HELP: What makes great art in the 20c?
IgniteArt
I have been pondering this question for a while: what is a "great" art
work of art in the 20century?
One element would be that it would have to challenge the past shools of
thought and/or execution... Second, it should evoke some emotion to its
audience with or with our the understanding of the artist's intent
(because some intents are poor to begin with).
Both answers have problems with it, for art can be percived through
relativist's standpiont and that would mean that innovation is not
crucial. Where there not better cubist paintings after the very first? ANd
not every work is about emotion... in a critique emotional response
doesn't help much...no?
Please share your thoughts with this student.
Charles Mcgregor
In message <ignteart-280...@slip74.ice.net>
ignt...@ice.net (IgniteArt) writes:
In the 20th C and the latter half of the 19th, art has had to come to
terms with the camera.
The different 'modern' forms since then have consequently primarily
consisted of varying
degrees of abstraction. No point any longer of simply depicting
examples of what can be seen
with the eye, the camera does it to perfection instantly. Instead
the artist concerns himself
with reproducing that which the camera cannot get at, i.e. the
imagery he can create inside
his own head.
Curiously, this 20th C abstractionism may not be the first era in
history to do so. The Celts from around 400 BC until the Roman
Conquest appear to have deliberately produced abstract imagery,
(several pieces exist to attest to their capability to be as
representational as the artists of Mediterrania). Now there was no
camera then, but there was a situation where the Greek and Roman
artists had perfected the art of depicting things very accurately. I
like to think that the emerging Celtic artists rebelled, or saw
little point in duplicating this classical achievement. When the
dark ages descended on Europe the ability to be passably
representational was lost once more and regaining this filled the
next few centuries until the renaissance.
So the bottom line is that representational artists have had a very
poor time of it in the 20th C, not helped by totalitarian regimes of
left and right persuasion using representational
art in a cold and grotesque fashion.
The central abstract notion of the 20th C IMO has been paradox. The
paradox of what looks real but cannot be in surrealism of Dali, of
logistical impossibilities in Escher's work, the invisible visibility
of Bev Doolittle and the beautiful ugliness of the likes of Giger.
But is this 'great' art? are these people 'great' artists. Well,
this is of course entirely subjective, but using the above examples
IMO I would say Dali and Giger are and Escher and Doolittle are not.
Why? I'm not sure, it may just be something as egotistical as the
paradoxical component of Dali and Giger is less overt than for the
other two, therefore I must be a right clever little bugger for
figuring it out therefore they must be good...hmmm.
OTOH it may be that they are just better.
Why has paradox been so important? Simple, if you are to display
your intellectual creations you want them to be regarded as clever
and paradox is the way to do that.
If someone out there can visualize good badness, or sad happiness, or
free imprisonment
or ... you pick an opposite that hasn't been done yet, then get it down.
Chic
Albedo
Charles Mcgregor wrote:
>
> In message <ignteart-280...@slip74.ice.net>
> ignt...@ice.net (IgniteArt) writes:
>
> > I have been pondering this question for a while: what is a "great" art
> > work of art in the 20century?
> > One element would be that it would have to challenge the past shools of
> > thought and/or execution... Second, it should evoke some emotion to its
> > audience with or with our the understanding of the artist's intent
> > (because some intents are poor to begin with).
>
> > Both answers have problems with it, for art can be percived through
> > relativist's standpiont and that would mean that innovation is not
> > crucial. Where there not better cubist paintings after the very first? ANd
> > not every work is about emotion... in a critique emotional response
> > doesn't help much...no?
> In the 20th C and the latter half of the 19th, art has had to come to
> terms with the camera.
> The different 'modern' forms since then have consequently primarily
> consisted of varying
> degrees of abstraction. No point any longer of simply depicting
> examples of what can be seen
> with the eye, the camera does it to perfection instantly. Instead
> the artist concerns himself
> with reproducing that which the camera cannot get at, i.e. the
> imagery he can create inside
> his own head.
I'm not so sure that a realistic "photographic" representation was a big
concern to the artists of the past who are usually considered great. It
seems more about testing the limits of perception and to be able to
share ones perception, more like representation was secondary. Even
with photography, we are not given a "slice of life". It is afterall
cropped and cut and tinted and faded, etc.
