to mimic other artists, nature,
and oneself at a whim!
I would say that amoungst modern artists Dali was particularly
skillfull there are works that he painted like Picasso and Braque
and some where he reasonably emulated old masters and Nature too.
Whatever that means to you?
> I think it must be along the lines of Manei DeLi, whose skepticism of
> Modernism I may agree with, (On his web site he states)
This is off-thread and on-line KIIDDDOOOO
In the 60's there was no concensus other than that which shot JFK
Global Truth or not he and Elvis are dead!
Bryn Ayers
mark webber
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, RockOn wrote:
> Ok,
> I just had to stick my 2 cents worth in. ;) Perhaps I'm feeling
> somewhat cantankerous, and since my knowledge of the subject is strong…
Well, we're glad that someone with strong knowledge is weighing in.
(snip)
> Mark Webber wrote:
> Again, I'd love to be able to add Massaccio, Raphael,
> Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Duccio, Cimmabue,
> Carpaccio, Bellini, Mantegna, Giorgione,
> Veronese, Tintoretto, El Greco, Rembrandt, Latours,
> Claude, Fragonard, Courbet, Monet and a few others,
> but there isn't room for even these geniuses in a top ten.
> That's the game, right?
>
> At least an intelligent list, and I do agree with your earlier point on
> the illustrators Mark, but Geniuses? That went out with global truths,
> back in the sixties.
Robert, I'm sure you'll agree that as soon as we speak of "out" or "in" we
are talking fashion and therefore not endurance and therefore not
greatness. Now, I detect some irony, which pleases me, so I don't feel a
need to shake you up the way the resident dolts here need to be awakened.
I will say, though, that I don't know that we can prove *or* disprove
global truths so the whole subject bores me. What we can prove is that
whether one likes it or not, one prefers one work to another; one sees
more merit, more quality in one work than another.
And that can be called personal taste - but if that is the *only* way one
accounts for the experience of discrimination, one is certainly
unschooled in more than a few ways.
While we are on the subject of the unschooled, have you noticed that the
champions of illustrative pap like Frazetta and Bouguero never post
queries? They never ask questions like "Where can I learn more about art
and esthetics?" or "What are some titles or authors of books from which I
can begin my education?" They are only making pronouncements about their
abject, regretable taste.
Do you know why? The answer is simple: They know all they need to
know. They always have. They believe that art is so simple a proceedure,
so basic an experience, that the approach they developed in middle school
is the only one they will ever need.
The notion that art is a complex apex of human achievement doesn't warrant
a continuous re-evaluation, a constant education. It is always going to be
about one thing and one thing only - the ability to render slickly.
Anything else - and I mean anything - is the artzy-fartzy wardrobe of the
emperor, so as soon as Dekooning is mentioned, it is time to rally the
illiteratti and moan, rant and spew.
(In spite of plenty of evidence, regardless of what has been posted here
lately, that Dekooning could render extremely sensitively. Why are the
recent newcomers - who are so quick to proclaim expertise - so frightened
of the idea of looking up Dekooning's drawings from the 1930's and 40's to
see whether or not claims that he could draw are true?
Because, Robert, if they *did* find these drawings, and saw that they were
excellent renderings, they would be forced to ask themselves why Dekooning
might move on to that abstract work. And that might lead to thinking in
a new way. How frightening.)
At any rate, nothing we can contribute will change this attitude. I tried
approaching Mani politely and offered a careful essay on what I found to
be the common ground between art of all periods and he refused to
acknowlege it. If he really missed it the first couple of times I posted
it for him, he could always go to Deja and find it under my posting
history - but that isn't really what he wants.
It is clear that what he really wants is to stomp and cry and make
personal attacks. Why else would he use my paintings as part of his
argument? I've never claimed my work was anything special and I certainly
don't offer it as evidence to support any arguments. And it seems
particularly easy to savage someone's work when there are web sites for
anyone to see it. One has to go to my gallery in NYC to see my work,
unfortunately. Very old fashioned. But I don't come here to hawk a web
page or try to sell books. I only come here to have some fun with ideas.
Why am I and my paintings such a threat to Mr. Deli?
Mani is like a born-again Christian in that he believes what he wants to
believe *because* he wants to believe it and in complete disregard of
whatever else may be offered in way of reasoning or logic. And I don't
argue with folks like this. My personal feeling is that fundamentalists of
any hue are idiots, and arguing with idiots is foolish because they drag
you down to their own level and there they can beat you with more
experience - experience at being idiotic. How can one win such an
argument?
Since Mani has (too kindly) christened me the internet intellectual I fear
I have no choice but to return to my previous stance of ignoring him.
So, Robert, you have my undivided attention.
Happy New Year,
Mark
RockOn
Not Rothenberg for me, but I would include Jenifer Bartlet!
Robert
In article <DBYa4.134152$7I4.3...@news5.giganews.com>, "Kay"
lake
house if you paid me. All that dripping morbidity - looks like melting
plastic. And Dali's sense of color is like something from kindergarten.
Compare him to Bonnard, now there's a painter! Sure, Dali could draw -
but his vision as a humanist, as a bringer of joy, leaves a lot to be
desired.
Skill and craftsmanship, unless there is something more significant
behind them, are profoundly boring. Investigations into new ways of
seeing, new ways of defining what a painting is may or may not be
"skillful" - but at least they are doing something more than simply
re-hashing tired formulas.
- Lake
Brian Shapiro
champions of illustrative pap like Frazetta and Bouguero never post
queries? They never ask questions like "Where can I learn more about art
and esthetics?" or "What are some titles or authors of books from which I
can begin my education?" They are only making pronouncements about their
abject, regretable taste.<<
I don't ask questions like that because I have read several art
theory/aesthetics books, not because i am an ignorant plebian who doesn't
want to learn. Fortunately, unlike you, I am capable of forming intelligent
arguments against Modernist art theory, instead of taking in everything I
read by 'experts' without critical analysis. For this reason--because I am
able to think for myself--I have come to realize that Bouguereau's works are
more than just 'illustrative pap.'
It also seems that you need a piece of art that is loud and shoves its
'ingenuity' in your face in order for you to notice it and understand it and
are unable to appreciate the subtleties of a more complex and detailed work.
--Brian Shapiro
mesken
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>Personally, I find Dali's work very ugly. I wouldn't hang one in my
>house if you paid me. All that dripping morbidity - looks like melting
>plastic. And Dali's sense of color is like something from kindergarten.
>Compare him to Bonnard, now there's a painter! Sure, Dali could draw -
>but his vision as a humanist, as a bringer of joy, leaves a lot to be
>desired.
>
Color is indeed inferior in Dali's paintings (and the Blockx paint he
used is quite hard to handle because of its heavy pigmentation and
handling qualities which differ for each tube).
Then again: color wasn't at all important in Dali's paintings. He was
more a drawer than a painter. His focus was on playing with the human
visual perception and he was one of the very best in that field.
Ofcourse there will be many who think of Dali's type of work being
boring or even ugly but for the ones who do like this kind of stuff:
Dali is one of the greatest masters of it.
>Skill and craftsmanship, unless there is something more significant
>behind them, are profoundly boring. Investigations into new ways of
>seeing, new ways of defining what a painting is may or may not be
>"skillful" - but at least they are doing something more than simply
>re-hashing tired formulas.
>
Well, the same goes for the ideas behind the painting. They can be
boringly rendered as well (like the paintings with text on it like
"This is not a painting")
mesken
<webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, RockOn wrote:
>
>> Ok,
>> I just had to stick my 2 cents worth in. ;) Perhaps I'm feeling
>> somewhat cantankerous, and since my knowledge of the subject is strong
>
>Well, we're glad that someone with strong knowledge is weighing in.
>
>
>(snip)
>> Mark Webber wrote:
>> Again, I'd love to be able to add Massaccio, Raphael,
>> Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Duccio, Cimmabue,
>> Carpaccio, Bellini, Mantegna, Giorgione,
>> Veronese, Tintoretto, El Greco, Rembrandt, Latours,
>> Claude, Fragonard, Courbet, Monet and a few others,
>> but there isn't room for even these geniuses in a top ten.
>> That's the game, right?
>>
>> At least an intelligent list, and I do agree with your earlier point on
>> the illustrators Mark, but Geniuses? That went out with global truths,
>> back in the sixties.
>
>Robert, I'm sure you'll agree that as soon as we speak of "out" or "in" we
>are talking fashion and therefore not endurance and therefore not
>greatness. Now, I detect some irony, which pleases me, so I don't feel a
>need to shake you up the way the resident dolts here need to be awakened.
>
Oh my, do you mind to name some names of the ones you want to wake up?
I guess my name's on the very top of the list even though you only
address Deli personally in this thread, you're actually refering to me
because of my list which Deli defends (Deli and I have more or less
the same taste).
>I will say, though, that I don't know that we can prove *or* disprove
>global truths so the whole subject bores me. What we can prove is that
>whether one likes it or not, one prefers one work to another; one sees
>more merit, more quality in one work than another.
>
Hmm, I was under the impression it intrigued you. Sensibility that is.
The idea that all people can discriminate between very well executed
expressions of sensibility and lousy ones. Personal taste being
irrelevant in this case. For example: I can see de Kooning is a great
artist but I still don't like him, I prefer Bellows (more "controlled"
violence), still I see de Kooning is a great artist. I prefer Frazetta
over Cezanne but I still see the great quality of Cezanne, etc. So, my
personal taste doesn't dismiss artists whose work I don't like as
being called artists by me.
OTOH you dismiss Frazetta completely, calling him an illustrator
instead of an artist. Perhaps you're the one who needs to be awakened.
Can't you see how Frazetta makes color work for him much like Cezanne?
Do you want to state Frazetta's work is a lousy expression of
sensibility, IOW that he didn't knew at all how to wield his skills in
order to express whatever he wanted to express? That he just smeared
his colors at random?
I stood by you in your ideas about sensibility for I believe there's
some "universal" exponent in art. I even took on my buddy Mattila to
defend this point (where Mattila's point was that all art is a product
of culture) I might say that it was a successfull enterprise :-)
>And that can be called personal taste - but if that is the *only* way one
>accounts for the experience of discrimination, one is certainly
>unschooled in more than a few ways.
>
>While we are on the subject of the unschooled, have you noticed that the
>champions of illustrative pap like Frazetta and Bouguero never post
>queries? They never ask questions like "Where can I learn more about art
>and esthetics?" or "What are some titles or authors of books from which I
>can begin my education?" They are only making pronouncements about their
>abject, regretable taste.
>
I guess you're addressing me here again. The questions I asked were
about stuff like pigments and mediums, gesso, etc. I either start or
participate in _discussions_ about ideas like aesthetics and art. This
is because I know there are no clear cut answers possible on questions
about such ideas.
Some of the books I have about such subjects come from Arnheim,
Gombrich, Willats, Marr, Kosslyn, Gibson, etc. But they only serve me
to acquire some insights in the "thinking eye" in order to aid me, to
make me think about perception. It is my own sensibility, imagination,
creativity, ideas and skills which need to be used to make my art.
"They are only making pronouncements about their abject, regretable
taste" Do you really believe anyone here takes the maker of such a
statement seriously? At first I thought you were simply trolling
(something I like to do myself as well, for example when I compared
Vargas girls to de Kooning women, note now that I compare Bellows with
de Kooning when serious) but you persist and I believe now that you're
actually serious about "bad taste" and "good taste". Or are you simply
provoking a discussion?
>Do you know why? The answer is simple: They know all they need to
>know. They always have. They believe that art is so simple a proceedure,
>so basic an experience, that the approach they developed in middle school
>is the only one they will ever need.
>
Do you mean by this that "accessible art" is bad art? Not so long ago
you were talking about sensibility, an innate attribution. I agreed
with Erik that one can learn to appreciate certain works of art
because culture does provide mediums (and thus we need to know about
cultures) but I would never dismiss someone's taste as being abject.
I don't mind or question people who think Pepsi is better than Coke
while I myself think "Coke is it". I don't mind or question men who
prefer to make love to other men while I myself wish to make love with
women (in my own sick way :-) I don't mind or question anyone who has
opinions completely incompatible with mine, no matter how much skill
and knowledge is backing my opinions up.
>The notion that art is a complex apex of human achievement doesn't warrant
>a continuous re-evaluation, a constant education. It is always going to be
>about one thing and one thing only - the ability to render slickly.
>Anything else - and I mean anything - is the artzy-fartzy wardrobe of the
>emperor, so as soon as Dekooning is mentioned, it is time to rally the
>illiteratti and moan, rant and spew.
>
Or Frazetta :-) Only Deli seems to like my list.
>(In spite of plenty of evidence, regardless of what has been posted here
>lately, that Dekooning could render extremely sensitively. Why are the
>recent newcomers - who are so quick to proclaim expertise - so frightened
>of the idea of looking up Dekooning's drawings from the 1930's and 40's to
>see whether or not claims that he could draw are true?
>
I'm not frightened at all of de Kooning (although I'm afraid to
encounter his women ;-) De Kooning is certainly not the only
"abstract" painter who started out as a very skilled "realistic"
painter. But I still don't like his women. That's a matter of taste
and I can hardly believe that you question my personal taste.
>Because, Robert, if they *did* find these drawings, and saw that they were
>excellent renderings, they would be forced to ask themselves why Dekooning
>might move on to that abstract work. And that might lead to thinking in
>a new way. How frightening.)
>
Do you mean that more abstract work is superior to more realistic
work? How about this: start from an abstract representation but use it
as a framework for a realistically rendered work. That's what I do
(attempt :-) The best of the realistic painters work this way. The
word "arranging" is often used by them. You might wonder: arrange in
what way?
>At any rate, nothing we can contribute will change this attitude. I tried
>approaching Mani politely and offered a careful essay on what I found to
>be the common ground between art of all periods and he refused to
>acknowlege it. If he really missed it the first couple of times I posted
>it for him, he could always go to Deja and find it under my posting
>history - but that isn't really what he wants.
>
You're hardly polite
>It is clear that what he really wants is to stomp and cry and make
>personal attacks. Why else would he use my paintings as part of his
>argument? I've never claimed my work was anything special and I certainly
>don't offer it as evidence to support any arguments. And it seems
>particularly easy to savage someone's work when there are web sites for
>anyone to see it. One has to go to my gallery in NYC to see my work,
>unfortunately. Very old fashioned. But I don't come here to hawk a web
>page or try to sell books. I only come here to have some fun with ideas.
>Why am I and my paintings such a threat to Mr. Deli?
>
Personal attacks hu? My taste is my very own personal thing (an
integral part of my being one could say) and you say it's abject and
the result of a very suboptimal knowledge. So what you're actually
saying is that I'm stupid and I don't have the ability to justify my
own taste.
>Mani is like a born-again Christian in that he believes what he wants to
>believe *because* he wants to believe it and in complete disregard of
>whatever else may be offered in way of reasoning or logic. And I don't
>argue with folks like this. My personal feeling is that fundamentalists of
>any hue are idiots, and arguing with idiots is foolish because they drag
>you down to their own level and there they can beat you with more
>experience - experience at being idiotic. How can one win such an
>argument?
>
Can't you see that you're actually doing exactly the same as Deli.
Accusing people of incompetence shown by their poor taste? Refusing to
think along their lines of thought but immediately rejecting these
lines? Making personal attacks? Invalidating ideas by invalidating the
competence of the people who carry these ideas.
I posted my list as a response to your list because I thought you were
trolling (telling it was perfect and above discussion) I do not
dispute the skill of the artists on your list (comparing a Vargas girl
with a de Kooning woman was a troll) They are all obvious masters but
they're not on my list (although I really like Cezanne, Klee and
Picasso)
My list was more provocative although it really is _my_ list of
artists of this century. Most cannot be found in art history books,
there are some people which are denotated as illustrators instead of
artists and there's even a comic book painter in it (Bisley).
I thought this was an interesting list to raise a discussion about art
(that's what this newsgroup is about). But my list is not discussed by
you. It's rejected without a proper argument. I hardly call your
"arguments" strong arguments. Me being childish, incompetent, etc. You
attack Deli because he's an easy target but you're really attacking me
and most of what you've written in this thread is about my list.
>Since Mani has (too kindly) christened me the internet intellectual I fear
>I have no choice but to return to my previous stance of ignoring him.
>
Well, perhaps you might want to ignore me as well. I won't ignore you
however even though I think you're arrogant and rude to people (I
mentioned this in the thread about sensibility) because I think your
ideas about sensibility are very interesting and I subscribe them.
Neither will I ignore Deli even though he's also arrogant and rude to
people because I subscribe his ideas about the importance of skill.
Erik A. Mattila
regardless of whether his work is liked or not. It's been years since I
read it, but I remember his secret ingredient in his painting medium was a
dissolved wasp's exoskeleton. (an accidental discovery).
