Thanks for the Bouguereau
Dr. Slick
I was reading the debate you all had a year ago about modern art
and Bouguereau (some of the stuff you write here may haunt you in the
future when you're a big famous artist, haha!). I believe i have seen
his work before (angels?), but didn't know his name.
Great stuff, i didn't know someone was so startlingly photo-real
before the turn of the century (I can tell even over jpegs, the real
thing must be nice). Some of the poses of the people were
characteristically too stiff for my taste, but this is pre-1900 stuff
anyways, and i've been spoiled by the dynamic motion of todays Frank
Frazetta. Photography was big in the mid 1800's, so he obviously was
helped by this...does anyone know if he projected photos on the canvas
(you could do an outline even with a negative plate)?
Why can't people handle nudes? People are way too puritanical.
I would say that if you were honest with yourself, you would say many
of his nudes are very beautiful, and you would move on to his
non-nudes. Much of his females actual have clothes on if you didn't
care to notice, or did you too quickly write him off as a 19th century
Hugh Hefner to give the rest of his work a chance? This Bouguereau
guy was tame compared to Serpieri's Druuna.
For those of you who are open-minded enough to consider
comics/fantasy art as "fine" art, check out Michael Kaluta. Here's a
sample of his interpretation of Metropolis:
Dr. Slick
Ivor E. Black
says...
> For those of you who are open-minded enough to consider
>comics/fantasy art as "fine" art, check out Michael
You might also check out the works of
Boris Vallejo, who is considered
by some who appreciate that sort of thing
to be a master of his art form.
Dr. Slick
> You might also check out the works of
> Boris Vallejo, who is considered
> by some who appreciate that sort of thing
> to be a master of his art form.
>
> http://vallejo.ural.net/
I'm familiar with Boris of course. Although he is a fantastic
technician: skin tones, light/shading, etc..his composition is often
very weak in my opinion. He will never get close to the genius of
Frank Frazetta.
Comparing the two is a good lesson in over-reliance on technical
"skill". Boris makes very photo-real, very detailed paintings.
Frazetta can be a bit "sloppier" overall (his ink sketches seem very
quickly done, and he spends far less time than Boris on a comparable
piece, i'll bet). But if you look at the important elements of
composition: character poses, focus of attention, color composition
(without gaudiness), the illusion of violent motion, or the tension of
a story, Frazetta cannot be touched.
He's been called the second coming of Michaelangelo for good
reason. Look carefully at Frazetta's animals galloping or
running...or look at his barbarians about to smash someone's head in.
An incredible sense of dynamic motion.
Boris's paintings look like still-lifes in comparison (very
boring poses by his models), even though they are painted extremely
well. This is classic wheelbarrow before the horse, technique before
composition, "skill" before creative story-telling.
And I sense a greater emotional range in Frazetta's work. He has
a greater ability to show us pure, vicious evil. His work is a bit
frightening sometimes. Boris and the other Frazetta wanna-bes will
never come close to the gloom and doom of the "Death Dealer".
One thing i do like about Boris is his choice in women. His
women are always super-gorgeous, super-erotic, and very well painted.
But even here, Frazetta may have an advantage with his significantly
plumper women.. they are much more realistic in a sense.
Dr. Slick
Mani Deli
> Great stuff, i didn't know someone was so startlingly photo-real
>before the turn of the century (I can tell even over jpegs, the real
>thing must be nice).
Go look at ARC http://www.artrenewal.org/ if you haven't already.
> Some of the poses of the people were
>characteristically too stiff for my taste, but this is pre-1900 stuff
>anyways, and i've been spoiled by the dynamic motion of todays Frank
>Frazetta. Photography was big in the mid 1800's, so he obviously was
>helped by this...does anyone know if he projected photos on the canvas
>(you could do an outline even with a negative plate)?
Photos were used however not by Bouguereau.
> Why can't people handle nudes? People are way too puritanical.
Its because they can't draw and never got much beyond Picasso and
Matisse etc. When faced with a bravura of expertise they can't handle
it and imagine that anyone can do it with drawing aids. They then run
back to the safety of abstraction and get upset when most others can
do it.
>I would say that if you were honest with yourself, you would say many
>of his nudes are very beautiful, and you would move on to his
>non-nudes. Much of his females actual have clothes on if you didn't
>care to notice, or did you too quickly write him off as a 19th century
>Hugh Hefner to give the rest of his work a chance? This Bouguereau
>guy was tame compared to Serpieri's Druuna.
>
> For those of you who are open-minded enough to consider
>comics/fantasy art as "fine" art, check out Michael Kaluta. Here's a
>sample of his interpretation of Metropolis:
>
>http://www.kaluta.com/pages/metropolis/metbig.php3?title=Kaluta%27s+Metropolis%3A+Chapter+4+Heading&imgbig=metch04big.jpg&imgbigh=364&imgbigw=810&rtn=metch04.php3
>
nice work!
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
John Ng
> Some of the poses of the people were
> characteristically too stiff for my taste, but this is pre-1900 stuff
> anyways, and i've been spoiled by the dynamic motion of todays Frank
> Frazetta.
If you want dynamic muscle-man Frazetta-type paintings (and probably
the one that inspired Frank), look at Solomon Joseph Solomon's "Ajax
and Cassandra" painted in 1886. It has been done before.
As for the static look of Bouguereau, you must remember the targeted
market. A Frazetta painting may look fine on the wall for a month or
so. However, it becomes too loud when it has to remain on the wall
for the next ten years. Also the age group of Bouguereau's market is
older and richer folks, and their taste mellows as they grow older (as
in my youth I like Deep Purple but now it is Mozart's chamber music).
> Photography was big in the mid 1800's, so he obviously was
> helped by this...does anyone know if he projected photos on the canvas
> (you could do an outline even with a negative plate)?
He probably had very limited influence and probably in that he could
study poses that could otherwise not be sustained. But as definite as
the Sun rises from the east, Bouguereau does not "copy" from
photographs. There are many reasons to this and I have elaborated
these in earlier posts. Among the most convincing is that camera lens
distorts and sees unlike the human eye. The distortion is not present
in his works. And second, he would never be able to get details as
vivid as those seen in his painting, especially the state of
technology existing during his time. Photographs will lose a lot of
details (the "garbage in garbage out" explanation).
> Why can't people handle nudes?
Well the reason why is because the critics must sanction Nudes :-) If
nudes are distorted or looks artificial or painted, then it is okay.
But if it looks real, well well, dirty old man. :-)
John Ng
Advocate of an art renewal and the return of realism
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Dr. Slick
Great site. I've seen John Waterhouse's "Hylas and Nymphs" and
other prints of his in Berkeley. Stunningly beautiful women.
Photography was big in the mid 1800's, so he obviously was
> >helped by this...does anyone know if he projected photos on the canvas
> >(you could do an outline even with a negative plate)?
>
> Photos were used however not by Bouguereau.
>
As the other poster mentions, the photography at the time
wasn't very good, so it's possible he only used models. How do you
know this? I searched for info on his techniques and found nothing.
> > Why can't people handle nudes? People are way too puritanical.
>
> Its because they can't draw and never got much beyond Picasso and
> Matisse etc. When faced with a bravura of expertise they can't handle
> it and imagine that anyone can do it with drawing aids. They then run
> back to the safety of abstraction and get upset when most others can
> do it.
>
"Cheating" using photographs, tracing paper and projectors will
NOT make you a great artist/painter.
If it's abstract like "Nude Decending a Staircase", then it's
ok. Why don't we chisel Michaelangelo's David's genitals out and
carve Speedos on him?
Oh. There ain't enough stone down there...hehe.
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> If you want dynamic muscle-man Frazetta-type paintings (and probably
> the one that inspired Frank), look at Solomon Joseph Solomon's "Ajax
> and Cassandra" painted in 1886. It has been done before.