The advancement of perspective seemed less to do with representing
reality than it did with organizing and making some sense out of the
visible world...in just one particular way. Byzantine art seems just as
valid (and just as "real") a representation with its huge, out-sized
figures in depicting some characteristic of that individual. A camera
can capture images in fair enough likeness but does not offer any
relation (unless the photographer is doing it consciously).
albedo
kg7fu
IgniteArt <ignt...@ice.net> wrote in article =
<ignteart-280...@slip74.ice.net>...
> I have been pondering this question for a while: what is a "great" =
art
> work of art in the 20century?
of
> thought and/or execution... Second, it should evoke some emotion to =
its
> audience with or with our the understanding of the artist's intent
> (because some intents are poor to begin with).
Art needs only to appeal to the artist. Appeal to anyone else is a =
marketing tool.
>=20
> Both answers have problems with it, for art can be percived through
> relativist's standpiont and that would mean that innovation is not
> crucial. Where there not better cubist paintings after the very first? =
ANd
> not every work is about emotion... in a critique emotional response
> doesn't help much...no?
Ever wonder how a critic could pan one of your favorite artist's works?
jk
Charles Mcgregor
In message <324F4B...@earthlink.net>
Albedo <alb...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> >
> > In message <ignteart-280...@slip74.ice.net>
> > ignt...@ice.net (IgniteArt) writes:
> >
> > > I have been pondering this question for a while: what is a "great" art
> > > work of art in the 20century?
> > > One element would be that it would have to challenge the past shools of
> > > thought and/or execution... Second, it should evoke some emotion to its
> > > audience with or with our the understanding of the artist's intent
> > > (because some intents are poor to begin with).
> >
> > > Both answers have problems with it, for art can be percived through
> > > relativist's standpiont and that would mean that innovation is not
> > > crucial. Where there not better cubist paintings after the very
first? ANd
> > > not every work is about emotion... in a critique emotional response
> > > doesn't help much...no?
> > In the 20th C and the latter half of the 19th, art has had to come to
> > terms with the camera.
> > The different 'modern' forms since then have consequently primarily
> > consisted of varying
> > degrees of abstraction. No point any longer of simply depicting
> > examples of what can be seen
> > with the eye, the camera does it to perfection instantly. Instead
> > the artist concerns himself
> > with reproducing that which the camera cannot get at, i.e. the
> > imagery he can create inside
> > his own head.
> I'm not so sure that a realistic "photographic" representation was a big
> concern to the artists of the past who are usually considered great. It
> seems more about testing the limits of perception and to be able to
> share ones perception, more like representation was secondary. Even
> with photography, we are not given a "slice of life". It is afterall
> cropped and cut and tinted and faded, etc.
> The advancement of perspective seemed less to do with representing
> reality than it did with organizing and making some sense out of the
> visible world...in just one particular way. Byzantine art seems just as
> valid (and just as "real") a representation with its huge, out-sized
> figures in depicting some characteristic of that individual. A camera
> can capture images in fair enough likeness but does not offer any
> relation (unless the photographer is doing it consciously).
I agree to an extent. The 'great' artists have never cared one way
or the other, and it really doesn't matter whether they create in a
representational or abstract way, their
work would still be great. However, the general climate, the
conventional wisdom of the time, is not set by the great artists too
much, there is not enough of them, but rather by the much larger
number of nearlys, critics and patrons. if most of them start to say
'Hey we have cameras now, we don't need landscapes and portaits any
more, art needs to be something else now' then that has it's influence.
I believe there will be a move back to representational art as the
'defining class' comes to the realisation that enormous subtlety of
meaning can be generated by the posture of the human form, it just
depends on the artist. Also, continuing technological advances place
the ever so clever paradoxical tricks favoured by the defining class
within machine reach e.g. stereograms, fractals.
--
Chic McGregor Semiconductor Engineer / //
Email chi...@zetnet.co.uk ////
///
///
Ronald Weaver
Greatness might reguire a certain passion and comittment. And these
elements might require a solid belief that the images being created were
personally and culturally significant. I suppose then, that
"relativism", however passionatly held, would tend to squelch an
appreciation of great art and discourage great artists.
Bruce Attah
In article <324F4B...@earthlink.net>, alb...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> >
> > In the 20th C and the latter half of the 19th, art has had to come to
> > terms with the camera.
