Luring BT, Hopefully
mark webber
snipped repost of an earlier thread:
(I still think there are meaty and relevant issues here to be
discussed....)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:32:52 EDT
From: mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU butting in...)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Subject: Re: Veronese vs. Warhol (was: Gombrich and Bryson)
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
(In reply to Marilyn, who I hope will forgive me for butting in...)
> >
> Many do, but it doesn't take much trying. It requires great effort to
> grapple with our historical context.
> I'm sorry that I don't know Mary Pratt, but it sounds as if she's
> interrogating the tradition of still life, looking for ways to represent
> light that we may not have seen before, not simply recapitulating the
> acheivements of well-known "Masters."
I'm just curious - why was it ok for artists to recapitulate these
achievements for the previous 25 centuries?
Mark
bt
> In an effort to get our friend BT back in the discussion I offer this
> snipped repost of an earlier thread:
>
>
> (I still think there are meaty and relevant issues here to be
> discussed....)
I'm flattered to peek in here and find dangling before my hungry eyes a
yummy-looking fly with my name on it. I agree that there are "meaty"
issues that would be fun and intellectually fruitful to continue snapping
at, but my work, etc. situation continues to forbid my devoting energy to
this discussion at this time. In other words, If I choose to remain
engaged here, I'll likely find myself typing newsgroup messages from the
comfort of the downtown rescue mission. (An exaggeration of the truth,
but closer to reality than you might suspect).
So I must apologize to you Mark, and to Marilyn, Iian, Mr. Werby, Chris
and any others who took the trouble to respond to my posts and to whom I
have not extended the courtesy of a reply. Maybe I'll be able check in
again around the holidays. Sorry.
>
[...]not simply recapitulating the
> > achievements of well-known "Masters."
>
> I'm just curious - why was it ok for artists to recapitulate these
> achievements for the previous 25 centuries?
Well, as long as I'm here (I feel like a compulsive gambler trying to walk
past slot machines), the short answer is that it WASN'T, if by "OK" you
mean that outstanding or noteworthy art was created ("standards," "great,"
and "history" have popped up a lot in your questions, so that's what I'll
assume). Western artists whom we tend to remember DIDN'T just recapitulate
the achievements of previous Masters: they are distinguished exactly
because they contributed something different--isolating a problem or
developing a technique or focusing on an aspect of art that had been
overlooked or unnoticed. I suppose there are also artists who are valued
as not innovators but as exemplars of a period or a tendency in art which,
in turn, is defined in relation to the mass of art--in other words,
because it is different, not mere recapitulation of what came before.
There has been a change in paradigm about the preparation of artists--it
no longer seems necessary for an artist to display figure drawing skills,
for example--and there's no way I can try to make sense of the technical,
social and philosopical conditions which underly those changes in a brief
post.
I think that it easier to see continuity among works and traditions that
have all receded into the historical past than it is among the contentious
and confusing practices of the recent past and present. If there were no
continuity, we would not recognize the product as art. If there is only
recapitulation, art would have no history at all.
Over and out,
BT
PS to Mark: If you are interested in formalism that is influenced by
post-structuralism, look at Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe's book, "Beyond Piety."
For examples of young artists revisiting color field painting, see the
cover story on the latest (? September, I think) issue of Artforum.
mark webber
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, bt wrote:
> I'm flattered to peek in here and find dangling before my hungry eyes a
> yummy-looking fly with my name on it. I agree that there are "meaty"
> issues that would be fun and intellectually fruitful to continue snapping
> at, but my work, etc. situation continues to forbid my devoting energy to
> this discussion at this time. In other words, If I choose to remain
> engaged here, I'll likely find myself typing newsgroup messages from the
> comfort of the downtown rescue mission. (An exaggeration of the truth,
> but closer to reality than you might suspect).
>
> So I must apologize to you Mark, and to Marilyn, Iian, Mr. Werby, Chris
> and any others who took the trouble to respond to my posts and to whom I
> have not extended the courtesy of a reply. Maybe I'll be able check in
> again around the holidays. Sorry.
>
Well, we'll miss you and look forward to your return... however... since
you do nibble...