Then there was his 'dream projector' which was pretty cool. Construct 5
pentagons from wire, and mount each on a base. Capture orb web spiders and
let them weave webs in each pentagon frame. Take all 5 outside in the
evening, and allign them to the sun rise. Lay down and peer through all
five, which by early dawn the spider webs are covered in dew drops, at the
rising sun. Dang, I never tried it.
Are these 'gimmicks.' You betcha!
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> >Robert, I'm sure you'll agree that as soon as we speak of "out" or "in" we
> >are talking fashion and therefore not endurance and therefore not
> >greatness. Now, I detect some irony, which pleases me, so I don't feel a
> >need to shake you up the way the resident dolts here need to be awakened.
> >
> Oh my, do you mind to name some names of the ones you want to wake up?
> I guess my name's on the very top of the list even though you only
> address Deli personally in this thread, you're actually refering to me
> because of my list which Deli defends (Deli and I have more or less
> the same taste).
Heheehe. It's a sort of 'if the shoe fits, wear it' thang, Paul. I was going
to respond to Mark: "I am not a resident!" Like when X sez "You are a stupid
ass!" and Y responds "I am not an ass!"
> >I will say, though, that I don't know that we can prove *or* disprove
> >global truths so the whole subject bores me. What we can prove is that
> >whether one likes it or not, one prefers one work to another; one sees
> >more merit, more quality in one work than another.
> >
> Hmm, I was under the impression it intrigued you. Sensibility that is.
> The idea that all people can discriminate between very well executed
> expressions of sensibility and lousy ones. Personal taste being
> irrelevant in this case. For example: I can see de Kooning is a great
> artist but I still don't like him, I prefer Bellows (more "controlled"
> violence), still I see de Kooning is a great artist. I prefer Frazetta
> over Cezanne but I still see the great quality of Cezanne, etc. So, my
> personal taste doesn't dismiss artists whose work I don't like as
> being called artists by me.
Where I differ with Mark is that what can be 'proved' or 'disproved' bores
me. The enigmatic 'open agenda' is much more interesting to me.
> OTOH you dismiss Frazetta completely, calling him an illustrator
> instead of an artist. Perhaps you're the one who needs to be awakened.
> Can't you see how Frazetta makes color work for him much like Cezanne?
> Do you want to state Frazetta's work is a lousy expression of
> sensibility, IOW that he didn't knew at all how to wield his skills in
> order to express whatever he wanted to express? That he just smeared
> his colors at random?
This discussion seems to be about "Hi Brow vs. Low Brow." Here's the danger I
see about this. Refering to Bataille's idea about porn, that it had to remain
'heterogeneous' to society in order to have any power (as a positive social
force). He discusses this in his essay "The psychological theory of fascism"
in case you want to check it out. So I would say that the division between
the hi and low in cultural productions must be maintained in order for either
category to have any meaning. I like a lot of low brow stuff because it is
not hi brow, in other words. But I think you can regard the individual artist
in either category on a comparable basis in terms of accomplishment,
expertise, mastery of what is being done and so on. It's just that you have
to keep the border guards at the boundaries awake at all times to control
illegal immigration.
That being said, I support Mark's efforts to keep Frazetta in his place. Look
at it this way, theatrical burlesque would be ridiculous if there wasn't
theatre to make fun of. (Critical Theory would make no sense if there were no
Theory to critique.)
> I stood by you in your ideas about sensibility for I believe there's
> some "universal" exponent in art. I even took on my buddy Mattila to
> defend this point (where Mattila's point was that all art is a product
> of culture) I might say that it was a successfull enterprise :-)
Still gloating? OK. My new year's resolution is to be more Christlike than I
already am. So I turn my other cheek (farting in your general direction
whilst turning.) :-)
Of course Mark is serious about bad taste and good taste. He's not a
relativist at all about this, as I am. Since Mark is only interested in the
provable, you have to ask how 'taste' can be proven in the first place. And
it can, but you have to subscribe to various criteria to do so, which means
that the systematics of proof and not all encompassing. So you begin to cite
literature, history, and what not which substantiates the dividing practice
between the low and the hi. All the 'authority' that you evoke are in fact
cultural institutions; the museum, the gallery, the press, art criticism,
philosophy, economic powers, and so forth. As soon as the term 'good taste'
is uttered, it automatically calls forth a social consensus to legitimize the
concept. All these things, collectively, constitute what Benjamin calls 'the
aura' of the work of art.
Frazetta has been 'excluded' from the 'high' for several reasons, and there's
nothing to be done about it. Except that if a historian at MOMA convinces the
board that a Frazetta retrospective will draw a large crowd, create press of
MOMA, and makes a cutting-edge artistic statement, he could get the paper's
necessary to emmigrate across the border legally.
Well, I've run out of steam. Clipped everything else.
I think we need to find examples of artists who fail on either side of the hi
low divide. I can't think of anyone right now. For one thing, that person
would be forgotten completely, since nobody liked the work in the first place.
Erik
paric...@my-deja.com
"Kay" <K...@theriver.com> wrote:
> With the millennium, it seems as though we are short-changing the 20th
> centuries' end. So, I thought I'd see what people have to say (their
> preferences) about the artists of this specific century.
>
> Kay
>
> My list isn't composed yet, but besides the obvious:
>
> 1. Picasso
>
> I'd include (to begin)
>
> 2. Marcel Duchamp
>
> 'Top artist' is always difficult - different people value different
things. I'm not an art expert - I don't know whether that's a
disadvantage or an advantage in this situation...
I certainly enjoy pictures that combine great technical expertise with
insight and imagination. My website includes some pictures which I
like - several of these (including my current 'Picture of the Month')
are 20th century - do have a look round - let me know what you think.
http://www.srichards.freeserve.co.uk/artystuf.htm
Paul
mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>I would reccommend Dali's "Fifty Secrets of Magic Craftsmanship" to anyone,
>regardless of whether his work is liked or not. It's been years since I
>read it, but I remember his secret ingredient in his painting medium was a
>dissolved wasp's exoskeleton. (an accidental discovery).
>
Amazing, he used Blockx amber medium and still felt the need to throw
a wasp in it? Well, I've the very same stuff, perhaps when it's summer
again I catch one and drop it in the stuff :-)
>Then there was his 'dream projector' which was pretty cool. Construct 5
>pentagons from wire, and mount each on a base. Capture orb web spiders and
>let them weave webs in each pentagon frame. Take all 5 outside in the
>evening, and allign them to the sun rise. Lay down and peer through all
>five, which by early dawn the spider webs are covered in dew drops, at the
>rising sun. Dang, I never tried it.
>
Hmm, Dali certainly was serious about technique :-)
mark webber
> Oh my, do you mind to name some names of the ones you want to wake up?
> I guess my name's on the very top of the list even though you only
> address Deli personally in this thread, you're actually refering to me
> because of my list which Deli defends (Deli and I have more or less
> the same taste).
Hi,
I didn't really have anyone in particular in mind - please don't take
anything I write here personally. We're all just having fun, right? Es
macht nicht, nicht?
Think of the beginnings of this thread: top ten lists. They are
amusements, nothing more.
>
> >I will say, though, that I don't know that we can prove *or* disprove
> >global truths so the whole subject bores me. What we can prove is that
> >whether one likes it or not, one prefers one work to another; one sees
> >more merit, more quality in one work than another.
> >
> Hmm, I was under the impression it intrigued you. Sensibility that is.
Yes, sensibility intrigues me - but trying to prove or disprove absolutes
does not interest me because one can do neither. I see this as two
different things. That is waht I was trying to say - sorry if it was
unclear.
> The idea that all people can discriminate between very well executed
> expressions of sensibility and lousy ones.
Well, I don't know that *all* people can do this. I've seen ample evidence
to the contrary in this group.
> For example: I can see de Kooning is a great
> artist but I still don't like him, I prefer Bellows (more "controlled"
> violence), still I see de Kooning is a great artist.
I can tell you with great sincerity that this remark of yours, to me, is
worthy of enormous respect. I am very serious - more so than I have been
in previous posts in this thread.
> OTOH you dismiss Frazetta completely, calling him an illustrator
> instead of an artist.
Careful now - I *don't* dismiss Frazetta completely. I simply feel that he
is not in the ranks of those artists I listed. And only partly because he
is an illustrator.
> I stood by you in your ideas about sensibility for I believe there's
> some "universal" exponent in art. I even took on my buddy Mattila to
> defend this point (where Mattila's point was that all art is a product
> of culture) I might say that it was a successfull enterprise :-)
Yes, I thought you made some really good points - and Erik is no slouch.
He can be very tough to debate - but mostly because he tends to entertain
his own tangents at the expense of the thread. I love Erik's writing, but
boy he can wear me out. If I really was an intellectual I might be able to
tussle more successfully with him, but I'm not, so I can't. But you did
seem to do well.
(snip some of my indictments)
> I guess you're addressing me here again.
I really wasn't thinking of you or anyone in particular - I'm not even
sure who first mentioned Frazetta. To be truthful, some of the folks here
haven't really registered with me beyond being Deli clones, and I don't
recall their names. It is too much work and not enough fun to reply to
everyone that one disagrees with. One needs to choose one's battles.
> The questions I asked were
> about stuff like pigments and mediums, gesso, etc. I either start or
> participate in _discussions_ about ideas like aesthetics and art. This
> is because I know there are no clear cut answers possible on questions
> about such ideas.
>
That may be true - or it may not. It depends on what one needs for an
answer.
>
> "They are only making pronouncements about their abject, regretable
> taste" Do you really believe anyone here takes the maker of such a
> statement seriously?
You know, if you like, you can go to deja.com and have a look at my
posting history and compare it to mani's. I think there is one hell of a
lot more good faith writing in mine than his - and a hell of a lot less
invective, rudeness, vulgarity, personal attack, etc.
> At first I thought you were simply trolling
> (something I like to do myself as well, for example when I compared
> Vargas girls to de Kooning women, note now that I compare Bellows with
> de Kooning when serious) but you persist and I believe now that you're
> actually serious about "bad taste" and "good taste". Or are you simply
> provoking a discussion?
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. It isn't polite to ask this point blank.
> Do you mean by this that "accessible art" is bad art?
No.
> Not so long ago
> you were talking about sensibility, an innate attribution. I agreed
> with Erik that one can learn to appreciate certain works of art
> because culture does provide mediums (and thus we need to know about
> cultures) but I would never dismiss someone's taste as being abject.
So you are saying no one has bad taste?
(snip)
> I don't mind or question anyone who has
> opinions completely incompatible with mine, no matter how much skill
> and knowledge is backing my opinions up.
Well, it's no skin off my back either, if someone disagrees with me. I'm
not angry with Mani. I'm simply trying to see how well I am able to argue
with him - or anyone else. Please don't think I'm trying to teach, here.
This is a game. And I would like to read his rebutals if they were
reasonable, but as anyone can see they aren't.
> I'm not frightened at all of de Kooning (although I'm afraid to
> encounter his women ;-) De Kooning is certainly not the only
> "abstract" painter who started out as a very skilled "realistic"
> painter. But I still don't like his women. That's a matter of taste
> and I can hardly believe that you question my personal taste.
First of all, I didn't have you in mind.
Second, I don't think the "Women" paintings of the 50s are as good as the
abstract work of that period - and not because they are women. They just
don't work as well. The "women" of the forties work better, for me.
Third, I don't question anyone's taste. When you say that you can respect
an artist that you don't personally care for I know just what you mean,
and have no quarrel with you.
> Do you mean that more abstract work is superior to more realistic
> work?
No.
> >approaching Mani politely and offered a careful essay on what I found to
> >be the common ground between art of all periods and he refused to
> >acknowlege it. If he really missed it the first couple of times I posted
> >it for him, he could always go to Deja and find it under my posting
> >history - but that isn't really what he wants.
> >
> You're hardly polite
Well, I am truly sorry if I've offended you. But I don't think you've read
enough of me to say that.
> >
> Personal attacks hu? My taste is my very own personal thing (an
> integral part of my being one could say) and you say it's abject and
> the result of a very suboptimal knowledge. So what you're actually
> saying is that I'm stupid and I don't have the ability to justify my
> own taste.
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I repeat that I didn't have anyone in
particular in mind. I've been reading and writing here for a while and I
was responding to a healthy lineage of moronic remarks - but I wasn't
thinking of you. Again, I apologize if I've offended you, but it was
unintentional.
> Can't you see that you're actually doing exactly the same as Deli.
No, there a few important differences. We do share some traits, yes, but
there are some important differences. One is that I am right and he is
wrong. But that is difficult to prove - something easiler to prove is that
we have different styles of arguing, and there is a permanent public
record of this. I think "how" we argue matters a great deal. More than
"what" we argue.
> I posted my list as a response to your list because I thought you were
> trolling (telling it was perfect and above discussion)
Of course. And we play to have fun, don't we? We don't play to become
angry, I hope.
>
> I thought this was an interesting list to raise a discussion about art
> (that's what this newsgroup is about). But my list is not discussed by
> you. It's rejected without a proper argument.
I don't believe I have an obligation to answer everything I read here.
> I hardly call your
> "arguments" strong arguments. Me being childish, incompetent, etc. You
> attack Deli because he's an easy target but you're really attacking me
> and most of what you've written in this thread is about my list.
I'm hoping by now you believe that I had no intention of "attacking" you.
Really. It isn't my interest to do so at all. I think you've done some
good faith writing. I probably haven't read everything you've written
here, but I'm sure you haven't read everything I have written here. You
may want to go to deja.com and look at some of my contributions. I'm
usually a pretty reasonable guy, and I try to be polite.
Some folks here are often very, very rude. And once in a great while I
feel a twinge of regret that a hack like Frazetta is adored while Derain
is ignored and I play nasty. I am sorry if I've offended you, but Frazetta
is called an illustrator for a reason. If he appeals to you, that doesn't
bother me. If I call him a hack, it needn't bother you.
> Well, perhaps you might want to ignore me as well. I won't ignore you
> however even though I think you're arrogant and rude to people (I
> mentioned this in the thread about sensibility) because I think your
> ideas about sensibility are very interesting and I subscribe them.
I don't feel a need to ignor you. I am a bit arrogant, yes. Sorry.
I don't think I'm as rude as some other folks here. Please feel free to
sink your teeth into their calves for a while before you bite me.
And try to remember that this is all in fun. No one wins any battles here.
It is simply excercise while the stove heats the studio. Anyone who stomps
away in anger has forgotten this. Frankly, there isn't a person here that
I wouldn't love to meet in person with a warm smile and a hearty
handshake.
> Neither will I ignore Deli even though he's also arrogant and rude to
> people because I subscribe his ideas about the importance of skill.
Well, that's just plain stupid.
Now you have a terrific day!
Mark
mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>mesken wrote:
>
>Where I differ with Mark is that what can be 'proved' or 'disproved' bores
>me. The enigmatic 'open agenda' is much more interesting to me.
>
Yes, we can only discuss it and hope to learn from each other views. I
must say I'm still thinking about the important role you gave to
culture. I still won't accept culture (my definition of it) as single
producer of art but I begin to realize that culture might have a deep
impact on how one thinks. A long time ago I argued in comp.lang.c (a
programming newsgroup concerning the computer language C) that every
programmer should start by learning Assembly (the machine language
itself which is quite easy to grasp but is quite different from the
more convenient higher generation languages which tend to be more
"human"). My argument was that one will be able to optimize programs
more because one will develop a feel of how the underlying hardware
actually works and thus start to program in terms of the machine
instead of in terms of abstract machines which underlie the higher
generation languages (like C, SQL, Java, LISP, etc.)
Thinking is an innate capability but we think along lines which are
learned. Here, I argued that the "inner voice", which we mistake for
our real thoughts, is an epiphenomenon and this has lately been
proved. But isn't it also that this goes the other way around as well?
That our real thinking starts to adapt itself to the language in which
it will be "translated"? This would certainly be in the spirit of our
physiology: always working two ways, feedback all the way.
Can I, as artist, really detach my creative processes from cultural
ideas? I seriously start to doubt it. Ofcourse I work a lot from
observation (which is not a cultural thing) but at the same time all
kinds of cultural ideas are at work which will have a deeper impact I
previously gave to them on my work.
A little bit the "hive mind" idea. All minds as one because each one
has similar ideas which are part of culture. Hmm, interesting.
Ofcourse culture is still in terms of the human perception, mind and
physiology (else it would be rejected as foreign body).
>> OTOH you dismiss Frazetta completely, calling him an illustrator
>> instead of an artist. Perhaps you're the one who needs to be awakened.
>> Can't you see how Frazetta makes color work for him much like Cezanne?
>> Do you want to state Frazetta's work is a lousy expression of
>> sensibility, IOW that he didn't knew at all how to wield his skills in
>> order to express whatever he wanted to express? That he just smeared
>> his colors at random?