> > The different 'modern' forms since then have consequently primarily
> > consisted of varying
> > degrees of abstraction....
The only sorts of painting that were in any real sense challenged or
threatened or rivalled by the camera were those that had not historically
been regarded seriously as art: topographical painting and portraiture.
Even these could not be rivalled by photography when they were executed at
the highest level. No-one in their right mind would prefer a portrait
photograph to a portrait by Ingres, or a Daguerreotype of Venice to a
Canelletto. The dominant 'art' genres of painting: history, allegory and
fantasy, narrative and genre, and the realism of the early half of the
nineteenth century only stood to benefit from the invention of
photography, since it provided painters with opportunities to explore the
appearance of things that, for whatever reason, were not previously
available to effective visual inspection. A good example of this is found
when you compare Degas' drawings of horses in motion with those of
Gericault. Although Gericault was a far better draughtsman on the whole,
Degas' portrayal of horses galloping is far more convincing, because the
latter artist had access to photographs. Photography also supplied new
approaches to composition. Again, using Degas as an example, we find a
lot of compositions that are inspired by the casual and surpsrising
truncations that the snapshot frequently produces.
The real proof that photography presented no challenge to painting is the
failure of Pictorialism early this century. Some photographers hit upon
the radical idea that imitating painting was not something photography was
particularly good at, so it might as well concentrate on its strengths and
create new kinds of picture. The new policy was overwhelmingly
successful, and generated an approach that dominates to this day.
However, *after* the invention of photography, styles of painting emerged
that could really be considered redundant in the face of photographic
technology. Impressionism, with its concentration on the momentary,
arguably does nothing that cannot be done with a photograph, albeit an
enlarged, highly textured photograph with heightened, distorted colour
contrasts -- something you could create now, but not in the 1860s.
Texture aside (and not all the Impressionists employed a highly textured
surface), Impressionist paintings certainly look a lot more like
photographs than the work of previous generations. Photorealism is also a
post-photographic phenomenon. There is a paradox in the fact that
photograph-like styles of painting emerged after the invention of
photography, if we also believe that photography made such painting
unnecessary or undesirable.
Not that no-one in the 19th century perceived photography as a threat to
painting. At least one prominent painter of the time expressed a real
fear that the art of painting would be killed by the arrival of
photography, but I do not know who first decided that painting in a
deliberately non-naturalistic fashion was the proper response to the
threat that the camera seemed to pose. Perhaps originally this claim only
meant that a smooth facture and precise delineation were undesirable,
being reminiscent of the Daguerreotype. Certainly artists in the late
nineteenth century did like to insult each other with the accusation that
so-and-so's painting resembled a Daguerreotype. But the lineage of
abstraction in European painting can be traced to Romantic roots that
predate the invention of photography and a case can be made that
photography was not even a minor, let alone an important, factor in
abstraction's emergence.
Having said all that, I will add that photography is now taking the place
of naturalistic painting -- not because photography offers a better way of
doing what such painting does, but because there is a scarcity of good
naturalistic painting that reflects the world people see around them or
the thoughts that people currently have about the world. The fact is
that, after 150 years of steadily improving technology, the best
photographs are still unable to compete as equals with the best paintings;
enlarged to the same size, they are simply ugly. The work of Jeff Wall,
Aziz & Cucher and others who deliberately (and foolishly) set their
photographs up for comparison with past styles of painting clearly
illustrates this fact. Unfortunately, most painting is so bad that even a
moderately competent photographer can rival what is presently on offer in
the galleries.
>
> I'm not so sure that a realistic "photographic" representation was a big
> concern to the artists of the past who are usually considered great. It
> seems more about testing the limits of perception and to be able to
> share ones perception, more like representation was secondary. Even
> with photography, we are not given a "slice of life". It is afterall
> cropped and cut and tinted and faded, etc.
>
> The advancement of perspective seemed less to do with representing
> reality than it did with organizing and making some sense out of the
> visible world...in just one particular way. Byzantine art seems just as
> valid (and just as "real") a representation with its huge, out-sized
> figures in depicting some characteristic of that individual. A camera
> can capture images in fair enough likeness but does not offer any
> relation (unless the photographer is doing it consciously).