> >
> [...]not simply recapitulating the
> > > achievements of well-known "Masters."
> >
> > I'm just curious - why was it ok for artists to recapitulate these
> > achievements for the previous 25 centuries?
>
> Well, as long as I'm here (I feel like a compulsive gambler trying to walk
> past slot machines),
This is your second gambling reference... you may wish to breast your
cards.
> the short answer is that it WASN'T, if by "OK" you
> mean that outstanding or noteworthy art was created ("standards," "great,"
> and "history" have popped up a lot in your questions, so that's what I'll
> assume). Western artists whom we tend to remember DIDN'T just recapitulate
> the achievements of previous Masters: they are distinguished exactly
> because they contributed something different--isolating a problem or
> developing a technique or focusing on an aspect of art that had been
> overlooked or unnoticed.
(interrupt)
"Exactly because?" Certainly the Big Guns each have something new to
offer, but if it is *only* something new that they have to offer, do they
really join the Big Guns?
The fine thing about the word "recapitulating" is that it doesn't mean
copying. The newness is in the recapitulation - the successes weren't only
the newness but also, and especially, the excellence of visual experience.
(So as not to look like a simple semantics player, let me expand a tiny
bit.)
When we recall the masters of perspective, we may speak mostly about the
invention of perspective, but we use damned nice looking paintings by
painters with sublime sensibilities as examples. Piero is a Big Gun
because his paintings are recapitulations - new solutions - to the Old
Problem: Make it look good. Make it hold our attention with some
inventive color, some dynamic form. Like Massaccio did. And Giotto. And
the Greeks. But not simply because of Perspective.
(In fact he actually proved that it wasn't perspective that was the
primary issue in his paintings. After becoming famous for his perspective
paintings, he deliberately made the Resurrection - a masterpiece pointedly
avoiding perspective, as if to say "That isn't what it's about, everyone."
And Dekooning did the same. In 1950, when everybody was finally talking
about abstraction as the only thing that mattered, he started painting
eyes and breasts, as if to say "that's not the point.")
> I suppose there are also artists who are valued
> as not innovators but as exemplars of a period or a tendency in art which,
> in turn, is defined in relation to the mass of art--in other words,
> because it is different, not mere recapitulation of what came before.
I think it depends largely on how one defines success in art. If one
relies solely on the surveys, one can wind up with the impression that art
history is about the changes, the differences of styles, the innovations.
Those things are obviously of interest, and much easier to notice than the
common threads.
But that isn't neccessarily the way the individuals who made the art were
looking at things. It's pretty clear that for a very long time, great
artists have been looking at earlier great artists, not just different
ones. And by great I mean those with great sensibilities, not just skill
or innovation. Great ability to compose with contrast, and feel their
decisions.
I said in another post this week that art that strains to be contemporary
and different always seems to look strained, and eventually dated. That's
really the differece between a fine Braque from 1912 and a futurist
painting from only a few years later. The futurist painting was an
illustration of a manifesto - the Braque was a recapitulation of the same
successes of Raphael and Corot, in his own voice. And, I hate to say it
but it was earnest.
>
> There has been a change in paradigm about the preparation of artists--it
> no longer seems necessary for an artist to display figure drawing skills,
> for example--and there's no way I can try to make sense of the technical,
> social and philosopical conditions which underly those changes in a brief
> post.
>
I will try a brief summation: It has become clear that drawing from the
nude is no longer the only route to a successful visual demonstration of
sensibility. One can recapitulate the successes of Michelangelo with logs
and steel, and one can recapitulate the successes of Poussin with a house
painting brush and motor oil - as long as one understands what
Michelangelo and Poussin understood: regardless of what particular fashion
is in vogue, regardless of the "formal mood" of the period, the
visual play is the thing.
> I think that it easier to see continuity among works and traditions that
> have all receded into the historical past than it is among the contentious
> and confusing practices of the recent past and present. If there were no
> continuity, we would not recognize the product as art. If there is only
> recapitulation, art would have no history at all.