>
That's some really nice stuff, but the poses are still very
static: you don't see someone swinging an axe or falling over
backwards after being shot by an arrow!
I believe Frazetta's ability to paint action convincingly stems
a large part from his comic book years. Comic artists really need to
exaggerate and emphasize motion and action; Frazetta has simply
translated this successfully into the fantasy/fine art world.
Leonardo conveyed a sense of motion using multiple images (both these
guys drew/draw incredible horses).
> As for the static look of Bouguereau, you must remember the targeted
> market. A Frazetta painting may look fine on the wall for a month or
> so. However, it becomes too loud when it has to remain on the wall
> for the next ten years. Also the age group of Bouguereau's market is
> older and richer folks, and their taste mellows as they grow older (as
> in my youth I like Deep Purple but now it is Mozart's chamber music).
>
Agreed, but it really depends on the person. I'm appreciating
Frazetta more now that i'm older.
>
> > Photography was big in the mid 1800's, so he obviously was
> > helped by this...does anyone know if he projected photos on the canvas
> > (you could do an outline even with a negative plate)?
>
> He probably had very limited influence and probably in that he could
> study poses that could otherwise not be sustained. But as definite as
> the Sun rises from the east, Bouguereau does not "copy" from
> photographs. There are many reasons to this and I have elaborated
> these in earlier posts. Among the most convincing is that camera lens
> distorts and sees unlike the human eye. The distortion is not present
> in his works.
I buy your second explanation, but what camera distortion are
you talking about?
Slick
Ivor E. Black
> Agreed, but it really depends on the person. I'm appreciating
>Frazetta more now that i'm older.
And as is often said, "to each his own!"
Frazetta would never by referred to in
my artist circle as a 'fine artist' but
rather as an illustrator, or cartoonist.
Perhaps in So. California, where 'everything
and anything goes,' this sort of art is
accepted as 'fine art' along with Disney
productions.
G*rd*n
| > Agreed, but it really depends on the person. I'm appreciating
| >Frazetta more now that i'm older.
bla...@noemailever.com (Ivor E. Black):
| And as is often said, "to each his own!"
|
| Frazetta would never by referred to in
| my artist circle as a 'fine artist' but
| rather as an illustrator, or cartoonist.
|
| Perhaps in So. California, where 'everything
| and anything goes,' this sort of art is
| accepted as 'fine art' along with Disney
| productions.
Certainly culture in the sense of the complex of social customs
and arrangements -- affect what is considered to be important
art and what isn't in any particular community. But can
anything more be said about it? This is not a rhetorical
question.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
Dr. Slick
> And as is often said, "to each his own!"
>
> Frazetta would never by referred to in
> my artist circle as a 'fine artist' but
> rather as an illustrator, or cartoonist.
>
> Perhaps in So. California, where 'everything
> and anything goes,' this sort of art is
> accepted as 'fine art' along with Disney
> productions.
For me this seems to be the sort of close-mindedness that Mani
always bitches about, with some justification in my opinion. I would
NEVER want to be a part of an artist circle that didn't consider
Frazetta a fine artist.
Please define "fine artist" for me. Does fine art mean it has to
be a painting or sculpture? Frazetta certainly does paintings. Or is
it just because he formerly did comics? Or did Conan the Barbarian
book covers?
If you did like something out of the taste of your "artist
circle", would you have the courage to admit this? It sounds like you
would be afraid to be labeled a tasteless idiot by your elite artiste
click.
And do you consider Roy Lichtenstein to be a "fine artist" who
does things like a cartoonist?
You don't consider Disney's "Fantasia" to be a great work of art?
I consider animation to be a legitimate art form. Check out Rankin
and Bass' interpretation of "The Hobbit" (you may remember this on
TV), the japanese animation being a bit jerky sometimes, but otherwise
fantastic!
Maybe southern Cal is more progressive than where you come from.
Where are you coming from and please give us a list of who YOU
(NOT your groups' opinion) would consider to be a fine artist.
Garvin Yee (Dr. Slick)
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<kpg62voutvkl6n15r...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Photos were used however not by Bouguereau.
> As the other poster mentions, the photography at the time
>wasn't very good, so it's possible he only used models. How do you
>know this? I searched for info on his techniques and found nothing.
>
You can read the details on B. in ARC. There are about 5 really good
articles.
John Ng
> Frazetta would never by referred to in
> my artist circle as a 'fine artist' but
> rather as an illustrator, or cartoonist.
In Australia, Aboriginal paintings (a dotted kangaroo) are as good as
any Picassos and litter the museums. Those things are NOT half as
arty as a Frazetta. Why are they art then? or should they be
considered as religious craft... something which is less of an art
than illustration?
Ivor E. Black
> Where are you coming from and please give us a list of who YOU
>(NOT your groups' opinion) would consider to be a fine artist.
Well, I am among the great unwashed masses who
buy the concepts preached in the "fine art"
magazines about who is and who isn't a "fine
artist." I already said to you, "to each his
own!" I have no quibble with your choice
of artists you consider 'fine.' It's just that
your fantasy illustrators are NEVER EVER
mentioned in the "FINE ART" references I am
familiar with, and I've NEVER EVER seen their
works in a MUSEUM of FINE ART - ANYWHERE.
But then I am not that familiar with the
museums you frequent, I admit.
John Ng
> I buy your second explanation, but what camera distortion are
> you talking about?
The focal length of a camera lens is different from that of our eye.
Hence depths are perceived differently. For example, an object
protruding towards the viewer is differently sized, especially those
which protrude close to the viewing plane. This distortion is further
enhanced by the fact that we see with two eyes but a camera with one.
However, because we are so used to seeing photographs, we tend to deem
these distortions as "normal" and cannot usually easily detect them.
Further differences are sharpness, colour and lack of details (akin to
flatness).
Now, I am not purist but one of the purpose of a painting to me, is to
feel as if I am there, and these distortions prevent me from feeling
that way. (However, I cannot understand why a lover of Modern Art
would not permit these distortions since those art are never painted
from life... unless Picasso saw as in his paintings).
Mani Deli
etta a fine artist.
>
> Please define "fine artist" for me.
A (fine ) artist or just artist is someone who does artwork. Whether
its any good or not is another matter. The Modern Art crowd thinks
that its a matter of intention and subject matter and mainly whether
it gets into the museum
Dan Fox wrote assuring us of this: "However, if Mani goes to a Toronto
museum and poops in five places on the floor, and it's displayed,
that's art."
> Does fine art mean it has to
>be a painting or sculpture? Frazetta certainly does paintings. Or is
>it just because he formerly did comics? Or did Conan the Barbarian
>book covers?
From the Modern Academic Art point of view its not art.
> And do you consider Roy Lichtenstein to be a "fine artist" who
>does things like a cartoonist?
This confuses some Modern Academic Art fundamentalists. Generally if
it is allowed into the modern sections of museums they consider it
art. See above.
> You don't consider Disney's "Fantasia" to be a great work of art?
>I consider animation to be a legitimate art form. etc.
Careful, Archbishop Fox may excommunicate you for this opinion.
> Maybe southern Cal is more progressive than where you come from.
Southern California is a center of rebellion against Modern Academic
art.
Dr. Slick
> > Where are you coming from and please give us a list of who YOU
> >(NOT your groups' opinion) would consider to be a fine artist.
>
> Well, I am among the great unwashed masses who
> buy the concepts preached in the "fine art"
> magazines about who is and who isn't a "fine
> artist."
So when some arrogant elitist art writer says something is good,
you buy it no questions asked? What if deep down inside, you really
don't like something and you think it's rather ugly? Do you keep your
mouth shut and move along with the rest of the herd in the museum? i
suppose many people think that just because something is hanging in a
museum, it's gotta be good to have gotten there.
"The Emperor Wears No Clothes"
I already said to you, "to each his
> own!" I have no quibble with your choice
> of artists you consider 'fine.' It's just that
> your fantasy illustrators are NEVER EVER
> mentioned in the "FINE ART" references I am
> familiar with, and I've NEVER EVER seen their
> works in a MUSEUM of FINE ART - ANYWHERE.