>
> albedo
It may well be that a sense of order was more important to some artists
than a sense of reality, but it is a massive overgeneralization to say
that this was the case with all pre-modern painters. Ucello, that most
orderly of artists, was interested in perspective precisely because it
gave a heightened reality to images. Vasari regarded artists of the early
Renaissance as having been less good than their successsors, not because
their art was less orderly, but because it was too stiff, too unnatural,
too lacking in the vitality that is present (and desired) in the real
world. The painters of the Dutch republics were deeply interested in
creating the most convincing replication of appearances they possibly
could, and became adepts of the psychology of colour perception, as well
as experts in optics. (Vermeer was not the only artist to use optical
instruments to create heightened realism in his pictures.) In the
nineteenth century, classical painters and Orientalists made realism in
representing remote worlds one of their central goals.
The comment about photography not offering a "slice of life" seems to me a
little pointless. What sort of thing would amount to a slice of life, if
any sort of "cropping and fading" disqualifies it, other than life
itself? And if only life can be a slice of life, of what use is the
phrase to anyone?
As for the claim that Byzantine art is "just as real" as the work of "the
artists of the past who are usually considered great", you leave me
wondering what you mean by "real" and "realistic".
Bruce Attah.
Albedo
> > I, Albedo, wrote:
> >
> > I'm not so sure that a realistic "photographic" representation was a big
> > concern to the artists of the past who are usually considered great. It
> > seems more about testing the limits of perception and to be able to
> > share ones perception, more like representation was secondary. Even
> > with photography, we are not given a "slice of life". It is afterall
> > cropped and cut and tinted and faded, etc.
> >
> > The advancement of perspective seemed less to do with representing
> > reality than it did with organizing and making some sense out of the
> > visible world...in just one particular way. Byzantine art seems just as
> > valid (and just as "real") a representation with its huge, out-sized
> > figures in depicting some characteristic of that individual. A camera
> > can capture images in fair enough likeness but does not offer any
> > relation (unless the photographer is doing it consciously).
> >
In response Bruce Attah wrote:
> It may well be that a sense of order was more important to some artists
> than a sense of reality, but it is a massive overgeneralization to say
> that this was the case with all pre-modern painters. Ucello, that most
> orderly of artists, was interested in perspective precisely because it
> gave a heightened reality to images. Vasari regarded artists of the early
> Renaissance as having been less good than their successsors, not because
> their art was less orderly, but because it was too stiff, too unnatural,
> too lacking in the vitality that is present (and desired) in the real
> world. The painters of the Dutch republics were deeply interested in
> creating the most convincing replication of appearances they possibly
> could, and became adepts of the psychology of colour perception, as well
> as experts in optics. (Vermeer was not the only artist to use optical
> instruments to create heightened realism in his pictures.) In the
> nineteenth century, classical painters and Orientalists made realism in
> representing remote worlds one of their central goals.
While I can see how important representation was to the artists
mentioned above, it seems to me that their ideas of representation may
not necessarily be the same (as you have indicated by the inclusion of
Vasari). That early Gothic art was centered around religious
embellishment offers a preoccupation with glorifying Christ and his
teachings as the primary object and function of art. In Gothic art, the
human figure was not as important as, for example, iconographic
representation.
The Dutch were so concerned with fabric and texture and adding subtle
psychological details and symbolism that Gothic art find significant
enough to explore. Isn't this the subject of he Dutch: some
psychological feeling or motif? When I use the word "order" to describe
the characteristics and principles by which an artist decides to compose
an artwork, the artis becomes active in the process of discriminating
details. For the Dutch, they orderd their paintings by attentiveness to
minute details while purposely leaving out others. I find it
fascinating that Van Eyck could fill a convex mirror with a whole scene
while seemingly overlooking the details of, say, the human figure. Yet,
this was a way of organizing only those elements he saw necessary: it
was not necessary for him to represent the human figure because that was
not specifically his subject. Perspective is just another way of
discriminating.
> The comment about photography not offering a "slice of life" seems to me a
> little pointless. What sort of thing would amount to a slice of life, if
> any sort of "cropping and fading" disqualifies it, other than life
> itself? And if only life can be a slice of life, of what use is the
> phrase to anyone?