I see continuity that includes much of the recent past and present. I
don't think we are obliged to include everything that is made. History
certainly rejects tons of art. We can take part in the process. What would
make the process easier in some recent examples would be some criteria -
although my suspicion is that art that tries to defy judgement will be the
first to be dismissed.
>
> Over and out,
>
> BT
>
It is great to hear from you again, and I hope we won't have to wait until
the holidays for more. But when you are back, please let us know. I think
we all benefit a lot from your insights.
> PS to Mark: If you are interested in formalism that is influenced by
> post-structuralism, look at Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe's book, "Beyond Piety."
> For examples of young artists revisiting color field painting, see the
> cover story on the latest (? September, I think) issue of Artforum.
>
>
Thank you, I'll look for these, too!
warm regards,
Mark
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>I see continuity that includes much of the recent past and present. I
>don't think we are obliged to include everything that is made. History
>certainly rejects tons of art. We can take part in the process. What would
>make the process easier in some recent examples would be some criteria -
>although my suspicion is that art that tries to defy judgement will be the
>first to be dismissed.
i must admit that formulating a criteria for art is a lofty and interesting
goal, i believe it is completely impossible.
we can judge technique, color, composition, perspective but not the
undefinable quality that makes art, well art.
if art was definable, then we would not have to paint it but we simply could
say it, write it down. even in great poetry and literature the mingling of
simple words, syllables becomes magical, ethereal when examined closely.
as artist we know that art is not all about the product, it is the process
of expression... the unspeakable concepts that makes us paint or sculpt or
write. i am not trying to say that we should attempt to judge or critique,
to question is to learn, to grow. i am just saying it is the process not the
product we should to, and in this case expect.
t aubuchon
mark webber
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
>
> mark webber wrote in message ...
>
> >I see continuity that includes much of the recent past and present. I
> >don't think we are obliged to include everything that is made. History
> >certainly rejects tons of art. We can take part in the process. What would
> >make the process easier in some recent examples would be some criteria -
> >although my suspicion is that art that tries to defy judgement will be the
> >first to be dismissed.
>
>
> i must admit that formulating a criteria for art is a lofty and interesting
> goal, i believe it is completely impossible.
This is sounding a bit heftier than I meant it - I'm not really looking
for some Einsteinian Whole Earth Catalogue Criteria. All I'm saying is
that most (maybe even all) art I can think of up to very recent times
raises issues within the work - in a readily visible way - which give us
the criteria. We don't look for realism in Cezanne or Giacometti because
pictorial space was a primary issue they raised.
When we look at Vermeer and Corot, we wouldn't apply criteria that have to
do with, say, complex, tumultuous compositions.
> we can judge technique, color, composition, perspective but not the
> undefinable quality that makes art, well art.
The "forest for the trees" comes to mind....
> if art was definable, then we would not have to paint it but we simply could
> say it, write it down.
I understand what you mean, but I'm really not sure that having a
definition of art, whether highly personal or not, militates against
making art.
> ...even in great poetry and literature the mingling of
> simple words, syllables becomes magical, ethereal when examined closely.
> as artist we know that art is not all about the product, it is the process
> of expression... the unspeakable concepts that makes us paint or sculpt or
> write. i am not trying to say that we should attempt to judge or critique,
> to question is to learn, to grow. i am just saying it is the process not the
> product we should to, and in this case expect.
And I would say if that is your method, then that is terrific - I
completely support it.
Believe me - I'm not here with these questions to try to improve my
paintings. I'm a teacher, and I don't want to simply regurgitate what
other critics are writing today. I'm tossing things onto this table to see
how well they sound, and what sort of responses they receive. And the
process of writing here, and "meeting" people like Marilyn, Chris, BT,
Andrew, Iian, you and others, it has been very rewarding, very
stimulating.
Again, thanks for your response!
Mark
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>
>On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
>
>>
>> mark webber wrote in message ...
>>
setai wrote...
>> >> i must admit that formulating a criteria for art is a lofty and
interesting
>> goal, i believe it is completely impossible.
