Why are most contemporary artists so keen to be free of the idea of genre?
Alice
The significance of genres is that they are rooted in the material practices
and requirements of given societies.
The formalization of a hierarchy of genres by the French Academy in the late
17th and 18th centuries merely put a professional framework over those types
of priority that had already been established in practice in response to
specific functions: religion, decorative, propagandistic, in response to the
needs of recognition of property & persons, etc.
The would-be modern artist wishes to float free above all this & to
intervene in ideology at a general level.
It could be said that this ambition is persued at the expense of realism in
artistic practices.
Without the establishment of plausible genres, art is socially rootless.
Comments? Reactions?
Any articles, books, other references that are relevant to this subject?
Thanks,
Alice
Bob & Dale Ford
the time either. The French academy was a repressive institution in the extreme.
I would rather of been in the Salon de Refuses (19th century) where all the
rejects were (I.E. Manet, Whistler, Monet etc...) Until of course they started
jurying that as well. The IMPRESSIONISTS created a space where they could
exhibit with out authoritarian rule (1873) so as you see this is not the work of
the modern artist at all.
Genres to me is different issue.
Dale
Cntylnvet
I am writing in response to your letter on, "Why are most contemporary
arstists so keen to be free of the idea of genre?"
I was searching for information on a paper I am trying to write when I came
across your interesting thought. However, I disagree with the idea that art
needs to fall into the socially rooted stereotypes in order to be considered
art. I personally feel that art that falls into those assumptions is anything
but art. Art is the combination of the artist's personal feelings thoughts
onto a two-dimensional canvas, and ends up being seemingly three-dimensional in
its finality. Essentially it is the conversion of emotion into reality. The
post-modernist contempory artist is, I think, the first type of artist to
achieve this reality. The idea that an artist needs a motivation such as
religion is completely unsubtantiated in its claims. In actuality it is the
arstist who needs to find his/her own motivation.
I would appreciate a response from you on what I have to say, I think
this is an interesting subject. I do know of some books if you are interested.
Any book by The DIA (Detroit Institute of Art) is a good place to start,
particularly with one called "Vision and Visuality" (Book number 2). There is
also one called "Art and Fear" although I can't remember who wrote it.
If you would like to write me back write to "Gibl...@aol.com".
Matt (Gibl...@aol.com)
Dan Brusca
I really agree with this line.
I don't know a great deal about art theory and kinda feel out of place among
all you who know what you're on about but that line is the essence of what I
feel about art.
For some reason I'm cursed with the inability to do anything creative unless
I'm down and depressed. When I am in that state though I feel like I'm
channeling all those emotions into what I'm creating, be it a painting,
poem, music or whatever. There's no great statement behind what i do, no
attempt at changing the world, it's pure emotion.
Bob & Dale Ford
the repression that these institutions were prone too. You'll get a better
understanding of what people don't want to go back to.
An easy one maybe 19th century art by Rosenblum and Janson.
Also maybe look into German Expressionism as a movement and Hitler's attempt to
quash the movement ( of degenerate artists ) .
When you talk about genre you should research British art: Turner vs Constable and
look into how long it took for Constable to finally be admitted into the R.A.
Good Luck
Dale
mdeli
<bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Hi as for books look at 19th century art books and you get a real understanding of
>the repression that these institutions were prone too.
Like which? The institutions today are just as repressive. They favor
a set of styles and all others are essentially suppressed and branded
are kitsch, illustration or commercial. This to an average Modern
Academic Art fundementalist means, EVIL, end of discussion.
>You'll get a better
>understanding of what people don't want to go back to.
>An easy one maybe 19th century art by Rosenblum and Janson.
There is a history of Academic art published by Phaidon. Its the only
modern book I read that had sound research about that phase in art.
The average history of the 19th century is slanted nonsense which
fails to show the finest paintings of the period.
The main conclusion of Modern Art 19th century mythology is that
anyone who doesn't conform to Modern Academic fashions will repeat the
past (boogy boogy) and is probably sympathetic to Hitler. I heard this
sort of crap in art school and I read it repeated here.
The result is incompetent teachers who propagate failure, art history
which is close to mythology and collusion among those who are in a
position of power.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
Bob & Dale Ford
mdeli wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 13:52:45 -0500, Bob & Dale Ford
> <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Hi as for books look at 19th century art books and you get a real understanding of
> >the repression that these institutions were prone too.