> But then I am not that familiar with the
> museums you frequent, I admit.
LOL! It's FUN to use capitals, to EMPHASIZE a point, huh?
Look, I didn't mean to piss you off (assuming i did) by pointing out
why I feel Boris will never touch Frazetta, but i was just expressing
myself.
Just because a "Fine Art" reference never mentions fantasy
illustrators doesn't mean the editors can't appreciate that stuff.
They would be laughed at like some people laugh at Frazetta being
considered the second coming of Michaelangelo (more like the second
coming of Leonardo to me). Isn't it possible that the same fear that
prevents them from introducing new art is the same social "momentum"
that keeps bad/lousy art trends in motion? Isn't it the role of art
to break ground occassionally?
"Fine Art" is simply a label that the media feeds to everyone,
but you can have your own defintion. I'll bet Bouguereau is never
mentioned in your fine art mags either (which is why i found out about
his name on this newsgroup!). I have never heard his name mentioned
before: he's just too natural (read: erotic) in his choice of
subjects.
I'll be going to the Frazetta Museum in Florida at some point.
Here's a guy who is so great that he just bypasses all the "fine art"
museums and just opens his own! Fucking Great!
Garvin (Slick)
Lauri Levanto
It covers all from crucifixes, Faberge eggs to abo paintings you
mentioned.
Artistic objects which main function lies outside "art for arts sake".
Thanks. I'll think about it.
-lauri
Dr. Slick
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
>
> > I buy your second explanation, but what camera distortion are
> > you talking about?
>
> The focal length of a camera lens is different from that of our eye.
> Hence depths are perceived differently. For example, an object
> protruding towards the viewer is differently sized, especially those
> which protrude close to the viewing plane. This distortion is further
> enhanced by the fact that we see with two eyes but a camera with one.
>
> However, because we are so used to seeing photographs, we tend to deem
> these distortions as "normal" and cannot usually easily detect them.
>
Right, so an object close to your face causes more difference
between the left and right image. But most of his subject seem quite
a distance away.
At any rate, even with two eyes, your brain can still output a
drawing that is "mono" not stereo (and people will close one eye to
check proportions and such). So strictly speaking, you will "chose"
one side, and maybe move your head around to get one version and not
two (unless you wanna do a Dali stereoscopic double painting, which is
further proof that the man used projected photos on many of his
paintings("Tuna Fishing") unless one thinks he could paint that
accurately with first the left, then the right eye closed, all while
his head was in a vise! Sure, he could've looked through a fixed
plate with two eyeholes cut in it, but i would bet not.)
so with the stereo info not there at all on a mono painting, how
can you tell that he didn't at least trace the outlines from a
projected glass photo? maybe he did the basic outline and still used
models.
> Further differences are sharpness, colour and lack of details (akin to
> flatness).
>
This is the argument i buy more, what with the picture quality of
the time, but still doesn't exclude above technique. Do we have any
samples of Bouguereau's pre-liminary sketches?
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> A (fine ) artist or just artist is someone who does artwork. Whether
> its any good or not is another matter. The Modern Art crowd thinks
> that its a matter of intention and subject matter and mainly whether
> it gets into the museum
>
> Dan Fox wrote assuring us of this: "However, if Mani goes to a Toronto
> museum and poops in five places on the floor, and it's displayed,
> that's art."
Let's see...five times $?
A least you have a more open definition.
It's not that i don't think there should be genres of art like a
cartooning, animating, commercial art, and classical painting. But
some artists defy labels: i wouldn't call Frazetta a "mere cartoonist"
(cartoonist used in deratory fashion here for elitist effect only).
And what about Warhol? Talk about messing with the defintions
of "fine art"! A commercial artist turned fine (museum) artist?
What's the art world to do without it's little labels?
>
> > Does fine art mean it has to
> >be a painting or sculpture? Frazetta certainly does paintings. Or is
> >it just because he formerly did comics? Or did Conan the Barbarian
> >book covers?
>
> From the Modern Academic Art point of view its not art.
>
I'm sure there are many Modern Academic Art people who like other
things besides their accepted status quo list of "fine artists"...but
they are too afraid to speak up for fear of being seen as having "poor
taste".
>
> > You don't consider Disney's "Fantasia" to be a great work of art?
> >I consider animation to be a legitimate art form. etc.
>
> Careful, Archbishop Fox may excommunicate you for this opinion.
>
Not a member of the Fox diocese, thank god.
>
> Southern California is a center of rebellion against Modern Academic
> art.
>
Rebellion and Revolution (or at least Evolution) are sometimes
necessary.
Slick
Ivor E. Black
pigsm...@hotmail.com says...
>
>radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
>
>> I buy your second explanation, but what camera distortion are
>> you talking about?
>
>The focal length of a camera lens is different from that of our eye.
>Hence depths are perceived differently.
There are a number of distortions that occur,
depending on the particular lens in question.
Digital cameras are notorious
for their 'barreling effect.' Camera software
has a correcting feature for this, and other
problems created by lens distortions. No such
correction exists for film cameras other than
what one can accomplish in a darkroom. Lens
distortions on film are not, to my knowledge,
correctable in a darkroom.
Wide angle lenses impose their own particular
brand of distortion - the wider the angle the
more pronounced the distortion, usually.
Ivor E. Black
>So when some arrogant elitist art writer says something is good,
>you buy it no questions asked?
I despise it when someone takes what I said
and twists it as you did in the above sentence
to mean something totally unrelated. It means
either you have a serious reading comprehension
problem, or like some others on this news group
you choose to turn a 'discussion of issues' into a
personal slur.
>What if deep down inside, you really
>don't like something and you think it's rather ugly?
My opinion counts for absolutely nothing.
What the 'art world at large' defines as
fine art has nothing whatever to do with
what I think or believe.
And I'm tired of repeating to you that
what you think qualifies as 'fine art' is
just that - what you think. It also has
nothing to do with what the larger world
of art thinks, thank goodness!
>Look, I didn't mean to piss you off (assuming i did) by pointing out
>why I feel Boris will never touch Frazetta, but i was just expressing
>myself.
You didn't - not on that issue anyway.
Again, you are taking something I said and
applying it to something you wish I had said.
I don't think ANY fantasy cartoonist qualifies
as a 'fine artist' - BUT that is MY opinion,
and, one more time, you are welcome to YOUR
opinion.
>Just because a "Fine Art" reference never mentions fantasy
>illustrators doesn't mean the editors can't appreciate that stuff.
You said that. I never did. Never made the
comparison at all! I have no clue what the
editors of any fine art magazine think
personally about anything. All I know is
what they publish in those magazines I pay
my good money for. And you're right - they
RARELY publish fantasy cartoon art there.
Notice I said RARELY - not NEVER!
>Isn't it the role of art
>to break ground occassionally?
Not occasionally - frequently!
>but you can have your own defintion.
Gee, thanks.
And for the umpteenth time, "you can have
YOUR own definition."
>I'll bet Bouguereau is never
>mentioned in your fine art mags either
You're wrong again. And since you apparently never
read 'fine art mags' yourself, this discussion
has come to an end as far as I'm concerned.
How can one discuss something one knows
nothing about and has no interest in learning
about - meaning you and your ignorance of
'fine art mags?'
Edward G. Nilges
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<h9i92v0v9ooj8v370...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > A (fine ) artist or just artist is someone who does artwork. Whether
> > its any good or not is another matter. The Modern Art crowd thinks
> > that its a matter of intention and subject matter and mainly whether
> > it gets into the museum
> >
> > Dan Fox wrote assuring us of this: "However, if Mani goes to a Toronto
> > museum and poops in five places on the floor, and it's displayed,
> > that's art."
>
> Let's see...five times $?
>
> A least you have a more open definition.