>
>
>This is sounding a bit heftier than I meant it - I'm not really looking
>for some Einsteinian Whole Earth Catalogue Criteria. All I'm saying is
>that most (maybe even all) art I can think of up to very recent times
>raises issues within the work - in a readily visible way - which give us
>the criteria. We don't look for realism in Cezanne or Giacometti because
>pictorial space was a primary issue they raised.
i was attempting to say(i apologize that i tend to be convoluted) that art,
the quality that makes art "great art" is undefinable. yes, we can judge
color, composition, style, technique, but that is not what makes "great
art", at least individually, or we could look for realism in Cezanne or
Giacometti and judge. I am not saying that we shouldn't still try, just that
trying, not the answer is what should be looked for.
>I understand what you mean, but I'm really not sure that having a
>definition of art, whether highly personal or not, militates against
>making art.
i am contending that it is not possible, not if was possible there would be
no need. the reason we paint is because we can not express it in any other
way.
>> ...even in great poetry and literature the mingling of
>> simple words, syllables becomes magical, ethereal when examined closely.
>> as artist we know that art is not all about the product, it is the
process
>> of expression... the unspeakable concepts that makes us paint or sculpt
or
>> write. i am not trying to say that we should [not] attempt to judge or
critique,
>> to question is to learn, to grow. i am just saying it is the process not
the
>> product we should to, and in this case expect.
>
>And I would say if that is your method, then that is terrific - I
>completely support it.
this is more about art theory/philosophy not my method for creation, mostly
derived from Platonic Forms.
>Believe me - I'm not here with these questions to try to improve my
>paintings. I'm a teacher, and I don't want to simply regurgitate what
>other critics are writing today. I'm tossing things onto this table to see
>how well they sound, and what sort of responses they receive. And the
>process of writing here, and "meeting" people like Marilyn, Chris, BT,
>Andrew, Iian, you and others, it has been very rewarding, very
>stimulating.
i completely agree, and our intent seems identical. i am questioning my
ideas of art by throwing them out to other artist(educated, interesting, and
with varied but passionate opinions) and seeing how well they stand up.
question everything, most importantly that which you hold close. i have
hashed out these concepts with my friends(all artist of one form on another)
and we tend to agree. new perception, fresh filters to view, and the best
library one could peruse.
>Again, thanks for your response!
no thank you, for your time, patience and content.
t aubucho
mark webber
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
> i was attempting to say(i apologize that i tend to be convoluted) that art,
> the quality that makes art "great art" is undefinable. yes, we can judge
> color, composition, style, technique, but that is not what makes "great
> art", at least individually, or we could look for realism in Cezanne or
> Giacometti and judge. I am not saying that we shouldn't still try, just that
> trying, not the answer is what should be looked for.
First, I don't think you are any more convoluted than the rest of us - I
think you are very clear.
Second, I agree that trying is more important than thinking we have
succeeded.
> i am contending that it is not possible, not if was possible there would be
> no need. the reason we paint is because we can not express it in any other
> way.
Perhaps.
>
> >Believe me - I'm not here with these questions to try to improve my
> >paintings. I'm a teacher, and I don't want to simply regurgitate what
> >other critics are writing today. I'm tossing things onto this table to see
> >how well they sound, and what sort of responses they receive. And the
> >process of writing here, and "meeting" people like Marilyn, Chris, BT,
> >Andrew, Iian, you and others, it has been very rewarding, very
> >stimulating.
>
>
> i completely agree, and our intent seems identical. i am questioning my
> ideas of art by throwing them out to other artist(educated, interesting, and
> with varied but passionate opinions) and seeing how well they stand up.
> question everything, most importantly that which you hold close.
Exactly the same here.
Jump into the quality/beauty thread, by all means!
Mark
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>Jump into the quality/beauty thread, by all means!
>
mark,
thank you, you should consider being an ambassador. actually i am, not to
mention a few others.
always a please to speak to you,
tracy
mark webber
Hi Tracy,
Sorry - I don't know why I was thinking you weren't in the other thread -
I guess it was the variety of names.
Anyway, Iguess the ambassador remark is a compliment, so thanks.
Mark
setai
mark,
it is, i promise.
tracy