>
> Like which? The institutions today are just as repressive. They favor
> a set of styles and all others are essentially suppressed and branded
> are kitsch, illustration or commercial. This to an average Modern
> Academic Art fundementalist means, EVIL, end of discussion.
>
Mani, Mani, Mani, The world is not black and white. Evil and good. You spout rhetoric
as well as any of the "fascist" academics you are attacking and are just as intolerant,
if not more so. The only difference is instead of ramming minimalism or social realism
or abstract expressionism down some one's throat you have created your own anti
academic creed. While some of your points are valid your system of expressing them is
just as repressive if not more so. In short you are becoming what you hate. Maybe in 15
years you will be producing bitter students as well who will write their own anti Mani
creed. I hope not but history does have a habit if repeating itself..
> >You'll get a better
> >understanding of what people don't want to go back to.
> >An easy one maybe 19th century art by Rosenblum and Janson.
>
> There is a history of Academic art published by Phaidon. Its the only
> modern book I read that had sound research about that phase in art.
> The average history of the 19th century is slanted nonsense which
> fails to show the finest paintings of the period.
Only one book doesn't suck???? Hmmm....
>
>
What is the finest painting of that period? Lets discuss it rather than attack each
other.
>
> The main conclusion of Modern Art 19th century mythology is that
> anyone who doesn't conform to Modern Academic fashions will repeat the
> past (boogy boogy) and is probably sympathetic to Hitler. I heard this
> sort of crap in art school and I read it repeated here.
That wasn't what I was saying and I never heard that in art school regarding 19th
century art. Then again my experience was much different from yours as I had to take
actual art history classes. I have never heard those comments from a Prof. and I
specialized in 19th century art. When you make these blanket statements you WEAKEN your
argument.
>
> The result is incompetent teachers who propagate failure, art history
> which is close to mythology and collusion among those who are in a
> position of power.
If all your teachers sucked why didn't you drop out of school. You're not being fair,
Mani. You don't create in a vacuum. Whether you like it or not you have been influenced
by modern academic art profoundly, I can see it in your paintings. The
neo-classicalists that you love would burn you at the stake.
Which brings up another area to for Alice to look into Neo-classic vs romantic art.
Dale
Alice
I will try to get hold of the various books that were mentioned.
I just got a copy of the UK's "Art review" (May 2001) in which Jonathan
Jones writes that "over 200 years since the heyday of the Salon, the
grouping of works of art thematically, or by genre, has again been popular.
The much-discussed thematic hang of Tate Modern .... MOMA..."
He even ends with "Maybe still life remains a useful category because it
provides a framework....to understand certain forms of art production."
So why is this 'categorisation' or use of genres coming back? Is it in our
nature to classify, repress, etc.?
Another aspect that interests me is whether it is important that everyone
understands how their ideas and work are rooted in previous ideas and work.
Could you see art grow like a tree through history? Does the classification
(e.g. genres) help?
Barry Barnes in "Conceptions of Knowledge" describes how this propagation of
knowledge operates, quoting Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia (1936):
"strictly speaking it is incorrect to say that the single individual thinks.
Rather it is more correct to insist that he participates in thinking further
what others have though before". I could argue that using genres would
accelerate the propagation of knowledge: a painter learns from a painter
(master-student; artist-artist) as long as it is not used in a repressive
but positive way. This avoids artist to (attempt to) float free from their
roots and operate in a nothingness....
Looking forward to your continued replies.
Alice
Bob & Dale Ford
Alice wrote:
> The replies to my message are great and very much appreciated.
> I will try to get hold of the various books that were mentioned.
>
> I just got a copy of the UK's "Art review" (May 2001) in which Jonathan
> Jones writes that "over 200 years since the heyday of the Salon, the
> grouping of works of art thematically, or by genre, has again been popular.
> The much-discussed thematic hang of Tate Modern .... MOMA..."
> He even ends with "Maybe still life remains a useful category because it
> provides a framework....to understand certain forms of art production."
I agree and still do still life studies.
>
> So why is this 'categorisation' or use of genres coming back? Is it in our
> nature to classify, repress, etc.?