>
> It's not that i don't think there should be genres of art like a
> cartooning, animating, commercial art, and classical painting. But
> some artists defy labels: i wouldn't call Frazetta a "mere cartoonist"
I would.
And this is not "elitism" because I would call Robert Crumb an artist
and not a "mere cartoonist."
Frazetta panders to a FALSE body self-image in America in which a
FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
Frazetta, like science fiction and fantasy literature, appeals to a
large and growing petit bourgeois (expanding with former members of
the *haute* bourgeois) whose artistic response has been downsized to a
rage for "anyplace but here."
Contrast Crumb whose images have a truth, not necessarily realist, but
instead to the increasingly decadent spiritual state of this country.
Crumb is financially successful after a long period of penury but has
never sold out.
> (cartoonist used in deratory fashion here for elitist effect only).
> And what about Warhol? Talk about messing with the defintions
> of "fine art"! A commercial artist turned fine (museum) artist?
> What's the art world to do without it's little labels?
>
>
> >
> > > Does fine art mean it has to
> > >be a painting or sculpture? Frazetta certainly does paintings. Or is
> > >it just because he formerly did comics? Or did Conan the Barbarian
> > >book covers?
> >
> > From the Modern Academic Art point of view its not art.
> >
>
> I'm sure there are many Modern Academic Art people who like other
> things besides their accepted status quo list of "fine artists"...but
> they are too afraid to speak up for fear of being seen as having "poor
> taste".
As you can see above, reasons can be given for not considering
corporate sell-outs "great artists", and I would suggest that, no
matter how many overpriced coffee-table books are printed celebrating
Frazetta, Vargas or Disney as "great artists", they remain sell-outs
whose work creates clinical depression, because it is false
consciousness which prevents people from grappling with the real
conditions of their lives.
Little girls compared themselves in 1990 with The Little Mermaid and
found themselves wanting. Today, as adolescents, they starve
themselves and bare their midriffs and wonder why this doesn't make
them happy. The naked midriff becomes a sign that the girl is fast
with the result in rural communities she is forced into early marriage
in order to retrieve her reputation.
Frazetta began work in the 1970s when in fact large numbers of people
were discovering that by extremely simple means they could become
physically fit and healthy. However, this caused many men to have
issues with body image, because prior to the 1970s, the male
physiognomy (acceptable to homophobes, who were in the majority then
and now) was socially allowed to be obese, or skinny without muscle
mass, but not "ideal", for this raised homophobic anxiety.
The result is that men, egged on by Frazetta's commercial imagery,
focused on the unhealthy pursuit of body building as opposed to
aerobics, which unlike womens' saner pursuit of a well-rounded ideal,
trapped men in the body building "cult" as opposed to running and
triathletics which were liberating.
For example, Frazetta did the poster for Arnold Schwarzenegger's Conan
the Barbarian in the early 1980s. Because this film featured an
athletic female foil to Conan, Arnie had to be made absurdly
overmuscled because ordinary men with ordinary bodies would have been
threatened by equality.
Of course, Frazetta was as much a symptom as the cause, but to cite as
artistic greatness self-objectification, in which unlike Crumb you
merely reflect the lowest common denominator, is just silly.
You are a good artist. You shouldn't admire Frazetta merely because
he made a few bucks, starting with covers for the National Lampoon in
the 1970s.
G*rd*n
| ...
| FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
| when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
All images are "false".
Frazetta and so on depict conscious, overt idealizations of
bodies which are _supposed_ to be false. If you want to
criticize them, at least do so with a little recognition of
their context.
Mani Deli
...no skill no art!
Dr. Slick
> >So when some arrogant elitist art writer says something is good,
> >you buy it no questions asked?
>
> I despise it when someone takes what I said
> and twists it as you did in the above sentence
> to mean something totally unrelated. It means
> either you have a serious reading comprehension
> problem, or like some others on this news group
> you choose to turn a 'discussion of issues' into a
> personal slur.
>
It is related, and it takes two to tango.
> >What if deep down inside, you really
> >don't like something and you think it's rather ugly?
>
> My opinion counts for absolutely nothing.
> What the 'art world at large' defines as
> fine art has nothing whatever to do with
> what I think or believe.
>
Fuck the "art world at large". Of course what counts to me is my
own opinion. Why do you think your opinion is so worthless? Do you
think these art mag editors are made out of gold? Stop letting
editors dictate taste for you!
> And I'm tired of repeating to you that
> what you think qualifies as 'fine art' is
> just that - what you think. It also has
> nothing to do with what the larger world
> of art thinks, thank goodness!
>
I don't give a shit what the larger world of art thinks, thank
goodness!
> >Look, I didn't mean to piss you off (assuming i did) by pointing out
> >why I feel Boris will never touch Frazetta, but i was just expressing
> >myself.
>
> You didn't - not on that issue anyway.
> Again, you are taking something I said and
> applying it to something you wish I had said.
> I don't think ANY fantasy cartoonist qualifies
> as a 'fine artist' - BUT that is MY opinion,
> and, one more time, you are welcome to YOUR
> opinion.
>
Well it's obvious i did piss you off. Believe it or not, it
wasn't intentional. Did i ever say you couldn't have your own
opinion? But it seems you let editors decide what great art is.
> >Isn't it the role of art
> >to break ground occassionally?
>
> Not occasionally - frequently!
>
Then stop reading art mags, and publish your own.
> >I'll bet Bouguereau is never
> >mentioned in your fine art mags either
>
> You're wrong again. And since you apparently never
> read 'fine art mags' yourself, this discussion
> has come to an end as far as I'm concerned.
> How can one discuss something one knows
> nothing about and has no interest in learning
> about - meaning you and your ignorance of
> 'fine art mags?'
Fuck the fine art mags.
Slick
Ivor E. Black
>
>spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges):
>| ...
>| Frazetta panders to a FALSE body self-image in America in which a
>| FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
>| when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
>| ...
>
>All images are "false".
Can the two of you say, in unison - F-A-N-T-A-S-Y?
John Ng
> Right, so an object close to your face causes more difference
> between the left and right image. But most of his subject seem quite
> a distance away.
Objects close to the viewer would cause greater distortion, but
distortion exists even in objects distant from the eyes but closer to
the edge of the photo. I agree that distortion becomes imperceptible
if you take only the centre portion of a photo.
> maybe he did the basic outline and still used models.
This is possible as tracing an outline of real-life has been done by
early artists of which the most famous is Vermeer. Of course
Bouguereau could have used other devices that date far back to the
Renaissance. To copy basic outline from a small photo to his canvas
(which is usually about six feet) would be prone to much distortion.
> Do we have any samples of Bouguereau's pre-liminary sketches?
Yes, some are available in ARC. The book on Bouguereau by Fiona
Weissman has a full-colour oil sketch of the "Song of the Angels".
The gist of this sketch is quite close to his final painting, but
almost every detail is different otherwise, including the posture of
the models. This is quite indicative of the fact that he does not use
photos.
One other thing is that you will notice that the drapes of
Bouguereau's models have beautiful folds. To get such effect along
with the model's positions and lighting, you would have to spend a lot
of time and a lot of photographs. Photographs wouldn't have been
cheap during his time and are not instantaneous as well. It would be
much easier to sketch them with the eye.
> unless you wanna do a Dali stereoscopic double painting, which is
> further proof that the man used projected photos on many of his
> paintings("Tuna Fishing")
Dali used photos as with nearly 99.9% of the artists after him. It is
quite acceptable these days but painting well from photos is actually
more difficult than painting from life. You may get the proportions
right but everything else is harder.
Edward G. Nilges
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges):
> | ...
> | Frazetta panders to a FALSE body self-image in America in which a
> | FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
> | when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
> | ...
>
> All images are "false".
This statement is interesting, for it cannot be considered in
isolation: it is perhaps instead a stage on a Bogus Journey from the
worship of images to iconoclasting in the original sense of the word,
the smashing of images...because they disappoint, they are false.