>
>This discussion seems to be about "Hi Brow vs. Low Brow." Here's the danger I
>see about this. Refering to Bataille's idea about porn, that it had to remain
>'heterogeneous' to society in order to have any power (as a positive social
>force). He discusses this in his essay "The psychological theory of fascism"
>in case you want to check it out. So I would say that the division between
>the hi and low in cultural productions must be maintained in order for either
>category to have any meaning. I like a lot of low brow stuff because it is
>not hi brow, in other words. But I think you can regard the individual artist
>in either category on a comparable basis in terms of accomplishment,
>expertise, mastery of what is being done and so on. It's just that you have
>to keep the border guards at the boundaries awake at all times to control
>illegal immigration.
>
>That being said, I support Mark's efforts to keep Frazetta in his place. Look
>at it this way, theatrical burlesque would be ridiculous if there wasn't
>theatre to make fun of. (Critical Theory would make no sense if there were no
>Theory to critique.)
>
Aha, the low brow vs high brow stuff (there's also mid brow :-) I know
these categories. Rockwell, Vargas, Frazetta, Bisley, Olivia are low
brow. Escher is in mid brow. Bellows, Dali, Tanner and Degas are high
brow. Rockwell BTW has also made mid brow stuff but most is low brow.
All of Webber's stuff is ofcourse high brow (darn self proclaimed,
feeling-better-than-the-rest intellectual :-)
Bourgereau which is mentioned as well is mid brow. He's not Raphael ya
know :-)
But these categories don't have much to do with mastery of technique
or skill. It's more to what ends the technique and skill are being
used, what kind of ideas are being conveyed. I call all brow
categories "art". This is ofcourse an item for discussion. Is art only
the high brow stuff? It's a little bit like literature, pulp, etc. But
the art question is not such a great issue for writers (they don't
call themselves artists, neither do architects, even though they're
part of the 7 great arts). Stephen King's stuff is not called
literature or "high brow" (even though it's pretty good :-) J.R.R.
Tolkien's stuff OTOH is literature. Both are fantasy and both show a
pretty good skill of writing. But the difference is evident. King
shows us effects where Tolkien shows us the nature.
Now this is interesting stuff to start a discussion about (I haven't
encountered it yet in r.a.f.) To define the "brow" categories.
Low brow is obviously "what you see is what you get". The composition
is not so that interesting additional ideas are hidden in the image,
there's very little use of symbols. Klee called art an expression
written in visual symbols and he was really good in it (he's not in my
top 10 but he is in my top 20). Working not with the stuff itself but
working with its essence, the idea of a human figure instead of the
human figure as it projects to a surface. Ofcourse there's a lot
inbetween. Caricatures are such inbetweens, working both with the real
stuff and the ideas we have about the properties which provide the
likeness. Look at Picasso's "Igor Stravinsky" for example (absolutely
great). Ofcourse it's a caricature although we don't like to call it
that way because of its association with simple comic and cartoon
stuff.
Hell! I stop here and start a new thread about these brow categories
:-)
>> I stood by you in your ideas about sensibility for I believe there's
>> some "universal" exponent in art. I even took on my buddy Mattila to
>> defend this point (where Mattila's point was that all art is a product
>> of culture) I might say that it was a successfull enterprise :-)
>
>Still gloating? OK. My new year's resolution is to be more Christlike than I
>already am. So I turn my other cheek (farting in your general direction
>whilst turning.) :-)
>
Oh, that's really great of you. I almost feel like I should call it a
draw... almost... ;-)
>Of course Mark is serious about bad taste and good taste. He's not a
>relativist at all about this, as I am. Since Mark is only interested in the
>provable, you have to ask how 'taste' can be proven in the first place. And
>it can, but you have to subscribe to various criteria to do so, which means
>that the systematics of proof and not all encompassing. So you begin to cite
>literature, history, and what not which substantiates the dividing practice
>between the low and the hi. All the 'authority' that you evoke are in fact
>cultural institutions; the museum, the gallery, the press, art criticism,
>philosophy, economic powers, and so forth. As soon as the term 'good taste'
>is uttered, it automatically calls forth a social consensus to legitimize the
>concept. All these things, collectively, constitute what Benjamin calls 'the
>aura' of the work of art.
>
Hmmm, tricky. Taste is a personal thing. There's an enormous
diversity. I don't see any reason to justify my own taste's right of
existence. It's just present. I know my taste (my list) will for the
most part not be seen as good taste but I cannot and will not change
it. It's an integral part of me. Museums don't dictate my own taste.
When Webber was talking about sensibility I thought he was right. That
there indeed is a universal rule that will distinguish between good
and bad expressions of sensibility. But I could only see it detached
from personal taste. I also stated that it is this rule that is at
work when Rembrandt is being called a great artist. It's not important
whether you like or hate his work, everybody can see it's art.
Now he talks about good taste and bad taste (I still can't believe
he's serious about this, I still expect him to say that it was only to
provoke interesting discussions)
>Frazetta has been 'excluded' from the 'high' for several reasons, and there's
>nothing to be done about it. Except that if a historian at MOMA convinces the
>board that a Frazetta retrospective will draw a large crowd, create press of
>MOMA, and makes a cutting-edge artistic statement, he could get the paper's
>necessary to emmigrate across the border legally.
>
Frazetta is indeed low brow but I still think he's one of the
greatest, he makes paint work. He's a genuine painter. Dali was more
of a drawer :-)
>Well, I've run out of steam. Clipped everything else.
>
>I think we need to find examples of artists who fail on either side of the hi
>low divide. I can't think of anyone right now. For one thing, that person
>would be forgotten completely, since nobody liked the work in the first place.
>
Let's do such a thing in the "low brow, high brow" thread, it's an
interesting aspect of art
mark webber
Howdy buddy!
On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> Where I differ with Mark is that what can be 'proved' or 'disproved' bores
> me. The enigmatic 'open agenda' is much more interesting to me.
Oh yeah? I'd like to see you prove that. Sources, please.
>
> This discussion seems to be about "Hi Brow vs. Low Brow."
To be serious for a moment, I think the high-brow/low-brow thing is really
a by-product. The discussion is really about the difference between
illustration and fine art.
One could argue that it is just name-calling to say that a low-brow sees
no difference. But one could also argue that it is name-calling to say
that one is arrogant if one *does* see a difference. (Listening Herr
Mesken?)
> I like a lot of low brow stuff because it is
> not hi brow, in other words.
I think there is high quality highbrow and low quality highbrow. I think
there is high quality lowbrow and low quality lowbrow. I like the high
quality lowbrow and highbrow, and I dislike the low quality highbrow and
lowbrow.
Follow?
>
> Still gloating? OK. My new year's resolution is to be more Christlike than I
> already am. So I turn my other cheek (farting in your general direction
> whilst turning.) :-)
I am waving my private parts at you, Monty.
> Of course Mark is serious about bad taste and good taste. He's not a
> relativist at all about this, as I am.
Erik, you are only permitted to speak for me when you are able to do so
without error. You are in error.
I have said a dozen times to you alone that I am not an absolutist.
Proof:
Herr Mesken has better taste than Mani.
You have better taste than Herr Mesken.
I have better taste than you.
> Since Mark is only interested in the provable,
That, too, is untrue. Don't make me come down there.
> Frazetta has been 'excluded' from the 'high' for several reasons, and there's
> nothing to be done about it. Except that if a historian at MOMA convinces the
> board that a Frazetta retrospective will draw a large crowd, create press of
> MOMA, and makes a cutting-edge artistic statement, he could get the paper's
> necessary to emmigrate across the border legally.
No, even then it will be a temporary visa. Same case with Rockwell. These
are not "fine artists". If someone calls them that, then the
implication is that there is no distinction between illustration and fine
art. Or rather, more precisely, this disinction is not *seen*. And I will
make this as clear as I can: there is a difference and it has to do with
the issues raised in the work.
By the way - these aren't my rules, so calling me arrogant is a bit
off-track.
very best,
Mark
Alison A Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>Well, I am truly sorry if I've offended you. But I don't think you've read
>enough of me to say that.
>
Last time I looked in here, Webber had taken it into his own hands to
write and tell a valuable contributor to this list that he, the other
poster, had assumed the position of *sage* here - in a derogatory sense.
Then he then went on to complain that the thread we had on the sublime
had kept him from posting - he couldn't find anything interesting to
respond to apparently - caring not that in fact several other people
were actively engaged in it. I see here, three weeks after this thread
started, the same discussion in progress and a lot of very bored,
irritated people. Perhaps Webber's block busting show in the third rate
NY gallery which he shared with two Sunday painters, has put him above
his station. One thing for sure, the title now at the top of my screen
*Ignorance at blissful last* is very appropriate. Webber might want to
consider the true meaning of *sensibility* before he continues with his
take over bid for the title of *sage* because at this stage he is
losing.
Alison.
Liz Brown
Why no sculptors?
mesken
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, mesken wrote:
>
>
Hehe [ prose start ]
Behold, Deli and Webber argueing. Deli having stuck his fingers in his
ears and his eyes shut while he shouts "No skill, No Art!"
continuously in Webber's face. Webber finally responding that Frazetta
is not an artist at all and that Deli is too stupid to recognize this.
At that moment the very fabric of the sky behind Deli's back is
altered. Cracks open. A dark and majestic figure appears out of the
void beyond space and time. Two heads taller than the argueing couple.
Dressed in a black uniform, deeper than the deepest shadows. His eyes
occluded by his huge military cap. His mouth opens and unearthy words
came out of it:
"Are you talking to me?"
Shivers run down Webber's spine.
>I didn't really have anyone in particular in mind - please don't take
>anything I write here personally. We're all just having fun, right? Es
>macht nicht, nicht?
Obviously the shape didn't like the abuse of the holy german language
and his unseen eyes pinned down Webber to the ground, crushing his
body with a weight greater than that of all mankind's suffering
throughout the ages.
Gasping for air and tears squeezed from his eyes Webber tried again:
>Think of the beginnings of this thread: top ten lists. They are
>amusements, nothing more.
The towering figure now started laughing and the earth trembled upon
this roaring sound. "Well, I certainly had a good laugh looking at
your list!" he spoke and released Webber.
Webber was laughing as well. Not because he thought the figure was
particulary funny but because he was glad to pull out alive.
"Well, let's talk art then" and the both of them took off towards the
sunset horizon. They left Deli behind who wasn't at all aware of what
had happened. Still standing there on his own with his fingers in his
ears and his eyes shut, uttering "No Skill, No Art" to no one in
particular.
[ prose end ]
>> The idea that all people can discriminate between very well executed
>> expressions of sensibility and lousy ones.
>
>Well, I don't know that *all* people can do this. I've seen ample evidence
>to the contrary in this group.
>
I think these people make the mistake to state that they like what
they think they should like. There're a lot of people who state that
Picasso is the greatest of all artists while they don't even like his
work. They merely swapped their own sensibility for hype. After all:
there's a lot of hype around Picasso (although this doesn't alter the
fact that he's indeed a great artist).
Deli doesn't like Picasso but I wonder if he thinks that Picasso is
still a great artist.
>> OTOH you dismiss Frazetta completely, calling him an illustrator
>> instead of an artist.
>
>Careful now - I *don't* dismiss Frazetta completely. I simply feel that he
>is not in the ranks of those artists I listed. And only partly because he
>is an illustrator.
>
Yes, the "low brow vs high brow" stuff. Erik already touched this
subject and it is an interesting one. Stephen King for example is one
of the best of his field but he doesn't produce literature. This I
recognize. Frazetta is low brow while Cezanne (BTW a painting of him
was stolen recently in the UK) is obviously high brow. The question is
ofcourse: is "Art" (with capital) only high brow stuff?
If art is only high brow stuff then we need to define high brow stuff
(and I'm going to attempt it :-)
>> I stood by you in your ideas about sensibility for I believe there's
>> some "universal" exponent in art. I even took on my buddy Mattila to
>> defend this point (where Mattila's point was that all art is a product
>> of culture) I might say that it was a successfull enterprise :-)
>
>Yes, I thought you made some really good points - and Erik is no slouch.
>He can be very tough to debate - but mostly because he tends to entertain
>his own tangents at the expense of the thread. I love Erik's writing, but
>boy he can wear me out. If I really was an intellectual I might be able to
>tussle more successfully with him, but I'm not, so I can't. But you did
>seem to do well.
>
I think I've learned quite some stuff from Erik, he gets me thinking.
He does like to show off his knowledge however :-)
>> I guess you're addressing me here again.
>
>I really wasn't thinking of you or anyone in particular - I'm not even
>sure who first mentioned Frazetta. To be truthful, some of the folks here
>haven't really registered with me beyond being Deli clones, and I don't
>recall their names. It is too much work and not enough fun to reply to
>everyone that one disagrees with. One needs to choose one's battles.
>
I'm the Frazetta mentioner. I fully agree he's low brow but I've
included all brows in my definition of art. However: I'm willing to
change my definition of "art". It's not really important to me what
"art" exactly denotates but I do think it might serve as a very good
label when it's properly defined (it shouldn't include "innovative"
and "completely new" however, that doesn't work)
>> The questions I asked were
>> about stuff like pigments and mediums, gesso, etc. I either start or
>> participate in _discussions_ about ideas like aesthetics and art. This
>> is because I know there are no clear cut answers possible on questions
>> about such ideas.
>>
>
>That may be true - or it may not. It depends on what one needs for an
>answer.
>
Stuff like balance, symmetry, etc. are easy to grasp concepts. They're
part of aesthetics but there are no real workable rules here.
Aesthetics need to work in a composition. It is here where one needs
to rely on one's own sensibility.
Ofcourse one can read books that tell why certain compositions of
paintings actually work. This can help as an aid for one's own
creative process ("There something wrong here" vs "The tension in the
global color fields pull the whole composition the wrong way")
>> "They are only making pronouncements about their abject, regretable
>> taste" Do you really believe anyone here takes the maker of such a
>> statement seriously?
>
>You know, if you like, you can go to deja.com and have a look at my
>posting history and compare it to mani's. I think there is one hell of a
>lot more good faith writing in mine than his - and a hell of a lot less
>invective, rudeness, vulgarity, personal attack, etc.
>
Compare it to Mani's??? Do you think I've a full year of time on my
hands to read everything he has written?
Certainly Mani is both stronger in quantity and quality (calling
people "fat sow", saying even kindergarten children can paint better
than the artist who has finally gathered enough courage to show
his/her first work on the internet, etc.). As a result very few take
him seriously. He also let his own taste dismiss work as art. For
example: both Dan Fox and Alison Raimes are good artists but Deli
isn't able to see the quality in their work because he doesn't like
their type of work. That's his loss ofcourse.
Your statement I quoted was Mani-esque and that's a shame because I
really like your other attributions to this ng.
>> Not so long ago
>> you were talking about sensibility, an innate attribution. I agreed
>> with Erik that one can learn to appreciate certain works of art
>> because culture does provide mediums (and thus we need to know about
>> cultures) but I would never dismiss someone's taste as being abject.
>
>So you are saying no one has bad taste?
>
Taste on itself isn't good or bad. Taste is what tells you what you
like within a context. There is however such a thing as "bad taste"
but this doesn't relate to the taste of a person but how this person
expresses his or her taste. It's like a good and bad expression of
sensibility.
If I make a painting then it is about at most 3 things (main ideas) at
the same time, and these things can mix. I can't make paintings about
more things at the same time because the different things will start
to destroy each other, cancel each other out, combining into real
chaos and ugliness. That would be bad taste if that would happen.
Wanting all at once like a glutton. Humans are never all at once at
the same time, always being one side of their whole at a time. Showing
one face of their person.
>(snip)
>> I don't mind or question anyone who has
>> opinions completely incompatible with mine, no matter how much skill
>> and knowledge is backing my opinions up.
>
>Well, it's no skin off my back either, if someone disagrees with me. I'm
>not angry with Mani. I'm simply trying to see how well I am able to argue
>with him - or anyone else. Please don't think I'm trying to teach, here.
>This is a game. And I would like to read his rebutals if they were
>reasonable, but as anyone can see they aren't.
>
Here's a tool which may come to your aid (I'm so bloody evil :-)
You might want to step into Mani's shoes, see what he actually wants
to prove (that's what argueing is about, making people accept your
opinion by proving that opinion). Follow his line of reasoning and
then give him prove (indirectly) for his points. But this prove must
be such that it will prove your point at the same time.
Mani is such that he doesn't check such things (perhaps after reading
this). It's important to never try to invalidate his points. He will
always try to invalidate yours (he's at war with the bigger part of
the world). So, when he takes your bait (and he is always looking
around what he can use to support his case) he will actually subscribe
your point since the bait supports both your and his point.
Then you show him this and your victory will be that he couldn't see
that his own point was actually your point which he was fighting. IOW
he showed he didn't understand his own point at all and he will turn
away in shame ;-)
>> >approaching Mani politely and offered a careful essay on what I found to
>> >be the common ground between art of all periods and he refused to
>> >acknowlege it. If he really missed it the first couple of times I posted
>> >it for him, he could always go to Deja and find it under my posting
>> >history - but that isn't really what he wants.