I think it is possible to use genres to classify rather than repress and I think
it is human nature to want classify. In the past you will notice that the genres
were used to to rank which art and artists for that matter were more important.
I.E. If you did scenes of historical importance that was a much more important a
painting than "just" a landscape. That I do not wish a return too. When I
think of genre, as used today, I think of it as more of a descriptive tool than
any thing else. It doesn't bother me.
>
>
> Another aspect that interests me is whether it is important that everyone
> understands how their ideas and work are rooted in previous ideas and work.
> Could you see art grow like a tree through history? Does the classification
> (e.g. genres) help?
> Barry Barnes in "Conceptions of Knowledge" describes how this propagation of
> knowledge operates, quoting Karl Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia (1936):
> "strictly speaking it is incorrect to say that the single individual thinks.
> Rather it is more correct to insist that he participates in thinking further
> what others have though before". I could argue that using genres would
> accelerate the propagation of knowledge: a painter learns from a painter
> (master-student; artist-artist) as long as it is not used in a repressive
> but positive way. This avoids artist to (attempt to) float free from their
> roots and operate in a nothingness....
True but we don't live in a vacuum. I don't think any one can float free, no
matter how hard we try. Even if we don't recognize it ourselves we have been
influenced by those who have come before. I recognize the genius of the past and
frequently do studies from great pieces of work to further understand that
artist's technique. In doing that I do use genre exactly how you say. Not some
thing I ever thought about in any manner such as you have described, just some
thing that many artists do, and is an element of classical training.
What's that quote???? Standing in the footsteps of giants?????
>
Dale
Robert Wittig
news:989157550.247878@dionysos...
> Why are most contemporary artists so keen to be free of the idea of genre?
Define 'contemporary', and define 'genre'.
Without making yourself clear on the meaning of these two terms, which have
competing meanings, in both the dictionary and in common 'art' usage, you
are bound to a certain imprecision insofar as what is actually being
discussed.
I am 'contemporary' in that I am happening now, painting now, and my work is
'of the present'. Most of what is referred to as 'contemporary art' refers
to something that happened in the latter part of the previous century, at a
time when I was not producing work.
'Genre' means either 'scenes of everyday life' or 'of and pertaining to a
style'. I paint what I know, and therefore, I paint scenes of what is
everyday life to me, but of course this is everyday life as experienced by
me, and not some other person, so my paintings reflect my personality and
state of mind as much if not more than they do the people, places, and
things portrayed.
Consider reframing your entire concept of fine visual arts in terms of the
Internet for a moment. Prior to just a very few years ago, the vast majority
of artists were confined to the geographic location they inhabited, in terms
of both influences and audience. Of course, there were books and TV to
breach this isolation, but both media were highly controlled by the 'powers
that be', in comparison with the situation on the Web. Whatever the fine
visual arts are going to evolve into, from this day forward into the next
couple of decades, at least, is going to be heavily influenced by the
development of the technology that has the greatest ability to disseminate
the ideas underpinning that work, to then most people, for the least amount
of money, in the least amount of time.
I suspect that the meanings of 'contemporary' and 'genre', in both senses,
will need redefining as the first truly international fine visual arts
community in the history of humankind takes shape.
> The significance of genres is that they are rooted in the material
practices
> and requirements of given societies.
This definition of 'genre' never faded insofar as artistic production is
concerned, in the world at large. It was simply excluded from the 'Artworld'
gallery and critical scenes, in USA and Western Europe for many decades. I
would expect to see a rise in popularity where this type of painting is
concerned, because people the world around are curious to see what life is
like in other cultures and places, and such paintings tell more than
photographs, for the most part, and do so in a manner that transcends
language barriers. At the same time, I would imagine that new forms of art
will continue to rise up and replace the 'leading edge' sectors of
experimental work being done, as has always been the case. this time,
however, the results should be more interesting, because the Artworld
'powers that were', are no longer... exclusion for the Established MOMA,
gallery and critical scenes will matter almost not at all, on the Web.
> The would-be modern artist wishes to float free above all this & to
> intervene in ideology at a general level.
Define 'modern'.
This rather euphemistic and negatively weighted bit of prose serves only to
detract from the serious question you have seriously posed.