>
> Frazetta and so on depict conscious, overt idealizations of
> bodies which are _supposed_ to be false. If you want to
> criticize them, at least do so with a little recognition of
> their context.
The dialectic is to SAY at one level that the idealization is, of
course, only fiction, but, simultaneously, to hold it up to be an
ideal: and in fact AFTER image makers like Frazetta started work in
the 1970s (one of Frazetta's first sales was a 1974 cover for the
National Lampoon) people like Arnold Schwarzenegger started working
out to conform to the exagerrated image.
It would perhaps idealize the Greeks to say that their sculpture
presented an attainable ideal to Greek youths (or, as the President
would call them, Grecian youths) without irony.
But the problem with Frazetta's irony is that by presenting bodies
which seem unattainable he paradoxically reduces alternatives and
causes actual youths to avoid sports, assuming they are not the
somatype.
The Sixties and Seventies saw a vernacular and above all uncommodified
move towards physical fitness as in the early running boom.
Dialectically, the commodfication of this movement (where beginning in
or about 1981, the early entrepreneurs of Nike and New Balance began
to expand their businesses with public equity and thereby gave up
control) resulted in the perception that fitness consisted in correct
consumption.
The result today is that kids today are even MORE outa shape than we
were.
John Ng
> Well, I am among the great unwashed masses who
> buy the concepts preached in the "fine art"
> magazines about who is and who isn't a "fine
> artist."
This is a great quote!!! I really think so because it sums up what I
(or we) have been arguing against. That is, the arty-fardies don't
have a mind of their own and they are just an extension of the
"establishment" that tells them what is right and what is wrong, what
is beautiful and what is not, what is art and what is not.
Fair enough, this statement is very frank and I really appreciate it.
Dr. Slick
> > It's not that i don't think there should be genres of art like a
> > cartooning, animating, commercial art, and classical painting. But
> > some artists defy labels: i wouldn't call Frazetta a "mere cartoonist"
>
> I would.
>
> And this is not "elitism" because I would call Robert Crumb an artist
> and not a "mere cartoonist."
>
> Frazetta panders to a FALSE body self-image in America in which a
> FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
> when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
>
> The result is that men, egged on by Frazetta's commercial imagery,
> focused on the unhealthy pursuit of body building as opposed to
> aerobics, which unlike womens' saner pursuit of a well-rounded ideal,
> trapped men in the body building "cult" as opposed to running and
> triathletics which were liberating.
If you look at most of Frazettas men, they are actually not
excessively muscular. Some of the mosters perhaps, but his men are
rather lean (see his Tarzan)and muscled, but certainly not
body-building physique.
I agree aspects of body-building can be dangerous (steriods,
improper technique), but what is wrong with inspiring a seriously
obese population to lose a few pounds?
> Frazetta, like science fiction and fantasy literature, appeals to a
> large and growing petit bourgeois (expanding with former members of
> the *haute* bourgeois) whose artistic response has been downsized to a
> rage for "anyplace but here."
>
That's what escapist art is for. That's why it's called
"fantasy".
> Contrast Crumb whose images have a truth, not necessarily realist, but
> instead to the increasingly decadent spiritual state of this country.
> Crumb is financially successful after a long period of penury but has
> never sold out.
>
R. Crumb has some very nice work that is very funny as well. I
particularly like his cross-hatching technique. And those Crumb
women! Egads!
Here's a work I did that has Crumb's influence (Sharpie pen
cross-hatch over oils):
http://www.drslick.org/untitled1.jpg
> As you can see above, reasons can be given for not considering
> corporate sell-outs "great artists", and I would suggest that, no
> matter how many overpriced coffee-table books are printed celebrating
> Frazetta, Vargas or Disney as "great artists", they remain sell-outs
> whose work creates clinical depression, because it is false
> consciousness which prevents people from grappling with the real
> conditions of their lives.
>
Actually, how many Frazetta books do you see at the bookstore?
Very few. Why? Well, besides selling quickly, he doesn't seem to
distribute that much. Those old Ballatine Books (1-4) are out of
print and they are collector's items now. Frazetta wants people to
buy the art directly from him (you write checks payable to Frank
himself!), so he is definitely cutting out the middleman.
> Little girls compared themselves in 1990 with The Little Mermaid and
> found themselves wanting. Today, as adolescents, they starve
> themselves and bare their midriffs and wonder why this doesn't make
> them happy. The naked midriff becomes a sign that the girl is fast
> with the result in rural communities she is forced into early marriage
> in order to retrieve her reputation.
>
Anorexia and bulimia are serious social disorders here in the
states, but Frazetta's women are very healthily plump and voluptuous.
Much more "fat" than the typical fashion model who does heroin to get
emaciated.
> Frazetta began work in the 1970s when in fact large numbers of people
> were discovering that by extremely simple means they could become
> physically fit and healthy. However, this caused many men to have
> issues with body image, because prior to the 1970s, the male
> physiognomy (acceptable to homophobes, who were in the majority then
> and now) was socially allowed to be obese, or skinny without muscle
> mass, but not "ideal", for this raised homophobic anxiety.
>
If it's "extremely simple" to be fit, why aren't we? Are you
saying that homophobia causes men to deliberately make their bodies
unattractive? Bizzare excuse.
> You are a good artist. You shouldn't admire Frazetta merely because
> he made a few bucks, starting with covers for the National Lampoon in
> the 1970s.
> >
Ed, i hope i didn't go from "great" to "good" artist just because
i disagreed with you on some points.
And i don't like artists because of how much money they make, or
what the art world at large thinks of them, or which galleries they
hang in, or which mags publish them.
Frazetta simply "Wows" me.
Slick
G*rd*n
| > Well, I am among the great unwashed masses who
| > buy the concepts preached in the "fine art"
| > magazines about who is and who isn't a "fine
| > artist."
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| This is a great quote!!! I really think so because it sums up what I
| (or we) have been arguing against. That is, the arty-fardies don't
| have a mind of their own and they are just an extension of the
| "establishment" that tells them what is right and what is wrong, what
| is beautiful and what is not, what is art and what is not.
|
| Fair enough, this statement is very frank and I really appreciate it.
It just might be something of an error to lump all who
disagree with you in any way into a single category with a
single set of ideas and tastes. It just might.
John Ng
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges):
> | ...
> | Frazetta panders to a FALSE body self-image in America in which a
> | FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
> | when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
>
>
> bodies which are _supposed_ to be false. If you want to
> criticize them, at least do so with a little recognition of
> their context.
bla...@noemailever.com (Ivor E. Black) wrote in message
>
> Can the two of you say, in unison - F-A-N-T-A-S-Y?
All these posts seem to me more like Hitlerism than anything I have
said. Are you suggesting that certain category of idealization is
considered too overt, and that they should not be shown in museums?
Does Frazetta qualify for "Salon Discard"? Is a Picasso
F-A-N-T-A-S-Y?
Dr. Slick
I found a Bouguereau at the mall print store of all places...ok,
so he's not completely obscure.
Anyhow, i was looking at "Nympheum", and after scanning the lovely
ladies I looked to the right side and saw a couple of "Peeping Toms"!
You can't see this on most computers! Hiding in the dark background!
One of them appears to be telling the other one to be quiet. Ha...
some things never change i guess!
It's interesting, the Nymph in the center, on the swing, is
looking at the audience (i mean you the viewer, not the peeping toms).
And she looks like she is aware you are checking her out! This is
funny, because it makes you feel like you are one of the peeping toms.
And by the look on her face, she enjoys the attention.
Check out a large print!
Slick
Edward G. Nilges
I used to think fantasy and science fiction were harmless, but I have
had two experiences in Dixieland which lead me to believe they are
not.