>> >
>> You're hardly polite
>
>Well, I am truly sorry if I've offended you. But I don't think you've read
>enough of me to say that.
>
Hehe, well, I've read about all you posted here. This newsgroup can
easily be read completely on a daily basis.
Anyway, I needed to polarize and to overexaggerate, even become
personal, because my image was on stake (that all important thing :-)
You're not really rude as a person but sometimes you are rude, I can
be rude as well, even Erik is sometimes rude :-) Deli is indeed really
rude, I've never heard him say a nice thing to anyone. I believe he
thinks the world is against him and he's the only defender of his
truth (while a lot of us actually subscribe his "No Skill, No Art"
paradigm although we have a more broader definition of skill).
>> I posted my list as a response to your list because I thought you were
>> trolling (telling it was perfect and above discussion)
>
>Of course. And we play to have fun, don't we? We don't play to become
>angry, I hope.
>
Hehe, I'm never angry because of arguments on the internet. If I get
rude then it is a tactical decision to be rude :-) I could have
responded to you by quoting the book of "cursing in english" but
instead I opted for "You're hardly polite" Such a small response to
such a big part of text of you. It has the image of a final
authority's verdict :-)
>Some folks here are often very, very rude. And once in a great while I
>feel a twinge of regret that a hack like Frazetta is adored while Derain
>is ignored and I play nasty. I am sorry if I've offended you, but Frazetta
>is called an illustrator for a reason. If he appeals to you, that doesn't
>bother me. If I call him a hack, it needn't bother you.
>
Most problems here arise from the fact that we still haven't got a
proper consensus about the definition of "art" and "artist". If you
say that Frazetta is not an artist then that might be perfectly legal
within your definition. But to me "artist" is also a quality label
(both skill and sensibility). In my definition both high brow and low
brow can be art and illustrators can be called artists by me as well.
I fully agree that Frazetta is an illustrator but according to my
definition of "artist" he's also an artist (compare this for example
what I said about medical book illustrators to Erik, I don't think
they're artists but Erik thinks they are because there's a complete
culture attached to them)
Brian Shapiro
Before we go into any discussion about the words 'art' and 'illustration'
mean we first have to look at the words themselves and see how meanings are
appended to them. Obviously, the world without a conscious abstracting
being, such as a human, is left uncategorized with no inherent boundaries
and while it may be proper to say that categories we percieve to exist--even
abstract ones--do objectively exist as qualities in the underlying reality,
none of us percieve the reality quite the same way and thus words become
loose and fuzzy means by which we can relate concepts to one another. When
taken in the larger context of a language, words become more than a means by
which to correlate mental concepts by a group of individuals. In a society,
language becomes an institutional standard and thus words in that language
take upon an independent meaning which is derived through its users only
through their indirect actions and unaware consenus.
I believe it is important to keep this in mind especially with regards to
the definition of 'art' and 'illustration' because we have to remember that
they are words that--as we understand them--have their originary basis
within the Western languages, and thus have for a long time have had
connections which run deep with the culture of Western civilization. It is
most likely that any categories in foreign languages that existed to refer
to what we would regard as 'art' differed significantly. It was not until
the the 20th century, when cultures from disparate areas on the globe
converged and intertwined with one another did our Western definition of
'art' become likewise become intertwined with the concepts of creation in
other cultures, thus leading it to refer to a broader conceptual category
that we may consider 'meta-art'.
Why the Western roots of the term 'art' is still important is because it is
our culture through which art has been linked to the realm of the
intellectual and academic thought. It is no surprise that Modern art
theorists and critics, like Greenberg, tried to mold art in the shape of
philosophy in order to attempt to give it more intellectual substance and
move it away from their perception of it being stuck as a 'craft'. Yet, in
their sentiment, they were not attempting to 'give any new meaning' to what
art was, but only emphasize those qualities inherent in art which they had
felt gave the field its intellectual nature and status--those qualities
which gave the work of art 'meaning'. As such, they continued to recognize
what they called the great 'ancient artists' as being precursors to what
would come to arise with the birth of Modernism. One thing that many
Modernists didn't realize, however, is that there is 'meaning' in every work
of art, every text, and every creation for that matter--and for such a
reason, spearheaded by new philosophical texts by those such as Derrida,
postmodernism would soon arise but would continue the search for
'meaningful' art by trying to isolate 'meaning' as much as possible in
different ways and in different forms.
I agree in part with the modernist/postmodernist idea that 'high art' is an
intellectual excercise and a work of high art is meaningful in that regard.
On the other hand, it may be proper to say that 'illustration' somehow
contains less meaning and is merely the product of banality or
commercialism. However I think it can be seen that both of these strains of
thought are very misguided and their over-intellectualizing has led them to
the kind of sophistry that derails the entire purpose of their quest. Yes,
art is meaningful, and yes there is meaning in everything. However, what
must be asked is -how art is meaningful-, and in what ways can it be 'more'
meaningful. It is certainly not the case that the concept alone can ascribe
meaning to something, as the concept is divorced from the actual work, and
it would seem not the be the case that the form of the work itself can be
meaningful because it must be interpreted by observers.
It would thus seem to me that the way in which art gains meaning is when
both the idea motivates the form and the form motivates the idea, so that
they equally re-enforce eachother. Thus, in this way the work of art is
intelligible and articulate and thus gains meaning in the same way in which
a language would, and can sufficiently contain in its form an idea created
by the artist that then later can be derived by an observer. A work would
have more apparent 'profound meaning' and would be a better candidate for
the category of 'high art' if the 'profound' ideas which were intended to be
within the artwork made themselves apparent to the observer as the artist
intended. The translation of a work to have meaning can not be accidental,
because meaning can be found in anything--rather, the work itself must be an
articulate and intelligible expression of meaning.
This would bring us to the question of the way in which this could be
accomplished and would lead us to ask what art does to make concepts in the
head of an artist apparent to a viewer of his creations. The answer is
simple---and it is something that modernists/postmodernists have avoided and
tried to fend off with all of their intellectual wit and sophistry:
REPRESENTATION.
In order to portray a concept, you must represent it in a form that can be
read by someone else. It is true that this representation doesn't at first
seem to have to be linked to representations of real objects in the world.
The written language, one might say, is similar in that it has to represent
concepts in form---but it does not have to actually describe objects that
actually occur in the world, as it can use the means of language--strings of
symbolic characters---to relate abstract concepts that seemingly have no
link to the percieved world. Yet, as could be observed by anyone---and is
verified by cognitive studies---all abstract concepts in a language created
via a link to basic entities of holistic perception and are virtually linked
to them through the subconscious application of metaphoric schema.
'Institutions' are seen like 'buildings' in the mind, which is why they can
be 'toppled' and 'constructed'.
Similarly, it is not difficult to expect that any 'representation' in a work
of art such as a painting which is meant to reference to 'abstract' concepts
will have to, in turn---in order to be an articulate and intelligible
expression of meaning to human cognition (by which the observer can obtain
the meaning that the artist desires)---have to reference to real and
perceptible objects in the world.
Paintings that fail to do this and fall into an extreme level of abstraction
will not communicate anything meaningful to the observer other then acting
as psychological inkblot tests, and paintings that faill to encapsulate
ideas in representations will be mimetically 'realistic' and would easily
fall into the description of 'illustration.' One has to realize that in
order for there to be meaning the realms of the object and the subject have
to enforce eachother.
If abstract art tends towards meaningless inkblots and realistic art tends
towards meaningless illustration---then what do I consider meaningful, and
thus 'high art'?
Idealism---a purely figurative art, and a merge of recognizable objects and
abstract ideas.
--Brian Shapiro
mesken
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.1000102122329.610300563A-
>100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>
>>Well, I am truly sorry if I've offended you. But I don't think you've read
>>enough of me to say that.
>>
>
>Last time I looked in here, Webber had taken it into his own hands to
>write and tell a valuable contributor to this list that he, the other
>poster, had assumed the position of *sage* here - in a derogatory sense.
>Then he then went on to complain that the thread we had on the sublime
>had kept him from posting - he couldn't find anything interesting to
>respond to apparently - caring not that in fact several other people
>were actively engaged in it. I see here, three weeks after this thread
>started, the same discussion in progress and a lot of very bored,
>irritated people. Perhaps Webber's block busting show in the third rate
>NY gallery which he shared with two Sunday painters, has put him above
>his station. One thing for sure, the title now at the top of my screen
>*Ignorance at blissful last* is very appropriate. Webber might want to
>consider the true meaning of *sensibility* before he continues with his
>take over bid for the title of *sage* because at this stage he is
>losing.
>
Ah, Alison has unmistakingly returned :-)
Happy Millenium, BTW did you know that that big Ferris wheel of London
was made by a dutch company: Hollandia Kloos? (ah, my nationalism
working again ;-)
Webber says we should think of the discussions as mere fun and he
doesn't want to insult anyone (stating he even wants to shake hands
with Deli, imagine that :-) Ofcourse he only got that more tempered
opinion after I frowned at him ;-)
Anyway, I think you're right. Webber doesn't really elaborate on his
extreme points and he already received quite some Flak. I think Deli
is really enjoying the whole scene (the man we love to hate) Erik was
quite right to point out that we're looking at a high brow vs low brow
thingie. Is low brow stuff not real art? etc.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Color is important in Dali. Look at some Dali's posted on the net.
>Have you seen any originals? His technique and painterly finish is
>unique.
So you think it is important to see work in the *real* before passing
judgement on it, do you Mani ? Is that your New Year's resolution ?
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>Ah, Alison has unmistakingly returned :-)
Well I had the flu all over Xmas and have been diving in and out
watching the shenanigans. Tomorrow going back to London and starting a
new job on Tuesday. On top of that I am homeless .... yeah really - I
was house sitting for a friend who went to Thailand for two months and
got a phone call a couple of days from the house to say he as back early
- only got two days on my own there ! Thing is I gave up my room and
have to now find a new one. So I won't be staying here but will be back
in March after my MFA application has been completed - have to keep my
focus you know ! Try and get some life into this place will you ?
>
>Happy Millenium, BTW did you know that that big Ferris wheel of London
>was made by a dutch company: Hollandia Kloos? (ah, my nationalism
>working again ;-)
>
And to you too ! I saw a programme on it this evening - hardly any of it
was made in Britain - much of it was done in Czechoslovakia ... mind
you, the damn thing didn't pass the safety regulations and flopped so
don't be so fast to boast. Did you notice that the firework display
flopped too ? The wall of fire that should have opened the show by
shooting up the middle of the Thames failed also.
>Webber says we should think of the discussions as mere fun and he
>doesn't want to insult anyone (stating he even wants to shake hands
>with Deli, imagine that :-) Ofcourse he only got that more tempered
>opinion after I frowned at him ;-)
Webber likes to direct his venom via private Email - he belongs to the
Marilyn Welch back stabbing brigade and I have no time for that shit. As
for the Deli thing - he was trying to outsmart him by making him think
he was being reasonable. That was so transparent though I thought he had
Deli at one point.
>
>Anyway, I think you're right. Webber doesn't really elaborate on his
>extreme points and he already received quite some Flak. I think Deli
>is really enjoying the whole scene (the man we love to hate) Erik was
>quite right to point out that we're looking at a high brow vs low brow
>thingie. Is low brow stuff not real art? etc.
>
I love Mani - and I wouldn't say no to a snog with Erik either.
Keep the camp fire burning, Paul.
Au revoir !
--
mark webber
> How about Francis Bacon, or even David Hockney?
> Why no sculptors?
Absolutely! Terrible! Both of them!
Sculptors? Well, let's see. Serra, Judd, Lipschitz. There are plenty more,
too! Terrible!
Oh, I may have the perfect over-rated painter for your number one slot.
BOTERO
He absolutely stinks, don't you agree? And he deserves special
consideration because in spite of obvious formula and the visual stench of
sentiment he still has some major critics fooled.
I mean it's easy to fool a critic with something like a tilted arc, but to
fool them with the visual approximation of Kenny G - well that is really
noteworthy.
Yes, my vote goes to Botero.
best,
Mark
mdeli
>On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:59:13 -0800, lake
><lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Personally, I find Dali's work very ugly. I wouldn't hang one in my
>>house if you paid me. All that dripping morbidity - looks like melting
>>plastic. And Dali's sense of color is like something from kindergarten.
>>Compare him to Bonnard, now there's a painter!
Bonnard is a tenth rate schmierer who couldn't draw. He only interests
art students who draw and paint as badly. His color is mediocrity and
his subject matter conventional bourgeois nothing. He is a model for
failures.
>>Sure, Dali could draw -
Which is more than most all modern Artists can do
>>but his vision as a humanist, as a bringer of joy, leaves a lot to be
>>desired.
I suppose de Koonings cat vomit brings joy etc. Didn't know that an
artist was reqiured to have particular political beliefs in order to
produce fine work.
>>
>Color is indeed inferior in Dali's paintings (and the Blockx paint he
>used is quite hard to handle because of its heavy pigmentation and
>handling qualities which differ for each tube).
>
>Then again: color wasn't at all important in Dali's paintings.
Color is important in Dali. Look at some Dali's posted on the net.
Have you seen any originals? His technique and painterly finish is
unique.
>>Skill and craftsmanship, unless there is something more significant
>>behind them, are profoundly boring.
True, but Dali invented a whole new style of subject matter which the
public finds far from boring.
> Investigations into new ways of
>>seeing, new ways of defining what a painting is may or may not be
>>"skillful" - but at least they are doing something more than simply
>>re-hashing tired formulas.
If Dali is just "rehashing formulas" to you, it leads me to duobt that
you've ever seen much of his work.
GImmicks and formulas with no skill attached are best represented by
Abstract Depressionism and the mountains of formless crap which
followed.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mesken
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <RsBvOLcM3qMkdiVcwmqivw=fA=a...@4ax.com>, mesken
><usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>
>>Ah, Alison has unmistakingly returned :-)
>
>Well I had the flu all over Xmas and have been diving in and out
>watching the shenanigans. Tomorrow going back to London and starting a
>new job on Tuesday. On top of that I am homeless .... yeah really - I
>was house sitting for a friend who went to Thailand for two months and
>got a phone call a couple of days from the house to say he as back early
>- only got two days on my own there ! Thing is I gave up my room and
>have to now find a new one. So I won't be staying here but will be back
>in March after my MFA application has been completed - have to keep my
>focus you know ! Try and get some life into this place will you ?
Amazing. How does this all reflect on your work? I guess you could
always live for a little while in the studio (or is that gone too?).
There's a bright side to this ofcourse, you can write a book about it.
It's better than "When I left the academy I was an immediate success
and got stinkin rich" ;-)
Too bad you're leaving so soon again but Erik and I will keep the
place alive by secretly manipulating posters in waging flame wars,
brother against brother stuff, like we always have done. Little does
Webber know that he's only a mere tool in Erik's and my hands. After
we're through with him he will have allied up with Deli (who he will
call his Master by then) This will redeem this ng's loss of Jason
Hutto, Brother Alphabet ;-)
>>Happy Millenium, BTW did you know that that big Ferris wheel of London
>>was made by a dutch company: Hollandia Kloos? (ah, my nationalism
>>working again ;-)
>>
>And to you too ! I saw a programme on it this evening - hardly any of it
>was made in Britain - much of it was done in Czechoslovakia ... mind
>you, the damn thing didn't pass the safety regulations and flopped so
>don't be so fast to boast. Did you notice that the firework display
>flopped too ? The wall of fire that should have opened the show by
>shooting up the middle of the Thames failed also.
>
Ofcourse the wheel was flawed, that's why we didn't have any, but we
did made some british pounds with it ;-)
>>Webber says we should think of the discussions as mere fun and he
>>doesn't want to insult anyone (stating he even wants to shake hands
>>with Deli, imagine that :-) Ofcourse he only got that more tempered
>>opinion after I frowned at him ;-)
>
>Webber likes to direct his venom via private Email - he belongs to the
>Marilyn Welch back stabbing brigade and I have no time for that shit. As
>for the Deli thing - he was trying to outsmart him by making him think
>he was being reasonable. That was so transparent though I thought he had
>Deli at one point.
Oh my. So I can expect some mail bomb any time now from Webber. Ah
well, perhaps it will enhance my knowledge about cursing in english.
They didn't teach me that at school :-)
>>Anyway, I think you're right. Webber doesn't really elaborate on his
>>extreme points and he already received quite some Flak. I think Deli
>>is really enjoying the whole scene (the man we love to hate) Erik was
>>quite right to point out that we're looking at a high brow vs low brow
>>thingie. Is low brow stuff not real art? etc.
>>
>I love Mani - and I wouldn't say no to a snog with Erik either.
>
>Keep the camp fire burning, Paul.
>Au revoir !