Intervening in ideology is as old as art. what do you suppose those
prehistoric mask-makers were trying to do, when they used art to help in the
production of magic? Also, consider all religious art, all political art,
Picasso's 'Guernica', sheesh... the list is endless. Even the relatively
tame 'genre' artists of N Europe 1600's were subverting their scenes with
messages of morality, propaganda about social status, etc. To divorce
one's-self from such issues in one's work is impossible, not to mention
pointless.
> It could be said that this ambition is persued at the expense of realism
in
> artistic practices.
I disagree. I am a realist painter, and pursue current issues as well as
timeless issues, often in the same breath. Sometimes this impacts my work
positively, sometimes it makes it obviously dated. No matter. There is are a
couple of articles on my site discussing this issue, buried somewhere in the
'Papers' section. If you want to read them, and can't find them yourself,
let me know and I will look them up for you.
> Without the establishment of plausible genres, art is socially rootless.
It's going to take more than this single sentence to convince me of such a
broad statement. Plausible according to who? Which social grouping? And even
if you are capable of proving such a statement to be true... so what? Does
something bad happen if art is socially rootless... or something good?
Enquiring minds...want to know!
--
thanks,
-wittig
http://www.robertwittig.com/
Robert Wittig
Cntylnvet <cnty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010506173051...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> However, I disagree with the idea that art
> needs to fall into the socially rooted stereotypes in order to be
considered
> art. I personally feel that art that falls into those assumptions is
anything
> but art.
While agreeing with your first sentence, I disagree with the second. The
idea that Alice initially put forward spoke not-at-all to stereotypes, just
socially rooted art, which is not stereotypical by definition, especially at
the time of its execution, when it was new. However, I agree with what you
are saying, in that art need not be bound up in 'genre' (scenes of everyday
life) to function. However, art does not fall into assumptions, people do,
and I do not believe that a work can necessarily be said to be not art, even
if it is clearly a socially rooted stereotype, or kitsch, or abex, or
minimalism, or anything else. If art is anything, it is the exception, that
stands whatever someone happens to believe, on its ear.
> Art is the combination of the artist's personal feelings thoughts
> onto a two-dimensional canvas, and ends up being seemingly
three-dimensional in
> its finality.
This might be a fair description of certain types of painting, but is far
too limited to stand as a fair description of painting overall, let alone
art, or even the fine visual arts.
My own working definition of art agrees with your 'personal feelings
thoughts' statement, without the limitations you impose:
'Art is the resonance between intellect and emotion'.
> Essentially it is the conversion of emotion into reality. The
> post-modernist contempory artist is, I think, the first type of artist to
> achieve this reality. The idea that an artist needs a motivation such as
> religion is completely unsubtantiated in its claims. In actuality it is
the
> arstist who needs to find his/her own motivation.
Define postmodernism.
The closest I have ever seen to a succinct explanation of postmodernism,
only explains what it is not, which is Modernism. Postmodernism has more
different flavours than Bressler's Ice Cream, and as many different
practitioners at present, as there were painters in Europe from the
Renaissance up to the dawn of Modernism combined, so whatever one says about
postmodernism is of necessity both true and false, simultaneously.
Where motivation is concerned, I do not think that it necessarily has
anything to do with painting, or the making of art, overall. Motivation is
nice for some people, but other people are simply driven. Motivation is
consciously directed activity, where a driven person is responding to
intentions within the mind that are non-conscious. Either can function as
the force behind the work. There are also people who approach art very
carelessly, and still produce phenomenal work, by anyone's standards.
My own personal style is that I am driven, and do not function on
motivation, where painting is concerned. However, where writing is
concerned, my style is the opposite, and I function through motivation. The
former is much easier, almost effortless, the paintings just write
themselves. Motivation is a heck of a lot more work, at least for me. Go
figure.
> I would appreciate a response from you on what I have to say, I think
> this is an interesting subject
Well, there, you have one response, although I am not the person who made
the original post.
thanks,
-wittig
Online Portfolio and Gallery: http://www.robertwittig.com/
Marilyn
Robert Wittig wrote:
> The
> idea that Alice initially put forward spoke not-at-all to stereotypes, just
> socially rooted art, which is not stereotypical by definition, especially at
> the time of its execution, when it was new. However, I agree with what you
> are saying, in that art need not be bound up in 'genre' (scenes of everyday
> life) to function.