The first was a waiter who saw me reading the excellent English
history The Isles by Norman Davies...the first non-ethnocentric
history of England which does people of Celtic background who no
longer want to be toffee-nosed Anglo Saxons from the Thames Valley
region a great service...by giving equal time to Welsh, Irish and
Scots inhabitants of the "British" Isles.
This history arguably empowers many poor and rural people in the
American south whose ancestors fled the persecution of "Anglo-Saxon"
and "Norman" Englishmen.
But my waiter actually did not seem to understand that one might want
to read, not a Lord of the Rings or religious fantasy, but the true
account of his own ancestor's lives...whether in England or as working
people in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.
Another experience was meeting a man on a train going through Harper's
Ferry, VA, who told me he was a local history expert from Harper's
Ferry. He did not know who John Brown was.
The very people for whom Zinn and Davies write are in many cases the
target audience for Steven King, Tolkien, and "religious fiction"
(sic) which literally reads the Book of Revelations.
The large and consolidated media firms who market The Stand, Harry
Potter and books about The Rapture only want to make a buck. But in
so doing, they have to carefully manage and micromanage the
partitioning of books into fiction (on which millions of dollars is
spent) and the much smaller category of history.
In merely responding to an audience predisposed in America since the
assassination of JFK to a feeling of epistemological powerlessness
that the public schools encourage, the media companies are in a feed
back loop.
The individual feels powerless and exhausted in daily life and is more
or less conditioned to demand surcease in the form of an escapist
genre, in which he can escape Zinn's rather horrifying account of how
slave and wage slave labor died like flies to drain North Carolina's
swamps.
But the operative assumptions of Harry Potter (that through New Ageism
one can regain power) or religious fiction (that the SOBs in charge
won't get raptured) become a sort of consolation which disempowers to
the extent that as far as we know, St John was sort of kidding and as
far as we know, witchcraft of the obvious sort does not work.
We can then be local history experts who assure us that John Brown did
not exist and that NO white man felt sorry for African Americans,
ever.
With hearts grown brutal we have fed ourselves with fantasies.
Dr. Slick
>
> This is possible as tracing an outline of real-life has been done by
> early artists of which the most famous is Vermeer. Of course
> Bouguereau could have used other devices that date far back to the
> Renaissance. To copy basic outline from a small photo to his canvas
> (which is usually about six feet) would be prone to much distortion.
>
Right, like a camera obscura. But to say that one can tell from
camera/lens distortion alone if a painting was freehanded from models
or a projected picture is quite unbelievable to me. Other clues like
perspective accuracy, line straightness, and proportions seem like
more obvious indicators to me.
>
> > Do we have any samples of Bouguereau's pre-liminary sketches?
>
> Yes, some are available in ARC. The book on Bouguereau by Fiona
> Weissman has a full-colour oil sketch of the "Song of the Angels".
> The gist of this sketch is quite close to his final painting, but
> almost every detail is different otherwise, including the posture of
> the models. This is quite indicative of the fact that he does not use
> photos.
>
He doesn't need to use the same photo for the sketch and final
paintings.
> One other thing is that you will notice that the drapes of
> Bouguereau's models have beautiful folds. To get such effect along
> with the model's positions and lighting, you would have to spend a lot
> of time and a lot of photographs. Photographs wouldn't have been
> cheap during his time and are not instantaneous as well. It would be
> much easier to sketch them with the eye.
>
And the quality/sensitivity of the film may not have enabled him
to capture such soft lighting effects. In others words, i can't
remember seeing pre-1900 pictures with that kind of detail.
Well if it was all just models, he must have spent quite a few
bucks on them. And the lighting of his paintings are very complex
(multiple reflections and such)...some involving the sun? And so he
must have oil sketched really fast before the sun went down!
> > unless you wanna do a Dali stereoscopic double painting, which is
> > further proof that the man used projected photos on many of his
> > paintings("Tuna Fishing")
>
> Dali used photos as with nearly 99.9% of the artists after him. It is
> quite acceptable these days but painting well from photos is actually
> more difficult than painting from life. You may get the proportions
> right but everything else is harder.
>
Like i've said before, photographs, tracing paper, and photo
projectors will not make you the next Leonardo. Otherwise we'd be
swimming in photo-real artists.
However, in a photo the people don't move, and the sun doesn't
change, and the angle is always the same (which makes it easier
compared to models). But you still have to know how to compose a
picture, put different elements together, modify the colors, blend the
colors/shading, make up areas from scratch that are not present in the
photo.
If an artist just uses a model for a painting this is easier as
the figure/face in the painting doesn't need to look exactly like the
model. Doing this freehand is fairly easy if you have decent feel for
proportions..and you will end up with a passable person on the canvas,
though not necessarily the model.
If he/she is commissioned to do an actual portrait that must
look very much like a particular person, then a projected photo (or
the "squaring-up" or "graph-paper" technique you learned in
high-school), can save you huge amounts of time. Human faces are such
that ever-so-slight modifications can render the face similar, but not
recognizably the same. (You're not a real artist if you haven't
screwed up on a family portrait yet!)
Slick
G*rd*n
| > | ...
| > | Frazetta panders to a FALSE body self-image in America in which a
| > | FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
| > | when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote
| > All images are "false".
| >
| > Frazetta and so on depict conscious, overt idealizations of
| > bodies which are _supposed_ to be false. If you want to
| > criticize them, at least do so with a little recognition of
| > their context.
bla...@noemailever.com (Ivor E. Black) wrote in message
| >
| > Can the two of you say, in unison - F-A-N-T-A-S-Y?
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng):
| All these posts seem to me more like Hitlerism than anything I have
| said. Are you suggesting that certain category of idealization is
| considered too overt, and that they should not be shown in museums?
| Does Frazetta qualify for "Salon Discard"? Is a Picasso
| F-A-N-T-A-S-Y?
He means the genre, I suppose. I don't know how Hitler got
into this. Frazetta has not aimed his work at the museum
scene. It may wind up there someday, but the artist chose to
pay different dues to different dues-collectors. According
to Ivor's buddy, its ultimate fate is a matter of its abstract
formal properties, not its genre, content or other narrative
attributes.
Ivor E. Black
>Fair enough, this statement is very frank and I really appreciate it.
OTOH, I stand accused of being unable to think
for myself. I did NOT say that I like everything,
or even MOST things, I see and read in the
magazines to which I subscribe. Quite the contrary.
The purpose of my statement was to refute the
notion that WE, as individuals in this forum,
can set the standard for what is and what isn't
FINE ART. Until such time as the magazines, critics
and museums define cartooning as fine art (Roy
Lichtenstein is one exception), the
standards won't change and railing against those
standards is just so much pissing in the wind
in this forum.
Ivor E. Black
>He means the genre, I suppose. I don't know how Hitler got
>into this. Frazetta has not aimed his work at the museum
>scene. It may wind up there someday, but the artist chose to
>pay different dues to different dues-collectors. According
>to Ivor's buddy, its ultimate fate is a matter of its abstract
>formal properties, not its genre, content or other narrative
>attributes.
Thanks. I couldn't have said it more succinctly
myself. I have no strong interest in cartoon
art (or Fantasy Art either, for that matter), but
as far as I know, Frazetta himself wouldn't claim
to be anything other than a cartoonist or illustrator.
Norman Rockwell was always adamant about being
referred to as an illustrator. Taking pride in one's
craft is, IMHO, the real common denominator among
all 'good' artists of whatever stripe - fine, hobby, week-ender,
illustrator, cartoonist, commercial, designer,
architect - you name it...
Ivor E. Black
spino...@yahoo.com says...
>> Can the two of you say, in unison - F-A-N-T-A-S-Y?
>
>I used to think fantasy and science fiction were harmless, but I have
>had two experiences in Dixieland which lead me to believe they are
>not.
(many paragraphs snipped...)
So what you're saying is, "Truth is stranger
than fiction."
Edward G. Nilges
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message news:<f5dda427.03011...@posting.google.com>...
> > radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message news:<1d15af91.0301...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > It's not that i don't think there should be genres of art like a
> > > cartooning, animating, commercial art, and classical painting. But
> > > some artists defy labels: i wouldn't call Frazetta a "mere cartoonist"
> >
> > I would.
> >
> > And this is not "elitism" because I would call Robert Crumb an artist
> > and not a "mere cartoonist."
> >
> > Frazetta panders to a FALSE body self-image in America in which a
> > FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
> > when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
> >
> > The result is that men, egged on by Frazetta's commercial imagery,
> > focused on the unhealthy pursuit of body building as opposed to
> > aerobics, which unlike womens' saner pursuit of a well-rounded ideal,
> > trapped men in the body building "cult" as opposed to running and
> > triathletics which were liberating.
>
>
> If you look at most of Frazettas men, they are actually not
> excessively muscular. Some of the mosters perhaps, but his men are
> rather lean (see his Tarzan)and muscled, but certainly not
> body-building physique.
> I agree aspects of body-building can be dangerous (steriods,
> improper technique), but what is wrong with inspiring a seriously
> obese population to lose a few pounds?
Nothing, and to an extent I admire Frazetta for promoting a physical
ideal.
The problem is male athlete psychology.
Part of the long-dead 1970s running boom was a change in male
psychology that occured as a result of resistance to the Vietnam war.
Events of which I was a part as a war protestor convinced ordinary men
that one of the problems was being macho for it was the macho athletes
from small towns who were getting ground up, to no purpose, in
Vietnam.
The 1970s boom in running was caused by a desire to stay fit without
having to deliberately overdo fitness, and without being forced to
"compete" with other guys.
For a while it managed to avoid the right-wing psychology of Nazi
emphasis on fitness by being an exclusively bottom up phenomenon in
which the person would buy a pair of inexpensive running shows and
sign up for marathons.
Bill Rogers, several times a winner of the Boston Marathon, was part
of this in that he was relatively skinny and "unathletic", his body
being tuned not towards the "fast-twitch" muscle movements of
basketball and football, but to the very different expenditure of
energy, called "slow-twitch" in the marathon.
However, in the 1980s, it was discovered that larger, more bulky
individuals had better times in the marathon as long as they had an
aerobics base, and culturally this fact was foregrounded because the
male marathon champions of the 1970s looked to many men like "wimps."
But the story does not end there. In the 1990s, Kenyans discovered
that their bodies were uniquely adopted to running marathons in nearly
only 2 hours or less even though they were not bulked up. Part of the
reason was their high degree of focus and the financial attractions of
marathons, a fact I don't think discredits them.
However, I did notice Kenyans were absent in the last Boston marathon
and I fear that post Sep 11 immigration restrictions may be a reason
although I do not have hard facts in this area.
The 1990s success of Kenyans shows that you do not "need" to be any
one body type to be a successful marathoner...in the same way the fact
that the great Joe Montana of the San Francisco 49ers was relatively a
shrimp shows that even in football, somatype takes second place to
motivation and drive, which are cultural and even spiritual factors.
Unlike the lunks that play football and baseball here in Chicago, San
Francisco hired cultured guys with drive, with the result that our
"monsters of the Midway" lose so often.
I am sad to conclude that most men have returned to the bifurcated,
mind-against-body thinking about athletics of my father's generation.
In this psychology, you classed yourself as "mind" (a ninety-pound
weakling with no muscle mass of any type whatsoever) or as "body" (a
steroid inflamed monster of the gym.)
This is because the Greek ideal (as seen in some of Frazetta's work
but not all of it) raised homosexual anxieties in my father's
generation of the 1940s. The problem is that the extremes cause
degenerative diseases but of course homophobia is linked to silence
and fear, and needless mortality.
I think Frazetta as in the case of his poster for Conan the Barbarian
was always concerned to "bulk up" any male image that was juxtaposed
with an athletic female, and I'd ask why Conan had to be so absurdly
"bulked up."
In the early 1980s, in this connection, my kids were taken by my
ex-wife to meet actors playing the popular cartoon characters He Man
and She Ra at the mall because they clamored to see He Man.
My ex said that she enjoyed talking to the woman who played She Ra
because my ex, like this person, has a theater and feminist background
and likes meeting empowered women...even if they are working for
peanuts playing characters in malls.
My two boys were with me in San Francisco and I took them out running
at Marina Green. I asked them, "do you think Daddy looks like He
Man?" My eldest said, no Daddy, you look more like She Ra.
The genuine anxiety of males (cf. Susan Faludi's book Stiffed) is that
if they do not cultivate difference for its own sake they will have no
role. To me, the artist says well, the heck with that, I have a role,
and that is to make my art. The art may be merely running a marathon.
It seems to me that people like Mani are those who lose interest in
running a marathon if their time exceeds four hours. For me the great
lesson of running marathon's at my slow pace was that it was still
something you did and in its own way a work of conceptual art. Lying
clearly outside the sphere of necessity (desite its genuine medical
benefits) it occupied the ethical and aesthetic sweet spot of Kant,
that zone where in the last 6 miles of the London marathon, completion
became pure Duty and the sky, pure Beauty.
>
>
> > Frazetta, like science fiction and fantasy literature, appeals to a
> > large and growing petit bourgeois (expanding with former members of
> > the *haute* bourgeois) whose artistic response has been downsized to a
> > rage for "anyplace but here."
> >
>
> That's what escapist art is for. That's why it's called
> "fantasy".
OK, but I question the foundation of escapist art. We "naturalize"
escapism but in fact it is a concept with a relatively recent origin.
We "need" escapist art, whether fantasy or Sex and the City, probably
to the extent that we have accepted jobs and relationships that fail
to meet our needs.
>
>
> > Contrast Crumb whose images have a truth, not necessarily realist, but
> > instead to the increasingly decadent spiritual state of this country.
> > Crumb is financially successful after a long period of penury but has
> > never sold out.
> >
>
> R. Crumb has some very nice work that is very funny as well. I
> particularly like his cross-hatching technique. And those Crumb
> women! Egads!
I bought a Rapidograph in 1969 and tried my best to work like Crumb.
Note that his profound emphasis on three dimensions postdated his 1965
Fritz the Cat after which he appears to have taken LSD, which I think
changed his vision to a three-d vision.
Another interesting aspect of his post Acid work was his insight into
the growing automation of American culture. This was a time in my
memory when increasingly in the Chicago loop you would see IBM, Univac
and Honeywell "mainframes" chugging away in glass boxes.
They were tended, not by short-haired CIA types as in the fantasy, but
at this time by groovy guys in flowered shirts and long hair who
looked stoned as the tapes merged slowly (and probably incorrectly: it
took actual Cobol programmers, at least in Chicago, years to get the
simple match-merge operation right).
Crumb was still in 1967 working in Corporate America and unlike many
artists saw how rapidly technology was changing the lives and
responses of ordinary Americans. Some of his images from Zap #0
therefore should meaningless monster machines and may have been based
on automation at his employer, Hallmark cards.
Presented as a mere convenience and thought by "liberal intellectuals"
of the time as marginal, these events of course foreshadowed a much
more significant change, the effects of which are only now being
absorbed.
> Here's a work I did that has Crumb's influence (Sharpie pen
> cross-hatch over oils):
>
> http://www.drslick.org/untitled1.jpg
>
>
> > As you can see above, reasons can be given for not considering
> > corporate sell-outs "great artists", and I would suggest that, no
> > matter how many overpriced coffee-table books are printed celebrating
> > Frazetta, Vargas or Disney as "great artists", they remain sell-outs
> > whose work creates clinical depression, because it is false
> > consciousness which prevents people from grappling with the real
> > conditions of their lives.
> >
>
> Actually, how many Frazetta books do you see at the bookstore?