That is precisely the point. "Slice of life" was simply in reference to
the statement that representational art must come to terms with
photography. Its the idea that the general public tends to value a
picture by its photographic quality. But the terms "photographic
quality" don't have much meaning either. It is pointless to suggest that
representation is a primary concern for most great works of art. These
artists that you mentioned above were interested in imposing their
slice-of-life ideas on the viewer, whether that means a cubist figure,
an impressionist landscape, or a smudge of paint on a canvas.
> As for the claim that Byzantine art is "just as real" as the work of "the
> artists of the past who are usually considered great", you leave me
> wondering what you mean by "real" and "realistic".
These artists are suggesting that, to them, the image they have painted
is a more complete reality in regards to some particular aspect(s) than
the experience of reality the viewer witnesses in his everyday life.
Thank You
Albedo
W.S. Parker
Albedo wrote:
>
> Charles Mcgregor wrote:
> >
> > ignt...@ice.net (IgniteArt) writes:
> >
> > > I have been pondering this question for a while: what is a "great" art
> > > work of art in the 20century?
> > > One element would be that it would have to challenge the past shools of
> > > thought and/or execution... Second, it should evoke some emotion to its
> > > audience with or with our the understanding of the artist's intent
> > > (because some intents are poor to begin with).
> >
Starting a different vein; there isn't much time left in the 20c and so
there is going to be only two kinds of great art in it.
One is everything that came before Duchamp: imp,--->dada,fut,sur
Two is everything that came after him that is not a regurgitation of
what came before him.
If I understand the issue here. If you are asking a classical type
question: "what is great art?" by some philosopher we studied in phil of
aesthetics in univ, then good luck, though I think it is the wrong path.
If you are thinking as an art historian then it becomes more fruitful
and centers more easily around the above.
As for photography (small P), well it stands at the center of great art
in this century because it made Duchamp possible. I believe he was the
best photographer in this century even though he did not use a
camera:because the metaphors for photog in his iconoclastic work are
extensive. This is a specialized area of inquiry so I let it rest here.
But I am truly convinced that there are modern art precursors and then
Duchamp and then the legitimate footnotes to Duchamp ( minimalism, pop
art, abstex, conceptual, body, unameit). It is extremely difficult to
make significant (would you say "great?") art today without knowing
Duchamp well. Also it is extremely difficult to make art today not
knowing his work well (so many people don't know enough, of him and
claim to be making art and it makes me laugh and cry at the same
time). So, all great art in this 20c involves the study of Duchamp
(where he came from and where he took it).
Bruce Attah
> That early Gothic art was centered around religious
> embellishment offers a preoccupation with glorifying Christ and his
> teachings as the primary object and function of art. In Gothic art, the
> human figure was not as important as, for example, iconographic
> representation.
Nevertheless, convincing realism was valued highly in Gothic art, as can
easily be seen by inspection of the work. If we say that, because Gothic
art is less realistic than art that came later, that such realism was not
valued by them, we are failing in empathy. We must step back into the
time to imagine the conditions under which the artists worked, and the
models that were available to them. Then it is easier to see how the
absence of aerial and linear perspective and so on is not proof that these
artists did not care about creating an illusion. The proof that they DID
is in the work itself.
> ...For the Dutch, they orderd their paintings by attentiveness to
> minute details while purposely leaving out others...
To say that artists are selective in what they represent is not the same
thing as saying that they do not regard accurate representation highly.
Pictures are _always_ selective, even those that seem most inclusive.
> ...It is pointless to suggest that
> representation is a primary concern for most great works of art. These
> artists that you mentioned above were interested in imposing their
> slice-of-life ideas on the viewer, whether that means a cubist figure,
> an impressionist landscape, or a smudge of paint on a canvas.
A photograph is not a slice of life (you said earlier), because it is
cropped and cut (though cutting is the essential prerequisite of making
slices), yet a "smudge of paint on a canvas" is? What _on_earth_ do you
mean by this "slice of life" of which you speak?
> > As for the claim that Byzantine art is "just as real" as the work of "the
> > artists of the past who are usually considered great", you leave me
> > wondering what you mean by "real" and "realistic".
>
> These artists are suggesting that, to them, the image they have painted
> is a more complete reality in regards to some particular aspect(s) than
> the experience of reality the viewer witnesses in his everyday life.