That is only one part of the definition of 'genre.' The other is that 'genre' is
a particular style in art work, but not the personal 'style' which beginners
usually speak of with stars in their eyes. Personal style is something which
evolves but can't be deliberately sought after without sacrificing the truth of
the work. Within the 'genre' there are further subcategorizes and media.
> However, art does not fall into assumptions, people do,
> and I do not believe that a work can necessarily be said to be not art, even
> if it is clearly a socially rooted stereotype, or kitsch, or abex, or
> minimalism, or anything else. If art is anything, it is the exception, that
> stands whatever someone happens to believe, on its ear.
That's far too broad. If everything is art, then nothing is art. Whether a work
is art depends on the intent and the idea behind the work and who made it. And
it isn't useful to say well, look at Warhol's Brillo Boxes. That was then and he
was the first to do it and he had some qualifications to say the least. It can't
be imitated or repeated. His Campbell Soup had meaning as it was what he lived
on it was he was a beginning artist/designer and it was patiently and amazingly
executed. Talk about skill and commitment.
>
> > Art is the combination of the artist's personal feelings thoughts
> > onto a two-dimensional canvas, and ends up being seemingly
> three-dimensional in
> > its finality.
>
> This might be a fair description of certain types of painting, but is far
> too limited to stand as a fair description of painting overall, let alone
> art, or even the fine visual arts.
>
Right, visual art is more than painting and thinking in terms of "painting on
canvas" is very traditional.
>
> My own working definition of art agrees with your 'personal feelings
> thoughts' statement, without the limitations you impose:
>
> 'Art is the resonance between intellect and emotion'.
Art may begin in that 'space' but it must produce something communicative.
> The closest I have ever seen to a succinct explanation of postmodernism,
> only explains what it is not, which is Modernism. Postmodernism has more
> different flavours than Bressler's Ice Cream, and as many different
> practitioners at present, as there were painters in Europe from the
> Renaissance up to the dawn of Modernism combined, so whatever one says about
> postmodernism is of necessity both true and false, simultaneously.
We could say the same about scientists, there are more artists in the world
today than ever existed since the dawn of history. It's easy, there are too many
people in the world today period.
>
>
> Where motivation is concerned, I do not think that it necessarily has
> anything to do with painting, or the making of art, overall. Motivation is
> nice for some people, but other people are simply driven.
"Driven" implies compulsion. I admit there is a controlled obsession about
beginning a work. The key is the 'control.'
Ideally the artist has control of himself but works intuitively. At the same
time he uses everything he knows to achieve the work. That knowledge is so
ingrained it can be called upon without 'thinking.'
> Motivation is
> consciously directed activity, where a driven person is responding to
> intentions within the mind that are non-conscious. Either can function as
> the force behind the work. There are also people who approach art very
> carelessly, and still produce phenomenal work, by anyone's standards.
I can't think of one. Working intuitively doesn't mean working carelessly
although it may look like that to some observers.
>
> My own personal style is that I am driven, and do not function on
> motivation, where painting is concerned. However, where writing is
> concerned, my style is the opposite, and I function through motivation. The
> former is much easier, almost effortless, the paintings just write
> themselves. Motivation is a heck of a lot more work, at least for me. Go
> figure.
>
Being "driven" as in obsessive compulsive doesn't show in your paintings. A
truly obsessive compulsive work would look something like that produced by
autistic painters, to my eyes.
Marilyn
Robert Wittig
Marilyn <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3B02B47E...@islandnet.com...
> That is only one part of the definition of 'genre.' The other is that
'genre' is
> a particular style in art work, but not the personal 'style' which
beginners
> usually speak of with stars in their eyes.
Yes, I know, and addressed that question precisely to Alice, in my post to
her, which was posted to this newsgroup immediately prior to the post you
replied to. I just felt that reiterating it would have been redundundant.
Personal style is something which
> evolves but can't be deliberately sought after without sacrificing the
truth of
> the work. Within the 'genre' there are further subcategorizes and media.
Yes, I agree with this. You might want to check out my website, which is
accessible through the link in my signature line. In addition to my
paintings, which pretty much demonstrate the development of my own style
over the last few years, there are some articles in the 'Papers' section
that you might find interesting.