Yo, success with your house hunt
the best, regards, sincerely, respect, etc. :-)
Tomi Holmberg
>Certainly Mani is both stronger in quantity and quality (calling
people "fat sow", >saying even kindergarten children can paint better
than the artist who has finally >gathered enough courage to show
>his/her first work on the internet, etc.). As a result very few take
him seriously. He also >let his own taste dismiss work as art. For
example: both Dan Fox and Alison Raimes >are good artists but Deli
isn't able to see the quality in their work because he doesn't >like
their type of work. That's his loss ofcourse.>
now you step into the board with your cult flag and tell mani isn't
able to see the quality in their work because he doesn't like their
type of work; that's not only untrue but everyone does that also here
whether or not they support the idea of ego and culture affecting the
perceiving. looks like this has been the general topic here some weeks
for now.
furthermore, mani succeeds with facts while most of the people have
nothing to offer except their fairytales of something called "art". and
how about the dan fox review? by far, mani was the only one except
mattison who dared to critic dan's works. this is because most of you
doesn't have any individual opinions that you dare to bring out, most
of you only stay as clones of modern art culture who repeat what others
think.
are you sure dan fox's works are good "art?" for me a artist is a
seeker of things, not a printer of millions of copies from one idea
(you can see this "idea" to be part the culture). dan's stuff belongs
to same cathegory what the millions of today's abstract art lottery
wanna be's do. i can "see" this stuff when i see all those works,
understanding is no problem. but i see the sensitivity of every work in
the world pretty clear too, so i'll cut that part of the translation
from my values for art because it's a general thing. i don't see van
gogh's works as any "profound" or sublime. his mind was quite fucked up
and his works were something that our culture wanted.
copying doesnt belong to "good art" imo. if it does then why
illustration doesnt?
ever followed the culture of the graffiti in your local area? when
someone makes something new and dope, for example new style for some
character - it's pretty obvious that it spreads like a cancer. we have
the same here in modern art but we're not only decades after of time
but that's also mainstream.
ps. i dig alison's works,, for me, they are like landscapes.
--
Art Suxors!!
www.sci.fi/~tomppa1
lake
art. But if the best alternative you can offer is Salvador Dali, you'd
better keep looking.Melting watches begin to look more and more like
comic book illustrations as time goes by - or haven't you noticed? And
that pseudo-classical "technique" - put it next to a Vermeer and you
just have to laugh....Like you, Dali was a noble reactionary, having
lost the battle even before he began.
Lake
mark webber
Well, Alison! I'm kind of surprised! Nothing I've written here before ever
elicited *this* sort of attention from you. So it obviously doesn't have
to do with my views about art. Could it be specificly tied to what I
thought was a private exchange between me and the "valuable contributor"?
And does that mean that what really interests you is side-taking?
Before we play, let me say that when you do actually get around to
writing about art I enjoy it. But there does seem to be a huge interest on
you part in picking sides and just bitching or trying to upset
people. I seem to remember you proudly admitting just that once - in
person. So I'm not sure why it isn't ok for me to be a little edgy
now and then.
I'm also not sure that this wouldn't have been better addressed through
email. I did invite our "valuable contributor" to continue our discussion
in email, since this sort of bitchiness is of little interest to most
people, and since I didn't really have an interest in embarrassing someone
I like. But you aren't just targeting me - you are targeting serious
painters who don't even look at the usenet, so I'm afraid I have to
address this in RAF.
One thing before we begin though. If this has been bothering you so much
for so long, is this really the most eloquent defense of the "valuable
contributor" you can produce? And why has it really bothered you for so
long? Why is what I write so important to you that you stew over it for
months?
Let's have a look:
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Last time I looked in here, Webber had taken it into his own hands to
> write and tell a valuable contributor to this list that he, the other
> poster, had assumed the position of *sage* here - in a derogatory sense.
"Sage"? Is that a word I used? And did I do so publicly? If we are going
to start airing things publicly you may want to check with the "valuable
contributor" before doing so. I think he may remember confiding a few
things to me that he doesn't want aired. It would feel very awkward for
*both* you and me to be protecting him.
I think I made it very clear to this mystery figure that I wasn't posting
to RAF my objections to some of his remarks out of respect for him. (Among
recent examples were his idea that a Venetian painting might show
underpainting because of *wear* - what sort of wear, I wondered? Was
someone putting too many miles on the painting without changing the oil?)
Or his remarks that Balthus made greeting card pornography - the sort of
remark one sees from Deli.
Now I didn't stomp away indignantly when my friend - well if you want
we'll keep him mysterious - when my friend denigrated a painter I admire.
I was *privately* disagreeing with some of his stances and styles. I never
asked him to quit RAF, and I'm sorry if his feelings are hurt. But I never
tried to publicly humiliate him and I'm surprised to see that he
apparantly needs you to try to publicly attack me. But that does seem to
be your primary interest in the usenet, doesn't it?
> Then he then went on to complain that the thread we had on the sublime
> had kept him from posting
Is that right? I did? I'd like to see that post. I don't recall that
sentiment and I don't believe I ever expressed it. I stepped out of the
sublime thread when the meaning of sublime no longer matched my usage of
the word. To me this seemed like the right way to deal with it, because
you and the other contributors to that thread were interested in that
aspect of the word. It didn't bother me at all, but it wasn't something I
had anything to add to. I certainly didn't mind seeing you write about art
instead of continuing in one of your endless personal harrangues - to my
mind that was an improvement.
> - he couldn't find anything interesting to
> respond to apparently - caring not that in fact several other people
> were actively engaged in it.
So what's wrong with that? Why is my imput so important?
Why don't you just stop reading this now and delete it. You don't need to
finish reading it, do you? We agreed about everything before, but since
your boyfriend's feeling are hurt, now you need to save the usenet from
me? So just delete this message. Go ahead.
You can't because this is what you really love about usenet: this kind
of alt.brallen crap.
> I see here, three weeks after this thread
> started, the same discussion in progress and a lot of very bored,
> irritated people.
You know, I find it hard to believe that you suddenly care about all these
irritated people when much of what I've been challenging is exactly what
you challenge when you are writing well.
Why are you still reading?
> Perhaps Webber's block busting show in the third rate
> NY gallery which he shared with two Sunday painters, has put him above
> his station.
A third rate New York Gallery? First, I don't think I've ever said my
work was anything special. This is sounding very much like a Mani-style
personal attack than a disagreement with views. Do you know anything about
the history of this gallery, or what painters got their starts their? Or
are you just hurling some anger?
I thought you never got angry?
Or is this what the "valuable contributor" has said about the galleries
where he reviewed Dik's work? I'm not sure I understand what makes them
third rate if there are continuous visits by each of New York's most
respected and best known critics.
You know, I usually don't dignify this sort of personal attack with
replies, but since you are also denigrating the Wooster Street galleries
in general, let me quote for you what Lance Esplund, one of the New York
correspondents for Modern Painter, has written about these galleries:
"This intimate space continues to attract some exceptional painters and
sculptors and enjoys the respect of a loyal following.... [It] focuses on
traditional representation and abstract painting, and is worth a look."
Painters represented at 121 Wooster Street have received positive reviews
in every national art journal and New York newspaper.
You know, you are welcome to dislike the work of anyone exhibiting there -
including me - but Sunday painters?
Let's have a look at that phrase for a minute. You mean someone who
dabbles right? Someone who hasn't really spent their life pursuing
something - more of a hobby. No real educational background in the
subject, but a sort of "well, I can do this - I'm a smart guy. I've read a
few things. People really like me and they'll support me if I dabble a
bit" kind of attitude, right?
Kind of like the art resume of one of the essay contributors to your web
site (unless I'm mistaken) who you are here defending, right?
You're talking dilettante, aren't you. Well, one of the dilettentes
showing on the same floor as I was is the author of the recent Monograph
on Soutine. Aside from a web-page, what is *your* Sunday writer up to?
Come on. He's trying to meet girls. And that's ok, I don't mind. And
obviously you and Mattison don't, since the two of you went to visit him.
But who is the dilettente here, really?
> Webber might want to consider the true meaning of *sensibility* ...
And what is that, Alison? What have I gotten wrong about sensibility?
Does sensibility have something to do with taking sides and spewing
Mani-style anger that I'm unaware of?
This sort of alt.brallen crap should really stay there, Alison. Why do you
want to drag it in here, anyway? If you want to continue, please email me.
I really don't have any quarrel with you or the "valuable contributor" and
I'd be happy to try to communicate with either of you that way. But this
is just the sort of sad hysteria that I try to avoid in the public forum,
so don't look for further comment from me on it, ok?
I am sorry, though, that you guys are upset. You needn't have personalized
it so much.
happy new year,
Mark
mark webber
Well, when you put it all this way, I don't really have an argument with
you. Nice prose too! But I'll snip to the bottom where we still have an
issue.
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, mesken wrote:
> Most problems here arise from the fact that we still haven't got a
> proper consensus about the definition of "art" and "artist". If you
> say that Frazetta is not an artist then that might be perfectly legal
> within your definition. But to me "artist" is also a quality label
> (both skill and sensibility). In my definition both high brow and low
> brow can be art and illustrators can be called artists by me as well.
> I fully agree that Frazetta is an illustrator but according to my
> definition of "artist" he's also an artist (compare this for example
> what I said about medical book illustrators to Erik, I don't think
> they're artists but Erik thinks they are because there's a complete
> culture attached to them)
I didn't say Frazetta wasn't an artist. I said he was an illustrator as
opposed to a "fine artist" and I still find that a valuable distinction.
But I'll also add that there is certainly an art to what Frazetta does,
and I certainly understand why folks like him. I loved him a while back.
And there is plenty of lowbrow stuff that I like too - so I apologize for
putting you on the defensive.
I've gotten my old friend Alison all bent out of shape so I guess I better
own up to trying to stir the soup a bit. It seems ok for others to do it.
I don't know why I can't be a pretentious, arrogant lout without such
clamor. Golly, folks, it is just fun isn't it? If it isn't fun, go fuck
yourselves!
Anyway, I'm glad you're here. May I call you Paul?
best,
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
Now if we want to argue who is better, Frazetta or S. Clay Wilson, I'm all
ears.
Erik
mark webber wrote:
> Well, when you put it all this way, I don't really have an argument with
> you. Nice prose too! But I'll snip to the bottom where we still have an
> issue.
>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, mesken wrote:
>
> > Most problems here arise from the fact that we still haven't got a
> > proper consensus about the definition of "art" and "artist". If you
> > say that Frazetta is not an artist then that might be perfectly legal
> > within your definition. But to me "artist" is also a quality label
> > (both skill and sensibility). In my definition both high brow and low
> > brow can be art and illustrators can be called artists by me as well.
> > I fully agree that Frazetta is an illustrator but according to my
> > definition of "artist" he's also an artist (compare this for example
> > what I said about medical book illustrators to Erik, I don't think
> > they're artists but Erik thinks they are because there's a complete
> > culture attached to them)
>
br...@wralaw.com
"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Mark,
> would come to arise with the birth of Modernism. One thing that many
> Modernists didn't realize, however, is that there is 'meaning' in
every work
> of art, every text, and every creation for that matter--
According to what you stated earlier -it wouldn't have meaning in
absense of an Abstract being...
> and for such a
> reason, spearheaded by new philosophical texts by those such as
Derrida,
> postmodernism would soon arise but would continue the search for
> 'meaningful' art by trying to isolate 'meaning'
Most of what is called postmodern or Modern art is merely technical,
If you read ad-hoc accounts of postmodernism 'meaning' is often
attacked rather than found(confound!).
Perhaps a critic of PM would say that this arrises from its(PM)
inability to generate any valid or profound meaning.
> as much as possible in
> different ways and in different forms.
> I agree in part with the modernist/postmodernist idea that 'high art'
is an
> intellectual excercise and a work of high art is meaningful in that
regard.
> On the other hand, it may be proper to say that 'illustration' somehow
Illustration like modernism is a purely technical definition. If an
illustration image is itself based on 'paranoia or ecstacy' it doesn't
change its definition. Simularly if a drip painting was done in order
to make a few extra bucks it doesn't meet intuitive definitions of
illustration.
The categorical assumption that technical manifestations of art are
based on philosophical intention is baseless and so therefore so are
philosophies of Modernism and Postmodernism as well...
> If abstract art tends towards meaningless inkblots and realistic art
tends
> towards meaningless illustration---then what do I consider
> meaningful, and thus 'high art'?
What you consider meaningfull is entirely based on your view. IMHO
"high-art" tends to be based on money alone, and a certain amount
of growing pretension of it being shown in an "Art Gallery" rather
than being an oil stain in a Parking lot, or stuck on someones
Refrigerator.
'High-art' also can be construed to mean stoned, or tripping art. It
is my opinion that after around 1900' that art has attempted to have
the quality of psychedelic drugs,-perhaps for those who are too scared
to take them, or of a day-dream/nighmare feel to it - A surreality.
Most of what ends up in Museums these days seems to be based on some
sort of compulsion or Mental illness(although most of these people
are perfectly sane and are being merely pretentious and contrived, and
without the complexity of surrealism we can't validly say that it
is creative or imaginitive either).
What is the status quo now often is as bad as comedians have made
them out to be. I don't doubt that there are some realists who have
the Je ne sais qua' of Avant bad, they don't balance each other either.
> Idealism---a purely figurative art, and a merge of recognizable
objects and
> abstract ideas.
> --Brian Shapiro
br...@wralaw.com
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> Personally, I find Dali's work very ugly. I wouldn't hang one in my
> house if you paid me. All that dripping morbidity - looks like melting
> plastic. And Dali's sense of color is like something from
kindergarten.
> but his vision as a humanist, as a bringer of joy, leaves a lot to be
> desired.
You have made Dali into a King! This is exactly the power of Dali,
-to piss of the Art estabolishment continually, Each new generation
of Artists intends to Rebel few have succeeded as Dali has.
> Skill and craftsmanship, unless there is something more significant
> behind them, are profoundly boring.
Entirely offbase but good attempt anyway!
>Investigations into new ways of
> seeing, new ways of defining what a painting is may or may not be
> "skillful" - but at least they are doing something more than simply
> re-hashing tired formulas.
Not only did Dali do this he was also very much a humanist- much more
than I am. Your entire point of view is BS. you made for yourself...
Perhaps a problem derived from a realization at the age of 20' that
with Dali in the picture you can't compete; I had that problem too
and was all to happy to accept Modern PR's escape! I say come in
out of your fog though its all much easier than you think. Dali
can only be trancended with Faith and Vigalance as it is... Besides
art really isn't a competition -why do you think God invented
Football?
> - 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!
-Ocean
mesken
>On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 16:09:25 +0100, mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
>>Color is indeed inferior in Dali's paintings (and the Blockx paint he
>>used is quite hard to handle because of its heavy pigmentation and
>>handling qualities which differ for each tube).
>>
>>Then again: color wasn't at all important in Dali's paintings.
>
>Color is important in Dali. Look at some Dali's posted on the net.
>Have you seen any originals? His technique and painterly finish is
>unique.
>
Surely there are no errors in his use of color but what I mean is that
Dali was very skilled in using his knowledge of visual perception but
not with color perception. If I think of artists who used color most
skillfully then I think of artists like van Gogh, Cezanne, etc. They
really _used_ colors where Dali just applied them. Color is by no
means a central item in Dali's work. Ofcourse all of his paintings
were in color but only to support shape.
There's a clear distinction between "drawers" and "painters". Painters
work and think in patches of color put next to each other whereas
drawers work and think in outlines, they use color only to give shape
to their initially flat underpaintings or sketches. Dali was a drawer
and van Gogh was a painter, both were the best at what they were
doing.
mark webber
Thanks for such a thoughtful post. As I said to Paul earlier today, I see
a valuable distinction between the concept of illustration and that of
fine art. If you don't, that's perfectly ok with me.
Both are arts. There is an art to illustration. There can be well-done
illustration and poorly done illustration. There is certainly well-done
and poorly done fine art. Do you see what I'm getting at?
There is also an art to plumbing. These are simply the various usages for
this word. I promise that I am not responsible, no matter how arrogant I
am or appear.
Now there is also brilliant "fine art" - or what I (and I think
many others) usually refer to as "great art".
Somehow, I know of no illustration that is "great art". I'm not sure it
can't exist, but it seems we would have lots of examples already if it
did. But there are certainly illustrations that qualify as great
illustrations and Rockwell can probably be credited with many of these.
Now, one more thing. I know a frequent reply to this line of inquiry is
"Well, the Sistine Chapel is an illustration of the Old Testament and in
fact lots of great art is an illustration of this or that."
This is true, but I hope you'll agree that this ceiling is is also
something *more* than an illustration, and all an illustration has to do
to be an illustration is refer to, describe something else.
Great art does more than that. By *definition* it does more than that.
You love art so naturally you know what I mean by this and I'm
sure I don't need to bore you with more supporting arguments to
explain this further.
But I will also add that one of the tripping points that I encounter here
is that issue of form and subject matter, and this issue of illustration
goes back to this as well; illustration is subject matter-oriented. And
great art isn't great because of anything to do with the subject matter.