>
> Thank You
> Albedo
Perhaps that is what the artists intend to suggest, but unless they are
successful in persuading us, I think we must acknowledge that they are not
"just as real". Religious art since the Renaissance has never turned back
to Byzantine (you could use Roualt , nor have viewers found Byzantine art
more convincing a representation of the supernatural than what came
after. Byzantine art looked the way it did because it was the product of
a separation between the imagination of the priest and the labour of the
artisan. In that circumstance, art was stifled, as it was in Ancient
Egypt, where a style lasted three thousand years. When the artisan was
raised from serfdom and granted the freedom of his own imagination, the
Renaissance happened.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Returning to what you said earlier:
> > I'm not so sure that a realistic "photographic" representation was a big
> > concern to the artists of the past who are usually considered great. It
> > seems more about testing the limits of perception and to be able to
> > share ones perception, more like representation was secondary...
Leaving aside what is known as 'decorative' art, I think that until the
modern era, artists always concerned themselves with creating a convincing
realism in their images, and that this was at the heart of their
concerns. They varied in their technical means, and they varied in the
purpose to which the realism was put, but the creation of a powerful
illusion was always important in painting.
This is not to say that formal considerations had no role in pre-modern
art. Rather, that such considerations never pushed realism to the side.
Art before photography always compromised the illusion with style or
idealization, but never (if the art was to receive acclaim) to the extent
that the illusion was spoiled for the spectator.
Since photography, we have had both extremes. Some artists have
eliminated the illusion in pursuit of style, while others have dismissed
style in their pursuit of photographic realism. I feel somehow that
photography is not the root cause of all this, though. Rather, my
suspicion is that these things were bound to happen with the increasing
stress that the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have given to the
notion of the individual as a unique, self-defining consciousness.
Bruce Attah.
Bruce Attah
In article <325829...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
> ...So, all great art in this 20c involves the study of Duchamp
> (where he came from and where he took it).
This stuff is not appreciation of art, this is idolatry.
W.S. Parker
pretty blanket statement isn't that?
W.S. Parker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
The fact is
> that, after 150 years of steadily improving technology, the best
> photographs are still unable to compete as equals with the best paintings;
> enlarged to the same size, they are simply ugly.
lord above, what humble opinion! really makes me want to learn
something..Enlarging to the same size is a good test, when the photos
fall apart from being so big, they are proven not to be paintings! So
big paintings more equal than small photos.
The work of Jeff Wall,
> Aziz & Cucher and others who deliberately (and foolishly)
of course fools aren't they?
set their
> photographs up for comparison with past styles of painting clearly
> illustrates this fact.
Oh, I know all about these guys and I disagree with you, you make it
sound so simple: its not! Clearly illustrates you are exaggerating
again.
Unfortunately, most painting is so bad that even a
> moderately competent photographer can rival what is presently on offer in
> the galleries.
What have you been eating? Do you hear yourself? We should start a
newsgroup devoted to pontification (that's the kind word) and have you
moderate it.
>
> It may well be that a sense of order was more important to some artists
> than a sense of reality, but it is a massive overgeneralization to say
> that this was the case with all pre-modern painters.
Gee, what's wrong with massive overgeneralization?!
Albedo
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well Bruce, I wish I could add something more to maintain the
stimulation.
But, I must now go back and LOOK more closely and pay more attention to
the past 2000 years of art (and beyond).
Thank You,
Albedo
Bruce Attah
Is it? And "all great art in this 20c involves the study of Duchamp" is not?
W.S. Parker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <325AAB...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
>
> > Bruce Attah wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <325829...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...So, all great art in this 20c involves the study of Duchamp
> > > > (where he came from and where he took it).
> > >
> > > This stuff is not appreciation of art, this is idolatry.
> >
> > pretty blanket statement isn't that?
>
> Is it? And "all great art in this 20c involves the study of Duchamp" is not
My statement.."all great art in this 20c involves the study of Duchamp"
though broad does not signify my unquestioning reverence of a is not It
is not.
Here's an straight analogy; there is no exaggeration for the sake of
illustration. Einstein is to modern physics what Duchamp is to modern
art. Before Einstein we had one inconsistent, and finally inadequate
state of affairs. After his contribution to humanity we are forever
changed. Every physicist takes for granted that Einstein utterly
transformed the way we see the natural world. The same may be said for
Duchamp; he made modern art possible, almost all (significant) forms of
art which followed are forshadowed in his massive if enigmatic work.