> > However, art does not fall into assumptions, people do,
> > and I do not believe that a work can necessarily be said to be not art,
even
> > if it is clearly a socially rooted stereotype, or kitsch, or abex, or
> > minimalism, or anything else. If art is anything, it is the exception,
that
> > stands whatever someone happens to believe, on its ear.
>
> That's far too broad. If everything is art, then nothing is art. Whether a
work
> is art depends on the intent and the idea behind the work and who made it.
And
> it isn't useful to say well, look at Warhol's Brillo Boxes. That was then
and he
> was the first to do it and he had some qualifications to say the least. It
can't
> be imitated or repeated. His Campbell Soup had meaning as it was what he
lived
> on it was he was a beginning artist/designer and it was patiently and
amazingly
> executed. Talk about skill and commitment.
First, I think you should re-read the paragraph in question. (above) What I
said was that one cannot say that any particular 'category' can be said to
be not-art. One cannot say, 'That is (kitsch, abex, minimalism, realism,
etc.) and therefore it is not art.' Well, one *can* say it, but will soon be
brought to account for saying it, because there is always someone lurking
just around the next corner who will put the category to good use, and
produce art in it. There is nothing too broad in this statement as far as I
can see. If you still disagree, explain to me the flaw in my reasoning.
I disagree entirely with your statement, if you are inferring that 'the
intent and the idea' is purely conscious. It is entirely implausible that
any conscious plan or idea that an artist might think s(he) is acting upon,
tells the whole story of what the mind is up to, in those areas that are
non-accessible to consciousness. I have done some extensive research on
this, and the papers are available on my site. If the titles are not enough
to help you find them, ask and I will provide specific URL's. In my opinion,
good work too often contains what is referred to as 'serendipity' and
'eureka experiences' to be wholly directed by consciousness. As far as the
sort of stuff you are alluding to with Warhol and his soup cans, such
internal workings of the artist's live are only significant to the work
overall to the extent that they are apprehensible by the audience on terms
that they can relate to. My own work has all sorts of associative meanings
to my own private life, but you cannot know anything about that, as it is my
own private affair. If such personal associations help me to produce a work
that will be better for it, from the viewer standpoint, without their
knowing anything about my personal life, then this is good. If not, it is
insignificant.
> Right, visual art is more than painting and thinking in terms of
"painting on
> canvas" is very traditional.
Take this a step further, and painting on canvas becomes less traditional.
People have bent, twisted, and otherwise deformed canvas to suit needs that
range from utterly traditional, all the way to sculptural, and downright
weird. I am not trying to be argumentative, only to illustrate that art
seems to enjoy being contrary, and proving whatever notions we bring to it,
either false, or incomplete.
> > 'Art is the resonance between intellect and emotion'.
>
> Art may begin in that 'space' but it must produce something communicative.
I think you misunderstand the statement. When an individual views the
finished product of a successful work of art (successful for that particular
individual), they experience a peculiar state of satisfaction that is hard
to describe, but that everyone can relate to having experienced (this
applies to all art, dance, music, visual, poetry, etc.) Good art seems to
engage us both emotionally and intellectually, simultaneously. This
sensation is what I was referring to, the resonance of art, which is both
intellectual and emotional, working in a near-perfect harmony. This *is*
communication,but not of a quality that is going to be easily quantified
verbally.
> We could say the same about scientists, there are more artists in the
world
> today than ever existed since the dawn of history. It's easy, there are
too many
> people in the world today period.
Well, you won't get any arguments out of me on this! You might really enjoy
one of my most recent articles, 'Global Warming vs. The Population Bomb.'
> "Driven" implies compulsion. I admit there is a controlled obsession about
> beginning a work. The key is the 'control.'
> Ideally the artist has control of himself but works intuitively. At the
same
> time he uses everything he knows to achieve the work. That knowledge is so
> ingrained it can be called upon without 'thinking.'
I was using 'driven' in the sense of my overall work strategy, since that
was what the person I was replying to was talking about, so we are talking
about apples and oranges here. I am not disagreeing with what you are saying
here, in fact, I agree with it, it just doesn't have anything to do with
what I was talking about.