Do you see the implication here?
But thanks again for jumping in. It's nice to see some old fashioned art
talk here. I had no idea that if I changed my writing tactics for a few
minutes there would be such a bloodbath. Man, anybody else is allowed to
be an asshole anytime they like. I do it and twats start badmouthing my
gallery. I'm ready to return to the limmericks!
best,
Mark
Brian Shapiro
I actually have the point of view that the more meaningful the art, the more
emotionally or intellectually attractive the art will be for the viewer. If
you think of 'meaning' as it relates to language I think you will better
understand how I am using the term. Just as language gains meaning by
representing the perceptible experience in a chain of symbols, a painting
will gain meaning via the forms and colors involved. As an 'abstract' block
of text is gibberish and won't be considered meaningful or of value to
someone who sees it---except the few who are able to ordain some aesthetic
pleasure from the particularly delightful combination of letters---an
abstract painting has little meaning or value by itself. However, at the
same time we don't give too much value in society to a long and objectively
precise description of a set of circumstances. Rather, it is the poetry
imbued in the words and the rhetoric that complement what is being described
that we admire in a text. There is a similar poetic nature, I believe can be
said, within the use of line and color, that gives meaning and beauty to a
painting. This, just as in text, would complement and give texture to what
is being described.
--Brian Shapiro
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 12:59:15 -0800, "Brian Shapiro"
> >If abstract art tends towards meaningless inkblots and realistic art
tends
> >towards meaningless illustration---then what do I consider meaningful,
and
> >thus 'high art'?
>
> "Abstract art and realistic art" are really definitions of species of
> subject matter. What makes art of value to the viewer is how
> attractive one can make their subject matter by means of skills. It
> may or may not be meaningful.
>
> All the verbal blather which follows, comes after the thing on the
> wall attracts viewers.
mdeli
>While we are on the subject of the unschooled, have you noticed that the
>champions of illustrative pap like Frazetta and Bouguero never post
>queries? They never ask questions like "Where can I learn more about art
>and esthetics?" or "What are some titles or authors of books from which I
>can begin my education?" They are only making pronouncements about their
>abject, regretable taste.
Unschooled indeed!
Webber Iv'e seen de Kooning's cat vomit posing as masterpieces in the
original, on the net and in many five pound de Kooning books. Your
painting's lack of originality, drawing and anything new in subject
matter and they reflect your "regrettable taste and reveal your
incompetence.
>
>Do you know why? The answer is simple: They know all they need to
>know. They always have. They believe that art is so simple a proceedure,
>so basic an experience, that the approach they developed in middle school
>is the only one they will ever need.
Webber had to work hard to become an art school failure in order to
develop his superior taste. He imagines that all who disagree with him
are unschooled and ill read and never look at anything new.
>The notion that art is a complex apex of human achievement doesn't warrant
>a continuous re-evaluation, a constant education. It is always going to be
>about one thing and one thing only - the ability to render slickly.
...Like Leonardo, Reubens, Raphael, Canaletto, Dali etc, unlike
Cezanne, Bonnard and Matisse etc. who can't draw at all. "Slick" is a
term used by artistic failures when referring to what they can't do.
>(In spite of plenty of evidence, regardless of what has been posted here
>lately, that Dekooning could render extremely sensitively.
The guy is ordinary third rater. If the drawings were signed R. Mutt
even the sensitive Webber would be unimpressed.
>Why are the
>recent newcomers - who are so quick to proclaim expertise - so frightened
>of the idea of looking up Dekooning's drawings from the 1930's and 40's to
>see whether or not claims that he could draw are true?
Perhaps they took the trouble to take a close look.
>Because, Robert, if they *did* find these drawings, and saw that they were
>excellent renderings, they would be forced to ask themselves why Dekooning
>might move on to that abstract work. And that might lead to thinking in
>a new way. How frightening.)
The reason de Kooning moved on is because he was at a dead end.
However, he remained so. Any idiot can "move on."
>
>It is clear that what he really wants is to stomp and cry and make
>personal attacks. Why else would he use my paintings as part of his
>argument? I've never claimed my work was anything special and I certainly
>don't offer it as evidence to support any arguments.
Your work is strong evidence of what you don't know and why you like
what you like and why you are afraid of criticism.
>Why am I and my paintings such a threat to Mr. Deli?
Your work threatens nothing. I suspect you wish it did.
>Mani is like a born-again Christian in that he believes what he wants to
>believe *because* he wants to believe it and in complete disregard of
>whatever else may be offered in way of reasoning or logic.
Indeed.
I was the one who suggested modern Art museums have two curators, one
for each side of the polarized scene. Time magazine mentioned my
point. No Webber, Modern Art theology is the equivelent of the
Religious Right. However things will eventually change. The public is
becoming bored with endless riffs on Dada which was antiquated by1923,
and the third rate no-skill realism they are fed by the Modern
Academic Art clergy and conforming fundys you.
mdeli
<ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3871128a...@news.psi.ca>, mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
>writes
>
>>Color is important in Dali. Look at some Dali's posted on the net.
>>Have you seen any originals? His technique and painterly finish is
>>unique.
>
>So you think it is important to see work in the *real* before passing
>judgement on it, do you Mani ? Is that your New Year's resolution ?
>
When something looks like crap in a reasonable reproduction I consider
it almost impossible to look any good in the original.
Dali looks very good in reproduction. I can't say that for the Three
Stooges, Rothko, Pollock and de Kooning,
mdeli
>On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Liz Brown wrote:
>> How about Francis Bacon, or even David Hockney?
>> Why no sculptors?
>
>Absolutely! Terrible! Both of them!
I pretty well agree, but both are no worse than Cezanne.
>
>Sculptors? Well, let's see. Serra, Judd, Lipschitz. There are plenty more,
>too! Terrible!
What about Moore's megaturds and Mattisse's student drivel.
>
>Oh, I may have the perfect over-rated painter for your number one slot.
>
> BOTERO
>
>He absolutely stinks, don't you agree? And he deserves special
>consideration because in spite of obvious formula and the visual stench of
>sentiment he still has some major critics fooled.
He can handle composition and complexity. he's more a cartoonist
second rate illustrator than anything great. I would sum him up as
amusingly interesting. I like his color and ideas. However if anyone
here would take the trouble to look at the superior works of Braidt
Bralds in issues of Illustrators Annual he will find similar subject
matter which should be represented in museums.
As to the "sentimental stench" affecting Webber's sensitive nose, I
wonder If he wears a gas mask when confronted by the sentiment of
Matisse, Bonnard and Balthus? Does anyone here have similar olifactory
problems with sentiment?
mdeli
>towards meaningless illustration---then what do I consider meaningful, and
>thus 'high art'?
"Abstract art and realistic art" are really definitions of species of
subject matter. What makes art of value to the viewer is how
attractive one can make their subject matter by means of skills. It
may or may not be meaningful.
All the verbal blather which follows, comes after the thing on the
wall attracts viewers.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>Well DeLi, you've obviously had a lot of practice at trashing abstract
>art. But if the best alternative you can offer is Salvador Dali, you'd
>better keep looking.Melting watches begin to look more and more like
>comic book illustrations as time goes by - or haven't you noticed?
I guess all youv'e seen by Dali is melting watches.
> And
>that pseudo-classical "technique" - put it next to a Vermeer and you
>just have to laugh....Like you, Dali was a noble reactionary, having
>lost the battle even before he began.
That's why he is so popular in spite of all the bad reviews. Perhaps
Modern Academic Artists aren't reactionary enough. It takes skill you
know.
Erik A. Mattila
> But thanks again for jumping in. It's nice to see some old fashioned art
> talk here. I had no idea that if I changed my writing tactics for a few
> minutes there would be such a bloodbath. Man, anybody else is allowed to
> be an asshole anytime they like. I do it and twats start badmouthing my
> gallery. I'm ready to return to the limmericks!
>
> best,
>
> Mark
Really, Mark, you can get away with murder with limericks. The power of
fiction.
But for the record, I grant you right of being an asshole whenever it
pleases you. Go for it! It's such a nice release.
regardos,
Erik
Jiri Borsky
> There's a clear distinction between "drawers" and "painters". Painters
> work and think in patches of color put next to each other whereas
> drawers work and think in outlines, they use color only to give shape
> to their initially flat underpaintings or sketches. Dali was a drawer
> and van Gogh was a painter, both were the best at what they were
> doing.
Interesting concept.
I am not against it, but you may not chosen the right protagonists.
Vincent van Gogh was also an accomplished draughtsman. His reed pen and ink drawings are
exemplary. (My opinion.)
Jiri Borsky
--
remove all zzz from address
http://ds.dial.pipex.com/borsky/
Alison A Raimes
himself. He would have remained calm and reasonable under any attack -
he would never condescend and prided himself on his diplomatic approach
to all that happens here on raf. Maybe he needs to release tension - its
unfortunate that he used this as a venue to trash John and to make
private, confidences that I would imagine would be very embarrassing for
John. It certainly amazed me that he was prepared to lie face down in
his own excrement in order to vent his frustrations.
For all those who do not know John Haber please take a look at what
Webber is attacking http://haberarts.com
John regularly contributes to this group and writes about contemporary
art in New York. He maintains a website in which he passionately writes
about one of the things that is most important to him in this world -
art. He makes no monetary gain from his work and is always fast to tell
visitors to the site that he is not an authority on art history. In my
mind, he is much too modest. He is also one of the kindest, most
generous people, who never takes *sides*, though when he writes about
art he rarely compromises, irrespective of personal feelings for the
artist. He is a man to be admired and I am honoured to have been his
friend.
I suspect this is where the problem started with Webber. John did not
gush about his recent show that we both attended - I took it upon myself
as a fellow artists here to be supportive of Webber's work, while John
was limited with his critique for fear of offending him. We both agreed
that Webber's work is so locked into formalism that it has little chance
of developing past the conservative and static state it is in now. Its
plain boring. Clearly Webber is delighted with his New York success
story and will no doubt do well in his plodding way. However, he might
want to take a step back and look at what he has become as part of that
success story - there are plenty of role models around to catch a
reflection of himself.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.1000103092355.610303401A-
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>
mark webber
> Really, Mark, you can get away with murder with limericks. The power of
> fiction.
They don't even have to be fiction. They can be quite factual:
There once was a lassy named Alison
Whose habits remind me of Mattison
They both have accused
Dan Fox of a ruse;
- But it's fully archived at deja.com.
At Deja in the two compilations
Of their posts, one might have speculations:
(They both slept at Haber's)
Their Herculean labors
Consist mostly of false accusations...
Good lord! Could it be? Dare I claim?
Is it all a ridiculous game?
(Well of course it is, yes,
But I fear I digress)
These two loonies are one in the same!
All that matters is that they are fun. Entertaining. You know, Low Art.
>
> But for the record, I grant you right of being an asshole whenever it
> pleases you. Go for it! It's such a nice release.
>
> regardos,
> Erik
>
Thanks Erik! I knew you'd understand.
best,
Mark
Bob C
mark webber wrote:
>
> Thanks for such a thoughtful post. As I said to Paul earlier today, I see
> a valuable distinction between the concept of illustration and that of
> fine art. If you don't, that's perfectly ok with me.
>
> ...<snipped>...
>
> Now there is also brilliant "fine art" - or what I (and I think
> many others) usually refer to as "great art".
>
> Somehow, I know of no illustration that is "great art". I'm not sure it
> can't exist, but it seems we would have lots of examples already if it
> did. But there are certainly illustrations that qualify as great
> illustrations and Rockwell can probably be credited with many of these.
>
I very much agree with this, and I have been trying to explain to myself
why. I lean towards my own definition of illustration which is somewhat
different than that which most people here are proposing. Illustration:
visual art whose primary intention is to be seen as a photomechanical
reproduction of relatively ordinary quality.
Now, with fine art we demand a one-on-one confrontation between
ourselves and the work of art, and obviously the maximum potential can
only be realized by viewing an original art object itself and not a
reproduction of one. Needing to satisfy the demands of illustration, the
original art object of the illustrator is limited by requirements that
do not limit the fine artist. And thus the maximum potential which the
fine artist can realize is greater than that of the illustrator.
Doesn't mean they always do it. A great illustrator may create greater
works of art than an ordinary fine artist. But not greater works than a
great fine artist.
Dali is an illustrator, because I have never seen anything in his
paintings that I could not also see in the reproductions. Bouguereau, on
the other hand, is most definately a fine artist. Illustration is
entirely about image, because the image is the only thing which can be
captured by the reproduction. The unique qualities of the art object
itself are completely lost.
I think we mean something different, however, when we use the word
illustration as a negative criticism. In this case, we are usually
referring to works of art that would not only function well as
illustration, but do so because they apply safe formulas guaranteed to
appeal to an audience which craves instant gratification and
overstimulation. In spite of all of their excellent craftmenship, this
is how I would describe the works of illustrators like Frazzeta and
Vargas, and even Dali to a certain extent. When the strongest supporters
of illustration put them in their list of the greatest artists of the
20th century, it justs confirms my belief that illustrators don't belong
in that list.
- Bob C.
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>Amazing. How does this all reflect on your work? I guess you could
>always live for a little while in the studio (or is that gone too?).
>There's a bright side to this ofcourse, you can write a book about it.
>It's better than "When I left the academy I was an immediate success
>and got stinkin rich" ;-)
Didn't I tell you about the series of work I am on at the moment ? An
exhibition of a thousand tiny images - mostly drawings the size of the
thumbnails you usually see on websites. A thousand ! That's a lot of
work but changing scale like this is fascinating - and the volume of
work necessary is trying.
My friend just checked out of the Bangkok Hilton and decided the service
wasn't much good and the beds too hard - hence his return. They
apparently don't much like his art. Actually you would like his work a
lot, Paul - he has published two books of his photographs and has
gallery representation here in London and does illustrations for _Erotic
Review_. When the dust settles from his recent media attention I will
post the addresses. Never a dull moment huh ? Not to be hindered he has
now decided to try Singapore for a month and then go back Amsterdam
instead ! Maybe his work will be better received there. In the meantime
the couch works just fine in light of his recent experiences .... and he
does make a great wife !
>
>Too bad you're leaving so soon again but Erik and I will keep the
>place alive by secretly manipulating posters in waging flame wars,
>brother against brother stuff, like we always have done. Little does
>Webber know that he's only a mere tool in Erik's and my hands. After
>we're through with him he will have allied up with Deli (who he will
>call his Master by then) This will redeem this ng's loss of Jason
>Hutto, Brother Alphabet ;-)
>
Please don't waste your time on small fry like Hutto the Nutto - check
out Webber. He almost drowned in his own venom. A mere amateur of
course, who relies on stomping on the innocent in order to get to his
executor. People like him are fair game and much more easily knocked off
their perches than the Nuttos. Its much more interesting going for the
conservative, boring types - more challenging and the results always are
that they do exactly what they condemn in others. I would call it a
success if he hadn't got to me via someone dear to me - I feel sure he
could have found other way to get his revenge. Anyway, I trust I can
leave him in your capable hands now, my friend, until I can return to
finish off the head resizing job. BTW, beware of AOL server users ....
they are not always all they seem ;-)
>Yo, success with your house hunt
>
>the best, regards, sincerely, respect, etc. :-)
Ok, what exactly IS it you want ????? You know I only give blow jobs to
the very needy ;-) Quit the nice guy stuff will ya, it makes me want to
puke ;-)
Have fun, my friend ... I really must get on with some work. BTW how is
yours coming along ? I took your advise on the MDF boards and primed
them both sides - and backed them with two by one timber around all the
edges so they don't need framing. That way they sit off the wall like a
canvas and the beading acts as a support to prevent warping. Works well.
Cheers !
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mesken
wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
>> Really, Mark, you can get away with murder with limericks. The power of
>> fiction.
>
>They don't even have to be fiction. They can be quite factual:
>
[ snip ]
Hehehe, I love to see a flame war in progress. It now seems John Haber
(intellectual art critic or womanizing guru? perhaps both ;-) is kept
responsible for this predicament. The poor lad is probably not even
aware that there's a flame war going on because he's in a museum right
now :-)
Anyway, you said you wouldn't bully me for a week which is most
convenient to me.
You know, Deli and Haber are right about Balthus, Ballshit, whatever
his name is. His works aren't good expressions of sensibility, they're
not even proof of great skill. Rockwell OTOH could do in detail what B
couldn't obscure with foggy patches of calf shit brown (the color you
get when you can't mix paint but try anyway).