Pop, minimal, conceptual, abstraction, body, techno, unamem.
Now if you don't buy this it doesn't matter, A physicist who doesn't
consider Einstein is qualified to think as a classicist. He is also
qualified to teach high school physics. The mathematics is too advanced
for most hs students. We don't mind that.
So, If Duchamp isn't very important to you, no big deal. certainly he
is the LAST person who would want a following; not that that matters
either. If studying someone's life work and appreciating the enormous
influence it has made on modern art is mindless idol making, well, no
sense in education at all. Let's all remain willfully ignorant.
If he were to become a more serious subject of study for you, I think
people will feel better making art today because it so heavily depends
on its tradition, and that originates in the work of MD (only
*originates* mind you, quantum physics is not Einsteinian, but he made
it *possible*).
Mdeli
"W.S. Parker" <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
>---Duchamp; he made modern art possible, almost all (significant) forms of
>art which followed are forshadowed in his massive if enigmatic work.
>Pop, minimal, conceptual, abstraction, body, techno, unamem.
From my book No Skill No Art:
Duchamp was talented, possessed intellect and some
skill but was
a lazy fart. He produced more gas then painting. His
early painted works are
interesting and are among the few abstract works which
express three
dimensions. He is historically admired for doing all
the show-biz nonsense which is presently required for
fashionable success today. His urinal, most later works
and lots of his statements are really just plain
stupid. Although critics still reverently so to speak
still piss in his urinal Duchamp was a Dadaist
who outlived his time. A wise Dadaist, he admitted it.
He did the right thing by taking rich old ladies and
stupid museum curators for a ride long before Warhol
got the idea. He remained fashionable unlike so many
other Dadaist losers.
Duchamp is also a major academic role model for most of
today's art students. They attempt to repeat his
antiquated ideas and suffer a nostalgia for a Dadaistic
world that never was. They evoke the old nonsense
aesthetics in Post Modernist babble which they imagine
is utterly new.
The Modern Academic student unlike Duchamp, can't draw,
has little knowledge of art history, lacks intellect
and technical skill and imagines
himself a great artist.
Unlike Duchamp, the Modern Art student never earned his
right to laziness and is in most cases destined as an
artist to earn purely abstract non-objective money. His
ideas of how to fashionably shock people without the
medium of artistic skill are but boring repetition. The
few artists in the Modern Art rat race who do make it
to the top of the heap and earn those coveted millions
are about as deserving as lottery winners.
Mani DeLi
W.S. Parker
Your comments can only come out of your own willful ignorance.
I'm sorry but: You're fired.
We are no longer responding to anything you write.
Allen Morrow
Why argue about photography versus painting? Photography is a method - just
as sculpture and painting are methods by which an artist creates. Arguing
about photography versus painting is like arguing about skating versus
ballet. They are very different from each other, and both very important.
Would you who believe photography is not art BAN artists from using a camera
in their work? Would you FORBID the use of photo images in art? CAMERAS ARE
TOOLS AND PHOTOGRAPHY IS JUST ONE OF MANY VEHICLES OF ART PRODUCTION.
Allen Morrow
Mdeli
"W.S. Parker" <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
>Your comments can only come out of your own willful ignorance.
Your comments are exploding with wisdom.
>I'm sorry but: You're fired.
Um, I was counting on your recomendation to get other
work. I guess academia will never have me once they
find out that I was fired by someone as important as
you.
>We are no longer responding to anything you write.
However, I'll respond to your messages whenever it
amuses me.
Bye bye
MAni DeLi
Bruce Attah
In article <325F41...@olympus.net>, w...@olympus.net wrote:
> ... Every physicist takes for granted that Einstein utterly
> transformed the way we see the natural world. The same may be said for
> Duchamp; he made modern art possible, almost all (significant) forms of
> art which followed are forshadowed in his massive if enigmatic work.
> Pop, minimal, conceptual, abstraction, body, techno, unamem.
>
> Now if you don't buy this it doesn't matter, A physicist who doesn't
> consider Einstein is qualified to think as a classicist. He is also
> qualified to teach high school physics. The mathematics is too advanced
> for most hs students. We don't mind that.