>> There are also people who approach art very
>> carelessly, and still produce phenomenal work, by anyone's standards.
>
> I can't think of one. Working intuitively doesn't mean working carelessly
> although it may look like that to some observers.
I bet you can, especially when you consider the field of drawing /
sketching. Maybe it's just my choice of word (careless) that you don't like.
Since this is my field, I can only tell you that some of my very best
drawings, and in fact, some of my very best oil paintings, inks, even
watercolours, were executed in a manner that sure felt careless to me, so
much so that I was amazed at the results. If you want to call it 'intuitive'
that is fine with me.<g>
> Being "driven" as in obsessive compulsive doesn't show in your paintings.
A
> truly obsessive compulsive work would look something like that produced by
> autistic painters, to my eyes.
Well, maybe the problem evolves from your taking the word 'driven', that has
one meaning in common usage, and applying its other meaning, which is
germane only to the field of psychiatry. Since I am not a shrink, I meant it
in the common sense, which I though the context pretty well supported, and
explained.
Marilyn
> Marilyn <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3B02B47E...@islandnet.com...
>
> > That is only one part of the definition of 'genre.' The other is that
> 'genre' is
> > a particular style in art work, but not the personal 'style' which
> beginners
> > usually speak of with stars in their eyes.
>
> Yes, I know, and addressed that question precisely to Alice, in my post to
> her, which was posted to this newsgroup immediately prior to the post you
> replied to. I just felt that reiterating it would have been redundundant.
Sorry about that. I'd been away and was not following the whole thread. It's a
problem with newsgroups, jumping in mid-stream. Like walking into a pub...
> Personal style is something which
> > evolves but can't be deliberately sought after without sacrificing the
> truth of
> > the work. Within the 'genre' there are further subcategories and media.
>
> Yes, I agree with this. You might want to check out my website, which is
> accessible through the link in my signature line. In addition to my
> paintings, which pretty much demonstrate the development of my own style
> over the last few years, there are some articles in the 'Papers' section
> that you might find interesting.
I have checked your website, and from what I remember the images were hauntingly
beautiful. Will get to your 'Papers' section too.
> > > However, art does not fall into assumptions, people do,
> > > and I do not believe that a work can necessarily be said to be not art,
> even
> > > if it is clearly a socially rooted stereotype, or kitsch, or abex, or
> > > minimalism, or anything else. If art is anything, it is the exception,
> that
> > > stands whatever someone happens to believe, on its ear.
> >
> > That's far too broad. If everything is art, then nothing is art. Whether a
> work
> > is art depends on the intent and the idea behind the work and who made it.
> And
> > it isn't useful to say well, look at Warhol's Brillo Boxes. That was then
> and he
> > was the first to do it and he had some qualifications to say the least. It
> can't
> > be imitated or repeated. His Campbell Soup had meaning as it was what he
> lived
> > on it was he was a beginning artist/designer and it was patiently and
> amazingly
> > executed. Talk about skill and commitment.
>
> First, I think you should re-read the paragraph in question. (above) What I
> said was that one cannot say that any particular 'category' can be said to
> be not-art.
Your double negative was:
"I do not believe that a work can necessarily be said to be not art,"
> One cannot say, 'That is (kitsch, abex, minimalism, realism,
> etc.) and therefore it is not art.'
Because of my own open attitude towards the above genres, I can't imagine anyone
dismissing a work because of that kind of categorization.
> Well, one *can* say it, but will soon be
> brought to account for saying it, because there is always someone lurking
> just around the next corner who will put the category to good use, and
> produce art in it. There is nothing too broad in this statement as far as I
> can see. If you still disagree, explain to me the flaw in my reasoning.
Not a flaw as I see it but I suspect you are dismissive of those genres you
mention based on your traditionalist values (?).
>
> I disagree entirely with your statement, if you are inferring that 'the
> intent and the idea' is purely conscious.
Can anything be purely conscious? The intent and the idea are from the intellect
or may have been thought out after urges from the unconscious mind. Depends on
your psychological beliefs. Some people don't even believe we have an
unconscious mind.