Deli quite rightly names "Girl in a mirror". Granted, the bulk of
Rockwell's work is low brow (Rockwell also called himself an
illustrator) but this particular piece shows Rockwell's mastery of
high brow art as well, better than Bourgereau. It's perhaps the very
best piece Rockwell made. Obviously you've never seen this masterwork
else you would have mentioned Rockwell as well in your list. You can
fill a book with how Rockwell's magnificent skills were applied here
to achieve this very intimate work about growing up and insecurity. No
person can look at this painting and merely state: "Oh, it's just a
girl looking at her own image in the mirror". When I look at B's work
then I can't help but think things like "Gee, that foot has worked out
completely wrong, it's not even standing on the ground, what a
distraction"
Ofcourse B is an artist but not a particular good one. There are
dozens which can do his stuff better. The adoration he receives is
probably the result of carefully engineered hype (the french are very
good at that) Now, I'm not Deli, I think de Kooning is a good artist
even though I don't like his work and Klee and Picasso are great
artists which I love, but seriously, you must be joking to have B as a
favourite. The man is a sunday painter, a greeting card porn painter,
I've seen pulp that is better than his work, Deli's dog can paint
better with its tail, etc. etc.
Ofcourse B might serve a function for painters. Showing your work and
stating that B is your idol and inspiration. People will say: "Hell!
You're a lot better than him" (ofcourse, who isn't?) which would mean
that you're a great artist as well if people are convinced that B is a
great artist. Luckily Haber could pin through the hype around B and it
now seems you're not particulary happy with that.
Still have that warm smile and friendly handshake for me? ;-)
mesken
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
>In article <4edvOC3X=+mGF4HIMMQ...@4ax.com>, mesken
><usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>
>>Amazing. How does this all reflect on your work? I guess you could
>>always live for a little while in the studio (or is that gone too?).
>>There's a bright side to this ofcourse, you can write a book about it.
>>It's better than "When I left the academy I was an immediate success
>>and got stinkin rich" ;-)
>
>Didn't I tell you about the series of work I am on at the moment ? An
>exhibition of a thousand tiny images - mostly drawings the size of the
>thumbnails you usually see on websites. A thousand ! That's a lot of
>work but changing scale like this is fascinating - and the volume of
>work necessary is trying.
>
Wow, you're working fast. I don't see anything on your web site yet
(the critical inquiry still the latest). Sounds interesting. All those
tiny images can form new images when put together because each of them
has a single point value and hue when perceived from some distance.
>My friend just checked out of the Bangkok Hilton and decided the service
>wasn't much good and the beds too hard - hence his return. They
>apparently don't much like his art. Actually you would like his work a
>lot, Paul - he has published two books of his photographs and has
>gallery representation here in London and does illustrations for _Erotic
>Review_. When the dust settles from his recent media attention I will
>post the addresses. Never a dull moment huh ? Not to be hindered he has
>now decided to try Singapore for a month and then go back Amsterdam
>instead ! Maybe his work will be better received there. In the meantime
>the couch works just fine in light of his recent experiences .... and he
>does make a great wife !
I'll check it out after the dust has settled :-)
>>Too bad you're leaving so soon again but Erik and I will keep the
>>place alive by secretly manipulating posters in waging flame wars,
>>brother against brother stuff, like we always have done. Little does
>>Webber know that he's only a mere tool in Erik's and my hands. After
>>we're through with him he will have allied up with Deli (who he will
>>call his Master by then) This will redeem this ng's loss of Jason
>>Hutto, Brother Alphabet ;-)
>>
>Please don't waste your time on small fry like Hutto the Nutto - check
>out Webber. He almost drowned in his own venom. A mere amateur of
>course, who relies on stomping on the innocent in order to get to his
>executor. People like him are fair game and much more easily knocked off
>their perches than the Nuttos. Its much more interesting going for the
>conservative, boring types - more challenging and the results always are
>that they do exactly what they condemn in others. I would call it a
>success if he hadn't got to me via someone dear to me - I feel sure he
>could have found other way to get his revenge. Anyway, I trust I can
>leave him in your capable hands now, my friend, until I can return to
>finish off the head resizing job. BTW, beware of AOL server users ....
>they are not always all they seem ;-)
>
Hehe, I believe he's basically a nice guy ;-) He's just panicking and
pulling some old tricks from the book :-) I feel a little bit sorry
for Haber who probably don't even knows there's a flame war going on
in which he suddenly became the locus
>Have fun, my friend ... I really must get on with some work. BTW how is
>yours coming along ? I took your advise on the MDF boards and primed
>them both sides - and backed them with two by one timber around all the
>edges so they don't need framing. That way they sit off the wall like a
>canvas and the beading acts as a support to prevent warping. Works well.
>
Ah, well I've six boards standing ready to receive paint at this
moment, some stuff that's half painted and some boards that still need
to get their size (BTW rabbit skin glue stinks when you make it and it
keeps stinking :-) At the same time I'm experimenting with all kinds
of mediums (I want the paint to swiiiing). Yet, I do hope to get some
stuff on my (still empty) homepage in some months. Perhaps 2000 will
be the year of the sensational Mesken, Brush Of Steel ;-)
.raimes.demon.co.uk
mdeli
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:22:25 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 01 Jan 2000 16:09:25 +0100, mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>Color is indeed inferior in Dali's paintings (and the Blockx paint he
>>>used is quite hard to handle because of its heavy pigmentation and
>>>handling qualities which differ for each tube).
>>>
>>>Then again: color wasn't at all important in Dali's paintings.
>>
>>Color is important in Dali. Look at some Dali's posted on the net.
>>Have you seen any originals? His technique and painterly finish is
>>unique.
>>
>Surely there are no errors in his use of color but what I mean is that
>Dali was very skilled in using his knowledge of visual perception but
>not with color perception.
Unlike most artists Dali was also able to vary his palette. Just
compare the different paintings he did during the 30's and also his
early abstracts.
>If I think of artists who used color most
>skillfully then I think of artists like van Gogh, Cezanne, etc.
Well I would say Cezanne is a terrible colorist. There is his late
orange and green stuff covering lousey drawing and his abominable
brown sauce portraits and uninspired landscapes and worst of all his
nudes. Its gaga stuff for all who can't draw and then compare
themselves to Cezanne.
>They
>really _used_ colors where Dali just applied them. Color is by no
>means a central item in Dali's work. Ofcourse all of his paintings
>were in color but only to support shape.
Whatever that means?
>
>There's a clear distinction between "drawers" and "painters". Painters
>work and think in patches of color put next to each other whereas
>drawers work and think in outlines, they use color only to give shape
>to their initially flat underpaintings or sketches. Dali was a drawer
>and van Gogh was a painter, both were the best at what they were
>doing.
>
Van Gogh painted mostly impasto. Dali did variations on thick and thin
in earlier work. Artzy fartzies imagine that impasto is the only way
to paint. When this is done without a knowledge of how to create form
on gets little more than Schmier (painting which looks like no more
than a lot of paint.) Artzy fartzies claim this is "self expression."
It helps them feel better about their lack of drawing inabilities.
Oliver Gili
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in message
news:Teyq9UAp...@raimes.demon.co.uk...
> In article <4edvOC3X=+mGF4HIMMQ...@4ax.com>, mesken
> <usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>
> >Amazing. How does this all reflect on your work? I guess you could
> >always live for a little while in the studio (or is that gone too?).
> >There's a bright side to this ofcourse, you can write a book about it.
> >It's better than "When I left the academy I was an immediate success
> >and got stinkin rich" ;-)
>
> Didn't I tell you about the series of work I am on at the moment ? An
> exhibition of a thousand tiny images - mostly drawings the size of the
> thumbnails you usually see on websites. A thousand ! That's a lot of
> work but changing scale like this is fascinating - and the volume of
> work necessary is trying.
wow, are you going to put any of them where I can see them, or are you going
for the
stamp market :-) (very lucrative my mother got paid 6000 for 6 roughs and
had to sign
official secrets act an' all)
Its a shame that I've done the reading required for this newsgroup (just
about to buy a kandisky book on
colour theory for 2 quid at a second hand book shop that my obscure
modernist european authors phd wielding
friend has tipped me off about) and now your leaving....
Oliver Gili
Oliver Gili
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3871128a...@news.psi.ca...> >On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 20:59:13 -0800, lake
> ><lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>Personally, I find Dali's work very ugly. I wouldn't hang one in my
> >>house if you paid me. All that dripping morbidity - looks like melting
> >>plastic. And Dali's sense of color is like something from kindergarten.
> >>Compare him to Bonnard, now there's a painter!
>
> art students who draw and paint as badly. His color is mediocrity and
> his subject matter conventional bourgeois nothing. He is a model for
> failures.
>
But his work is about love and obsession which is surely common to all
classes not just
the bourgeois
Oliver Gili
Alison A Raimes
gili.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>wow, are you going to put any of them where I can see them, or are you going
>for the
>stamp market :-) (very lucrative my mother got paid 6000 for 6 roughs and
>had to sign
>official secrets act an' all)
Exhibition at Cable Street in April, Oliver - you will get your invite.
>
>Its a shame that I've done the reading required for this newsgroup (just
>about to buy a kandisky book on
>colour theory for 2 quid at a second hand book shop that my obscure
>modernist european authors phd wielding
>friend has tipped me off about) and now your leaving....
>
>Oliver Gili
>
Please, please, please, get me a copy. In fact I am going to call you in
case you don't pick up your mail.
I'll be back .. there is unfinished business here !
Cheers.
--
mark webber
Hi Bob,
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bob C wrote:
(snip)
> > Somehow, I know of no illustration that is "great art". I'm not sure it
> > can't exist, but it seems we would have lots of examples already if it
> > did. But there are certainly illustrations that qualify as great
> > illustrations and Rockwell can probably be credited with many of these.
> >
>
> I very much agree with this, and I have been trying to explain to myself
> why. I lean towards my own definition of illustration which is somewhat
> different than that which most people here are proposing. Illustration:
> visual art whose primary intention is to be seen as a photomechanical
> reproduction of relatively ordinary quality.
Yes, the primary issue being that it must *describe*. It is a journalistic
responsibility - as opposed to a poetic one.
>
> Now, with fine art we demand a one-on-one confrontation between
> ourselves and the work of art, and obviously the maximum potential can
> only be realized by viewing an original art object itself and not a
> reproduction of one. Needing to satisfy the demands of illustration, the
> original art object of the illustrator is limited by requirements that
> do not limit the fine artist. And thus the maximum potential which the
> fine artist can realize is greater than that of the illustrator.
That's a good point too.
>
> Doesn't mean they always do it. A great illustrator may create greater
> works of art than an ordinary fine artist. But not greater works than a
> great fine artist.
Yes, this is what I was implying in my little rondo about "good low art,
good bad art, bad low art, bad high art.
>
> Dali is an illustrator, because I have never seen anything in his
> paintings that I could not also see in the reproductions.
And also because the primary issue is not that of the visual play, the
poetic, but of the narrative, the journalistic.
>
> I think we mean something different, however, when we use the word
> illustration as a negative criticism. In this case, we are usually
> referring to works of art that would not only function well as
> illustration, but do so because they apply safe formulas guaranteed to
> appeal to an audience which craves instant gratification and
> overstimulation. In spite of all of their excellent craftmenship, this
> is how I would describe the works of illustrators like Frazzeta and
> Vargas, and even Dali to a certain extent. When the strongest supporters
> of illustration put them in their list of the greatest artists of the
> 20th century, it justs confirms my belief that illustrators don't belong
> in that list.
>
> - Bob C.
You have my vote, big guy.
best,
Mark
mark webber
> You know, Deli and Haber are right about Balthus, Ballshit, whatever
> his name is. His works aren't good expressions of sensibility, they're
> not even proof of great skill. Rockwell OTOH could do in detail what B
> couldn't obscure with foggy patches of calf shit brown (the color you
> get when you can't mix paint but try anyway).
Ouch! Ouch! Oh no it is too painful to read! God is it possible? Another
Frazetta fan who doesn't like Balthus? I'm shocked!
Well, I suppose you would need Alison's permission to respond to anything
serious that I write, but if you ever do get that permission, let me know
and we can have a chat.
best wishes,
Mark
mesken
wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, mesken wrote:
My Dark Mistress has given me the authority to act on my own for a
while ;-)
Bob C
mdeli wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:24:16 EDT, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bob C wrote:
> >
> >>
> Written by super fans of the Three Stooges of Modern Academic Art,
> Rothko, de Kooning, Pollock from whose " fine art we demand a
> one-on-one confrontation between ourselves and the work of art, and
> obviously the maximum potential can only be realized by viewing an
> original art object itself and not a reproduction of one."
Actually, I am a big fan of the 3 stooges - the real ones - and this
makes for an interesting analogy. Naturally I prefer Curly to Shemp, but
based on everything Mani stands for, he almost certainly prefers Shemp.
Shemp was the much better actor and capable of creating much more
intelligent and clever ad-libs. Curly ad-libbed only when he forgot his
lines or what he was supposed to do. Shemp was the original, who left
the team and went on to have a successful acting career on his own (this
was before they began making films; Shemp returned later after Curly's
stroke to become a stooge for the second time in his career). Curly
never did anything other than be a stooge.
But everyone, other than Mani Deli, loves Curly and not Shemp. Why?
Because Curly was the painter and Shemp was the illustrator. Curly was
deKooning and Shemp was Salvador Dali. I'm sorry Mani, but it is
impossible to explain comedic genius to someone who prefers Shemp to
Curly.
- Bob C.
...no Moe no Stooges
mdeli
wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Bob C wrote:
>
>> > Somehow, I know of no illustration that is "great art". I'm not sure it
>> > can't exist, but it seems we would have lots of examples already if it
>> > did. But there are certainly illustrations that qualify as great
>> > illustrations and Rockwell can probably be credited with many of these.
"No great art": ., Memling, Durer, Michalangelo, Rapheal, Poussan,
David, Ingres,, etc,
>Yes, the primary issue being that it must *describe*. It is a journalistic
>responsibility - as opposed to a poetic one.
>
---like Memling, Durer, Michalangelo, Rapheal, Leonardo, Poussan,
David, Ingres, etc. I suppose these guys are next going to get into
what is and isn't poetic. Yawn.
>>
>> Now, with fine art we demand a one-on-one confrontation between
>> ourselves and the work of art, and obviously the maximum potential can
>> only be realized by viewing an original art object itself and not a
>> reproduction of one. Needing to satisfy the demands of illustration, the
>> original art object of the illustrator is limited by requirements that
>> do not limit the fine artist. And thus the maximum potential which the
>> fine artist can realize is greater than that of the illustrator.
Artspeak, Read it carefully. Doesn't really mean beans.
>
>That's a good point too.
Excellent
>> Doesn't mean they always do it. A great illustrator may create greater
>> works of art than an ordinary fine artist. But not greater works than a
>> great fine artist.
>Yes, this is what I was implying in my little rondo about "good low art,
>good bad art, bad low art, bad high art.
>
Webber I think you should waste your life worrying about this.
>
>>
>> Dali is an illustrator, because I have never seen anything in his
>> paintings that I could not also see in the reproductions.
Because you don't look at paintings. You glance and your imagination
is then fired by what you read about them. If a modern artist can do
something you can't then you look the other way.
>
>And also because the primary issue is not that of the visual play, the
>poetic, but of the narrative, the journalistic.
>
--On of your more stupid statements.
>>
>> I think we mean something different, however, when we use the word
>> illustration as a negative criticism. In this case, we are usually
>> referring to works of art that would not only function well as
>> illustration, but do so because they apply safe formulas guaranteed to
>> appeal to an audience which craves instant gratification and
>> overstimulation.
I wonder What Webber craves?
>> In spite of all of their excellent craftmenship, this
>> is how I would describe the works of illustrators like Frazzeta and
>> Vargas, and even Dali to a certain extent. When the strongest supporters
>> of illustration put them in their list of the greatest artists of the
>> 20th century, it justs confirms my belief that illustrators don't belong
>> in that list.
>>
Written by super fans of the Three Stooges of Modern Academic Art,
Rothko, de Kooning, Pollock from whose " fine art we demand a
one-on-one confrontation between ourselves and the work of art, and
obviously the maximum potential can only be realized by viewing an
original art object itself and not a reproduction of one."
In other words you can't get the "maximum Potential" out of the
reproduction of a horse blanket unless you see the horse blanket.
mdeli
About Balthus:
>Ofcourse B is an artist but not a particular good one. There are
>dozens which can do his stuff better. The adoration he receives is
>probably the result of carefully engineered hype (the french are very
>good at that)
Balthus isn't hype. He's just another nothing who got into museums
instead of someone else just as dull. Modern curators are an emotional
vain lot. Its evolution. One curator was probably friends with the
artist and got him into some museum or some artzy dealer pushed his
work on a prominent richie or he just went to the right parties.
Presently, Balthus is just a temporary fashion blip among
no-skill-realists. In three years they will forget Balthus and get
their orgasms for some other patzer.
Artzy Fartzies are prone to periods. Three years ago it was Christo
etc. and now its that total idiot like Beuys etc. In five years it
will be some other passing schmuck. Look at old art magazines and
you'll see armies of past fashionable nobodys.
While I was in art school it was guys like Dufy, Roualt and slobs like
Ensor and Beckman.