>
> So, If Duchamp isn't very important to you, no big deal. certainly he
> is the LAST person who would want a following; not that that matters
> either. If studying someone's life work and appreciating the enormous
> influence it has made on modern art is mindless idol making, well, no
> sense in education at all. Let's all remain willfully ignorant.
>
> If he were to become a more serious subject of study for you, I think
> people will feel better making art today because it so heavily depends
> on its tradition, and that originates in the work of MD (only
> *originates* mind you, quantum physics is not Einsteinian, but he made
> it *possible*).
W. S. Parker,
All of the above is an attempt by you to prove that you are not an
idolater, that you are not infatuated with Duchamp, as I suggested you
might be, on the basis of earlier remarks you made. Well, everyone
reading this post who is not a disciple of the same sect will agree with
me that your failure in this objective is so signal as to be comical.
The proof you offer consist in claiming that Duchamp transformed the
landscape of art at utterly as Einstein did physics. Do you have evidence
for this? Clearly, you _think_ do, and that is what marks you out as a
Duchamp-worshipper.
You claim that Duchamp foreshadowed abstract art, even though abstract art
(even in its narrow, art-world sense) emerged _before_ Duchamp began his
mischievous games.
You claim that "almost all (significant) forms of art which followed" are
foreshadowed in Duchamp's work. Now, I _could_ quibble with your idea of
what is significant, or with the fact that you choose to stress
significance rather than quality (that which is historically or
economically significant is not necessarily any good as art), but I will
not. Instead, I will simply remark that each movement listed above could
as well be said to be foreshadowed by some other artists contemporary to,
or even earlier than, Duchamp. For instance, Max Ernst and Kurt
Schwitters would be excellent candidates for the title of "forerunner of
Pop".
It is highly questionable that Duchamp was the cause of all the
"significant" movements and tendencies in Western art that followed him.
Yet, if one selects as "significant" only those movements which show some
trace or reflection of Duchamp, and then proceeds to ignore all other
precursors of one's chosen "significant" movements, it is possible to
construct a picture of the world in which Duchamp created all modern art.
This sort of cavalier treatment of history is usually found in religious
scriptures and the official hagiographies of kings. This is the sort of
history, in other words, that _disciples_ write.
Of course Duchamp is the art-world counterpart of Einstein. Of course
anyone sufficiently foolish as to doubt that is unquailified to practice
or discuss art at the highest level, and of course the only possible
reason for such doubt is the inability to understand the profound ideas
Duchamp has revealed to the world. If only everyone understood that.
Those millions of benighted souls who still look for art that amounts to
more than a demonstration that this or that charmless and uninteresting
object can be called art would see the light and _accept_.
Of course W. S. Parker is not entirely subject to the religion of Duchampism.
Bruce Attah.
peter james kashur
Oh, a tantrum.Hey Mani, are they taking their bricks and going home?!
W.S. Parker
Bruce Attah wrote:
>
nothing scholarly, just devious little subversions that would sway an
untrained mind.
This irks me because **you** are so limited in your thinking, how you
could be satisfied in this era by only those classical forms of art, the
art you deign "Good" is incomprehensible. You must be doing it for
attention! I hope you are just a young person.
So, I and everyone else, thousands of people with even finer minds, are
being fooled, we pollute our enjoyment of "Good Art" by considering bad
art, thanks for your trained effort but you fail to convince any of us.
It will always be you against the world. Gets kinda lonely you'll see.
You guys exist as a by-product of the internet.You have a few cohorts
you find here, the only place you can't get shouted off the stage, and
discounted as an "educated" fool by all.
There will always be another newcomer to this nsgrp to be disturbed by
your limited view. New people who come along and are alerted by your
all-encompassing claims and self-limited point of view.
Genuinely loving art and loathing willful ignorance, they jump in and
try to persuade you to see your own limitations, as expressed in your
super-critical appraisals. They hope for mutual undertstanding; whatever
comes out of a *fair exchange* of views.
So with their response to your overarching claims made, you can again
reiterate your limited arguments, in your pontificatory style. You
start up again with your crap, and what do you get?
I've learned something important from dealing with you guys, but nothing
of it has to do with art! It was great while it lasted, why don't you go
onto the next hapless internaut.
You claim to be a connoisseur of art, which, where I come from is
dangerously close to pompous ass.