> It is entirely implausible that
> any conscious plan or idea that an artist might think s(he) is acting upon,
> tells the whole story of what the mind is up to, in those areas that are
> non-accessible to consciousness. I have done some extensive research on
> this, and the papers are available on my site. If the titles are not enough
> to help you find them, ask and I will provide specific URL's. In my opinion,
> good work too often contains what is referred to as 'serendipity' and
> 'eureka experiences' to be wholly directed by consciousness.
Absolutely, as above, nothing we do is 'purely' conscious in my opinion.
NOT taking advantage of the serendipity/eureka accidents or experiences would
produce a very designed work.
> As far as the
> sort of stuff you are alluding to with Warhol and his soup cans, such
> internal workings of the artist's live are only significant to the work
> overall to the extent that they are apprehensible by the audience on terms
> that they can relate to.
Who in North American cannot relate to Campbell soups? not many. It was the
utter banality of the subject matter that made the work outstanding (as well as
the skill of the execution.)
> My own work has all sorts of associative meanings
> to my own private life, but you cannot know anything about that, as it is my
> own private affair. If such personal associations help me to produce a work
> that will be better for it, from the viewer standpoint, without their
> knowing anything about my personal life, then this is good. If not, it is
> insignificant.
Yes, writers, and movie makers love to insert the biographical details in
cryptic ways as well. I believe that everything we do is biographical in one way
or another. Everything we make expresses who are. I prefer when it is not
blatant though. In painting I think our first commitment is to the pictorial
surface.
>
> > Right, visual art is more than painting and thinking in terms of
> "painting on
> > canvas" is very traditional.
>
> Take this a step further, and painting on canvas becomes less traditional.
> People have bent, twisted, and otherwise deformed canvas to suit needs that
> range from utterly traditional, all the way to sculptural, and downright
> weird.
Weird art? there's a concept in the postmodern age!
How about just forgetting about canvas, why not paint on aluminum for example.
> I am not trying to be argumentative, only to illustrate that art
> seems to enjoy being contrary, and proving whatever notions we bring to it,
> either false, or incomplete.
Art is a pushing against what has been done before - not a complete dismissal
of art history but a moving forward into the future. Maybe our culture is hooked
on "the new." (Think of the centuries during which the Egyptians stuck with the
same stylistic painting.)
>
>
> > > 'Art is the resonance between intellect and emotion'.
> >
> > Art may begin in that 'space' but it must produce something communicative.
>
> I think you misunderstand the statement. When an individual views the
> finished product of a successful work of art (successful for that particular
> individual), they experience a peculiar state of satisfaction that is hard
> to describe, but that everyone can relate to having experienced (this
> applies to all art, dance, music, visual, poetry, etc.) Good art seems to
> engage us both emotionally and intellectually, simultaneously. This
> sensation is what I was referring to, the resonance of art, which is both
> intellectual and emotional, working in a near-perfect harmony. This *is*
> communication,but not of a quality that is going to be easily quantified
> verbally.
>
Oh, you were speaking of the viewing of a work of art and I was thinking of the
creation of it. Yes, maybe it is beyond words.
>
> > We could say the same about scientists, there are more artists in the
> world
> > today than ever existed since the dawn of history. It's easy, there are
> too many
> > people in the world today period.
>
> Well, you won't get any arguments out of me on this! You might really enjoy
> one of my most recent articles, 'Global Warming vs. The Population Bomb.'
Bravo.
>
>
> >> There are also people who approach art very
> >> carelessly, and still produce phenomenal work, by anyone's standards.
> >
> > I can't think of one. Working intuitively doesn't mean working carelessly
> > although it may look like that to some observers.
>
> I bet you can, especially when you consider the field of drawing /
> sketching. Maybe it's just my choice of word (careless) that you don't like.
> Since this is my field, I can only tell you that some of my very best
> drawings, and in fact, some of my very best oil paintings, inks, even
> watercolours, were executed in a manner that sure felt careless to me, so
> much so that I was amazed at the results. If you want to call it 'intuitive'
> that is fine with me.<g>
I like to compare drawing with swimming. If you tense up you sink.
"driven" I take to mean compelled by forces beyond our control. I like
"controlled obsession" meaning I am overtaken by the work but I am in control
enough to put on the brakes and stop when I want to. But not so controlled that
I can't work intuitively, have accidents, get carried away, change course etc.
regards,
Marilyn