During all this time fashionable critics have been trying to piss on
the likes of Bouguereau, Dali, Rockwell and Disney etc. and proclaim
them dead and buried. I guess they feel plagued by zombies.
> Now, I'm not Deli, I think de Kooning is a good artist
>even though I don't like his work and Klee and Picasso are great
>artists which I love, but seriously, you must be joking to have B as a
>favorite. The man is a sunday painter, a greeting card porn painter,
>I've seen pulp that is better than his work, Deli's dog can paint
>better with its tail, etc. etc.
Balthus is vastly superior to de Kooning and Picasso at his worst and
any expressionist of note. You have to be prolific and really bad to
make it big.
>Of course B might serve a function for painters. Showing your work and
>stating that B is your idol and inspiration. People will say: "Hell!
>You're a lot better than him" (of course, who isn't?)
Cezanne and Matisse are far worse than Balthus. but Balthus didn't
produce enough to create a real market and his color (brown sauce)
isn't fashionable jelly-bean schmier.
RockOn
Matise did what he did in about 1910. It was about originality, not
skill, although later, we can argue about wheather Matise had skill.
Matisses work has been so copied, ripped off, etc etc. One thing for
sure is he changed the way we saw. It is ok not to like it, but just
know that in the time he did it was important. I doubt Braidt Bralds
could have done what he did, if not for Matise.
Robert
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
RockOn
> In article <0cefcfc2...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>,
> RockOn <rvonesch...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > And really, are there any more global truths? I don't think so.
> Not
> > anymore.
> Stretching Globular truths either way goes nowhere,
Globular truths?
?
> > At least an intelligent list, and I do agree with your earlier
> point
> > the illustrators Mark, but Geniuses? That went out with global
> truths,
> > back in the sixties.
> The only thing that happened in the sixty's is our stock-junky Baby
> boomers declared that they would never ever sell out no matter
> what!
The matter I am refering to here, Bryn, is that of the revolution in
France; the intellectual revolution; the roots of deconstruction, the
death of the author, and the beginning of the re-reading of history. I
don't think the North American side had very much to contribute then.
The U.S. was busy cannonizing the Abstract Expressionist Movement
(probably cold war propeganda) ;)
> > and Bryn replied to Mark:
> > Great, great, but which artist this century can hang next
> > to one of these artists and still have it be Modern...
> > So far it is only Dali, other modern artists appear
> > to lack skill, newer photorealists are +really
> > by our standards postomodern+
> > landscape painters like Wyeth are timeless, not modern...
> > Dali has become the central phobia of
> > modern and postmodern art...
> > I take you here, Bryn, to mean Kiefer, Richter, Freud, and others
> > 'lacked skill?' Go back to the Pierian Spring, my boy, and drink,
> Er?
> I would mean here that at least Freud is not a Modern painter by
> essense, without a date on the work we wouldn't be able to place
> it in time at all. A great deal of Dali's early work is clearly
> Modern in this case (true the bread basket and some religious
> stuff),
OK, so you will remove one, of the three (I only mentioned three, but I
really could go on for a long time)
When you say 'we' you lose credibility, for I could place one of
Freud's paintings historically, and just on the paint. I wouldn't have
to use iconography, which I think would be a lot easier.
> Freud is associated with no Movement and Yes one might find flaws
> in his execution.
So why don't you amplify?
> Yes one might find flaws
> in his execution.
> > drink
> > deep, this time! Just how are you quantifying skill, anyway?
> In the more general and basic intuitive sense of having a vast
> array of technique and an ability to mimic other artists, nature,
> and oneself at a whim!
What do you mean by
>general and basic intuitive sense of having a vast
> array of technique?
and skill
Mimesis, a very old, no ancient; a very tough position to argue today
and what else? technique?
> I would say that amoungst modern artists Dali was particularly
> skillfull there are works that he painted like Picasso and Braque
> and some where he reasonably emulated old masters and Nature too.
> Whatever that means to you?
It is easy to paint like 'Picasso and Braque.' Taken together they
"gotta" signify cubism, which was not about skill, but intellect. And
if that is what you meant, any moron could.
But I very much doubt many people could draw as well as Picasso. At the
age of twelve he was turning out detailed proportioned pencil drawings,
that, yes, even someone with as narrow a taste as yourself, would like.
Just to be clear, however, I am not a fan of either, in fact my
position is against Modernism.
I just feel that only a fool would throw out the baby with the
bathwater. I see value in all of it, it was necessary, even the stuff
that required no skill. There have always been the Emporers New
Clothes. There probably always will. It is because people are ignorant
of the games being played in art that these garments exist.
Don't get me wrong, there is one Dali Painting I really admire, a later
one, which was hanging in the Met a couple of years ago. Don't recall
the title, sorry. For the most part, I find his paint uninteresting.
Just a cotton pickin moment here Bryn!
> > I think it must be along the lines of Manei DeLi, whose
> skepticism of
> > Modernism I may agree with, (On his web site he states)
> This is off-thread and on-line KIIDDDOOOO
With that 'dig' you lost some respect. Also, have you so little
integrity as to take my quote right out of context?
the original was
"..his time! Just how are you quantifying skill, anyway? I think it
must be along the lines of Manei DeLi, whose skep.."
I appologise if I extended the analogy, but you see, I cannot help but
yoke you two together here, as you both seem to reduce skill in
painting to obsessive rendering of detail. You both seem oblivious to
the fact that anyone other than Dali, had artistic skill or
intelligence. How wrong you are my friend. Just give a wee bit of
thought to what the climate was like, oh, say, about 1889, or so, when
Eastman Kodak put the camera out? Hmmm, wonder what happened to
painting?
And really Richter is way better with paint, and has all of the
perception games and meta text to boot.
It's late, I'll see you later,
br...@wralaw.com
RockOn <rvonesch...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <84igri$fi9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > The only thing that happened in the sixty's is our stock-junky Baby
> > boomers declared that they would never ever sell out no matter
> > what!
> The matter I am refering to here, Bryn, is that of the revolution in
> France; the intellectual revolution; the roots of deconstruction, the
> death of the author, and the beginning of the re-reading of history.
Thank God, I thought this had something to do with LSD or STP
or something. DMT not LSD or STP,
You won't get a room of well-read philosophy students or unread
artists to uniformly accept the premises of postmodernism
as valid or excluded from verification.
> I
> don't think the North American side had very much to contribute then.
> The U.S. was busy cannonizing the Abstract Expressionist Movement
> (probably cold war propeganda) ;)
No doubt Abstract Expressionism finally proved that a Market economy
is as insane as a Communial one.
> > > I take you here, Bryn, to mean Kiefer, Richter, Freud, and others
> > > 'lacked skill?' Go back to the Pierian Spring, my boy, and drink,
> > Er?
> > I would mean here that at least Freud is not a Modern painter by
> > essense, without a date on the work we wouldn't be able to place
> > it in time at all. A great deal of Dali's early work is clearly
> > Modern in this case (true the bread basket and some religious
> > stuff),
> OK, so you will remove one, of the three (I only mentioned three, but
> I really could go on for a long time)
So go on, the mid-early Dali contains the true essense of Modern.
I only mean something simple here. The phrase you take offense
to is authored by drama, as you have allowed yourself to be
possessed by stamina!
> When you say 'we' you lose credibility,
I am incredible!
> for I could place one of
> Freud's paintings historically, and just on the paint.
Never!
Freud wasn't Modern he simply lived in the Modern era,
Dali was momentarily modern then he ceased to be Modern.
All of this can be proven with a spectrograph, iconography.
> I wouldn't have
> to use iconography, which I think would be a lot easier.
> > > deep, this time! Just how are you quantifying skill, anyway?
> > In the more general and basic intuitive sense of having a vast
> > array of technique and an ability to mimic other artists, nature,
> > and oneself at a whim!
> What do you mean by
Simply that a skilled artist can do what other artists do if he
wants to without being completely miffed at the process, and
also has an ability to translate nature into artworks and of
course the artist self being exposed as well.
> > I would say that amoungst modern artists Dali was particularly
> > skillfull there are works that he painted like Picasso and Braque
> > and some where he reasonably emulated old masters and Nature too.
> > Whatever that means to you?
> It is easy to paint like 'Picasso and Braque.' Taken together they
> "gotta" signify cubism, which was not about skill, but intellect.
The brain, eye, and arm are one...
But literally I did mean "cubism" for Braque, and guernican
cartooning for Picasso.
> And
> if that is what you meant, any moron could.
And every moron tried and failed pretty much.
> But I very much doubt many people could draw as well as Picasso. At
> the
> age of twelve he was turning out detailed proportioned pencil
> drawings,
> that, yes, even someone with as narrow a taste as yourself, would
> like.
Picasso drew better than those who follow him.
> Just to be clear, however, I am not a fan of either, in fact my
> position is against Modernism.
I guess now I wish you had been talking about LSD in the 60's,
> I just feel that only a fool would throw out the baby with the
> bathwater.
A fool but more efficient!
> I see value in all of it, it was necessary, even the stuff
> that required no skill. There have always been the Emporers New
> Clothes. There probably always will. It is because people are ignorant
> of the games being played in art that these garments exist.
So you believe it is just human nature...
Bryn
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
br...@wralaw.com
later
> one, which was hanging in the Met a couple of years ago. Don't recall
> the title, sorry. For the most part, I find his paint uninteresting.
You don't have to like any of his paintings to get my point.
Dali is the real deal in so far as the Idea of Artistic genius
goes...the only reason that there is any attempt to silently
deny Dali his place in heritage of Popular Bourgoise fine Artists
is that the art establishment genuinely knows that other popular
artists are not Geniuses, not even remotely...At least this is
what I believe they think.
I think that genuinely most art hacks started off loving Dali's
work. After all he painted a nighmarish image akin to Klee
with the skill of a Renaissance man, and the averice of Picasso.
But there is a terrifying realization that comes with Dali's
work, which automatically tortures all Modern critics. That
realization is possibility. If Klee's nighmares and Picasso's
averice can be painted with Baroque lucidity isn't it possible
that the rest of Modern or postmodernity also can be fully
animated?
> I appologise if I extended the analogy, but you see, I cannot help but
> yoke you two together here, as you both seem to reduce skill in
> painting to obsessive rendering of detail. You both seem oblivious to
> the fact that anyone other than Dali, had artistic skill or
> intelligence.
On the contrary I personally know several artists who have enourmous
skill akin to Dali, even transcending Dali...but
What I am doing is calling a spade a spade. The art estabolishment
wants to pretend that it isn't catering to popular tastes, but is
and has. Dali, Picasso, Pollack, what is the common denominator?
> How wrong you are my friend. Just give a wee bit of
> thought to what the climate was like, oh, say, about 1889, or so, when
> Eastman Kodak put the camera out? Hmmm, wonder what happened to
> painting?
People got scared and started acting stupid, just like the end of
Modernism, the end of the 20th century and the start of the computer
era.
As you can tell my conscienceness hasn't evolved much since the caveman
era, unlike all of these enlightened people who believe in end of time
myths. There is no time but the present - never has never will.
In the end you will grow sentimental about your dog and discover
that death is a growing experience in the life cycle.
> And really Richter is way better with paint, and has all of the
> perception games and meta text to boot.
Perception games go right back to LSD again.
Maybe we should start there?
Psychedelic drugs are an excuse to act like yourself...
What perceptual games did you play today?
Did you see the purple haze after you came in out of the
sunlight, or notice the streak of colour that appear on
the retina while watching car-lights fly by?
> It's late, I'll see you later,
> Robert
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
Its dream time for me too, see you on the flipside!
br...@wralaw.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <04e9bbf8...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>,
> RockOn <rvonesch...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > for I could place one of
> > Freud's paintings historically, and just on the paint.
> Never!
> Freud wasn't Modern he simply lived in the Modern era,
> Dali was momentarily modern then he ceased to be Modern.
I just caught the connection here! Dali, was influenced Heavily
by Sigman Freud, (grandfather) who is a relative of Lucean Freud,
The before mentioned LSD is crucial to psychoanalysis in the
60's(a time-frame when you realized France was important) and
the so-called postmodernism is an invention of Dali, when he
was on LSD(though one might prefere DMT), and put-forth by some
psuedonymic coconspirators who happened on France in the 1960.
> All of this can be proven with a spectrograph, iconography.
Bryn Ayers
####XXXSSSSSSSSSSMMMMMMMMMSSSMMMMSMMSMMMMMXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSSSSSS****###
mdeli
> BOTERO
>
>He absolutely stinks, don't you agree? And he deserves special
>consideration because in spite of obvious formula and the visual stench of
>sentiment he still has some major critics fooled.
He can handle composition and complexity. he's more a cartoonist
second rate illustrator than anything great. I would sum him up as
amusingly interesting. I like his color and ideas. However if anyone
here would take the trouble to look at the superior works of Braidt
Bralds in issues of Illustrators Annual he will find similar subject
matter which should be represented in museums.
As to the "sentimental stench" affecting Webber's sensitive nose, I
wonder If he wears a gas mask when confronted by the sentiment of
Matisse, Bonnard and Balthus? Does anyone here have similar olifactory
problems with sentiment?
mdeli
large rooms and consisted of a lot of crap on large tables and a few
assorted piles of garbage on the floor. The place was completely empty
except fo me and a sleeping guard. I waited there for a while to see
if there was any interest. Eventually a few people did rush through.
I could just imagine how many people this artist had to AK in order to
outdo competetors and get to exhibit. Instalation bimbos apparently
never took a good look at good store window design. They imagine they
are very original and of course very misunderstood.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
roac...@my-deja.com
*installation* is spelled with two l's not one. And if you really want
people to take *your critiques* (and note: I am using the word
critique very loosely here)then you should have the balls to offer up
some real information (the artists name, where you saw the exhibtion,
and what exactly the piece involved). As well, you should learn your
art history first before you start calling installation artists bimbos.
Do you know Ann Hamilton's work for example? Hardly a bimbo. Her art
blows your puny little art out the window. The only art bimbo around
here is YOU.
Roachgirl .....
In article <3952f039...@news.psi.ca>,
roac...@my-deja.com
...and even if that piece was not so great you cannot define a whole
area of artmaking based on one artist and one piece. I mean ...my god,
what if all of painting was defined by your paintings alone ...ugh
..where would we be??? Bored probably ...
Roachgirl
Cody
mdeli wrote:
>
> Recently saw an instalation exhibit in a museum. It occupied several
> large rooms and consisted of a lot of crap on large tables and a few
> assorted piles of garbage on the floor. The place was completely empty
> except fo me and a sleeping guard. I waited there for a while to see
> if there was any interest. Eventually a few people did rush through.
>
> I could just imagine how many people this artist had to AK in order to
> outdo competetors and get to exhibit. Instalation bimbos apparently
> never took a good look at good store window design. They imagine they
> are very original and of course very misunderstood.
>
> Mani DeLi
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> ...no skill no art
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Just because people do not strictly obey YOUR definition of art does not
mean they are bimbos. Differing opinions are healthy, but you are just
rude
Cody
mdeli wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 23:34:16 GMT, Cody <codych...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >mdeli wrote:
> >>
> >> Recently saw an instalation exhibit in a museum. It occupied several
> >> large rooms and consisted of a lot of crap on large tables and a few
> >> assorted piles of garbage on the floor. The place was completely empty
> >> except fo me and a sleeping guard. I waited there for a while to see
> >> if there was any interest. Eventually a few people did rush through.
> >>
> >> I could just imagine how many people this artist had to AK in order to
> >> outdo competetors and get to exhibit. Installation bimbos apparently
> >> never took a good look at good store window design. They imagine they
> >> are very original and of course very misunderstood.
> >>
> >> Mani DeLi
> >>
> >> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> >> ...no skill no art
> >> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> >> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
> >
> >Just because people do not strictly obey YOUR definition of art does not
> >mean they are bimbos. Differing opinions are healthy, but you are just
> >rude
>
> Of course Nice People like you only say nice things about bullshit.
> Sorry to disappoint you. However, I do occasionally say nice things
> about nice store windows. Do you?
>
> Mani DeLi
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> ...no skill no art
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
What the hell do you mean about store windows? I don't understand your
obsession with tearing others down so that you can sound smart. You
hate artspeak so much, but it seems to me that you have developed your
own form of artspeak.
mdeli
Mani Deli
> BOTERO
>
>He absolutely stinks, don't you agree? And he deserves special
>consideration because in spite of obvious formula and the visual stench of
>sentiment he still has some major critics fooled.
He can handle composition and complexity. he's more a cartoonist
second rate illustrator than anything great. I would sum him up as
amusingly interesting. I like his color and ideas. However if anyone
here would take the trouble to look at the superior works of Braidt
Bralds in issues of Illustrators Annual he will find similar subject
matter which should be represented in museums.
As to the "sentimental stench" affecting Webber's sensitive nose, I
wonder If he wears a gas mask when confronted by the sentiment of
Matisse, Bonnard and Balthus? Does anyone here have similar olifactory
problems with sentiment?
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/