> Very few. Why? Well, besides selling quickly, he doesn't seem to
> distribute that much. Those old Ballatine Books (1-4) are out of
> print and they are collector's items now. Frazetta wants people to
> buy the art directly from him (you write checks payable to Frank
> himself!), so he is definitely cutting out the middleman.
Sounds like he is smarter than Crumb. I think in Crumb's case, Aline
Koninsky is the brains of the operation.
>
>
> > Little girls compared themselves in 1990 with The Little Mermaid and
> > found themselves wanting. Today, as adolescents, they starve
> > themselves and bare their midriffs and wonder why this doesn't make
> > them happy. The naked midriff becomes a sign that the girl is fast
> > with the result in rural communities she is forced into early marriage
> > in order to retrieve her reputation.
> >
>
> Anorexia and bulimia are serious social disorders here in the
> states, but Frazetta's women are very healthily plump and voluptuous.
> Much more "fat" than the typical fashion model who does heroin to get
> emaciated.
>
>
> > Frazetta began work in the 1970s when in fact large numbers of people
> > were discovering that by extremely simple means they could become
> > physically fit and healthy. However, this caused many men to have
> > issues with body image, because prior to the 1970s, the male
> > physiognomy (acceptable to homophobes, who were in the majority then
> > and now) was socially allowed to be obese, or skinny without muscle
> > mass, but not "ideal", for this raised homophobic anxiety.
> >
>
> If it's "extremely simple" to be fit, why aren't we? Are you
> saying that homophobia causes men to deliberately make their bodies
> unattractive? Bizzare excuse.
I do feel from my long experiences as a gym user that homophobia is
rampant except at those few gyms that cater exclusively to gay guys.
Which of course is healthy to a degree. You don't want heterosexual
men to fear going to the gymnasium.
However, many heterosexual men wind up with heart disease and other
degenerative problems because the culture has long sent the message
that the FIRST experience in a healthy venue, like the gym or the
beach, will be the old sand in the face routine.
And, in Chicago and the East Coast, African American men have a
further problem, especially at the beach, and that is continued racial
hostility. This probably contributes to higher rates of African
American male hypertension and alcohol abuse.
Chicago has been found to be the second most "obese" city in the
United States and it was in Chicago that some drunken clown attacked
me at the beach...for wearing Speedos...which this moron said were a
"fag" garment. I am old enough to flip a guy like that the bird and
walk away, but guys like that represent a real fear of men who turn
into Chicago fat slobs from fear, and fear alone.
Indeed, high technology presents bizarre obstacles to fitness. In
1981 I morphed from a ninety-pound weakling into a marathoner. I
discovered that I actually had less initial credibility on technical
matters because in Chicago and even in Silicon Valley, it was expected
that high tech guys would be skinny nerds, fat lawn trolls, or
Frankenstein clones.
I wound up in 1983 looking like a marketing guy or at best an MIS
Cobol guy when all I wanted to do was continue to write compilers at
Bell Northern research and got into trouble for refusing a management
assignment.
>
>
> > You are a good artist. You shouldn't admire Frazetta merely because
> > he made a few bucks, starting with covers for the National Lampoon in
> > the 1970s.
> > >
>
> Ed, i hope i didn't go from "great" to "good" artist just because
> i disagreed with you on some points.
You are a fabulous artist
Edward G. Nilges
Not bad. Guy looks a little hostile in close up.
The great lesson you learned about the eyeball is the accent on the
spherical.
Many beginning artists make the mistake of treating the eye socket and
the lips as paste on symbols in two dimensions.
What I like about hatching is how subtle variations in pen pressure
can communicate a feeling of ascent into the light. Unfortunately and
as yet I cannot afford to get a digital camera or scanner but I hope
to put some of my own stuff up shortly. It is not as good as yours.
What about long-term degeneration of the Sharpie ink? Have you
considered how its formulation, which may be a trade secret, may
interact with the oils and destroy your effect over time?
I use sharpies with color pencils but would never combine them with
paint because of the possibility of degeneration.
When working with oils and acyrlics, I use a brush with Mars black at
various stages of dilution to do a chiaroscuoro drawing under a gray
scale and color layer so that all paints have the same formulation.
Edward G. Nilges
> > spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges):
> > | ...
> > | Frazetta panders to a FALSE body self-image in America in which a
> > | FALSE consciousness causes Americans to identify with his muscle-men
> > | when in fact most of the country is seriously obese.
> >
> > All images are "false".
> >
> > Frazetta and so on depict conscious, overt idealizations of
> > bodies which are _supposed_ to be false. If you want to
> > criticize them, at least do so with a little recognition of
> > their context.
>
> bla...@noemailever.com (Ivor E. Black) wrote in message
> >
> > Can the two of you say, in unison - F-A-N-T-A-S-Y?
>
>
> All these posts seem to me more like Hitlerism than anything I have
> said. Are you suggesting that certain category of idealization is
> considered too overt, and that they should not be shown in museums?
> Does Frazetta qualify for "Salon Discard"? Is a Picasso
> F-A-N-T-A-S-Y?
OK, if I had a job as a museum administrator, managing funds by
definition limited, guess what.
I would hang Picasso and discard Frazetta.
That is because my choice would have to reflect the decisions of a
community of informed art lovers where a higher level of informedness
(as shown by MFAs, teaching roles, or amusing and informed talk at
those fabled cocktail parties) makes the opinion more valuable.
I fear that in recent years, media companies like Disney have brought
financial pressure to bear upon museums by donating money with strings
attached and this means acceptance of hack work by museums in place of
genuine artistic endeavor.
The ONLY way to change this is increased community support for the
arts and I am afraid that this means at the Federal level, a massive
expansion in the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Indeed, when President Al Sharpton makes me the head of the NEA, I
shall use the opportunity to get rid of corporate sponsorship that
equates hack work with art.
I work to deadlines writing magazine articles and books. My editors
and not me call the shots for they know what the readers and
management want. Having also worked as a fine artist I realize that
there is a difference between art and hack work, but in recent years,
corporations have tried to sell the public on the wrong idea that
work, made with all sorts of compromises on deadline, is "just the
same" as Picasso's work, which he made primarily to please himself.
John Ng
> But to say that one can tell from
> camera/lens distortion alone if a painting was freehanded from models
> or a projected picture is quite unbelievable to me. Other clues like
> perspective accuracy, line straightness, and proportions seem like
> more obvious indicators to me.
No, you really can tell lens distortion unless the painter very
consciously consider only the undistorted sections or mask it up. Are
you telling me that you can't see camera distortion, or am I the only
one who can? Maybe I should say the distortion of the eye and not
camera distortion (it is which one you deem most accurate). You talk
about accuracy of perspective and you are talking about camera
distortion (or the other way round, eye distortion).
> He doesn't need to use the same photo for the sketch and final paintings.
Why would he use different photos? Is his intention to fool people
100 years later (as to whether he use photos or not) or is his
intention to make the best painting? You are saying that a person is
incapable of drawing from real life unless he/she copies from a photo.
Take a look at Ingres (particularly portraits), Jean Baptist Greuze
and Pierre-Paul Prud'Hon.
> Well if it was all just models, he must have spent quite a few
> bucks on them. And the lighting of his paintings are very complex
> (multiple reflections and such)...some involving the sun? And so he
> must have oil sketched really fast before the sun went down!
If you position a model properly and beside windows, you can "hold"
the sunlight much longer. Sketching is fast for people who are
skilled in it (and Bouguereau is). There is always the next day if it
can't be done in time (not end of the world yet). You are just
doubting the ability of the pre-camera masters! Believe me, talent
can do the seemingly impossible. As you said, "Doing this freehand
is fairly easy if you have decent feel for proportions". What makes
you think Bouguereau doesn't have a "decent feel for proportions".
> However, in a photo the people don't move, and the sun doesn't
> change, and the angle is always the same (which makes it easier
> compared to models). But you still have to know how to compose a
> picture, put different elements together, modify the colors, blend the
> colors/shading, make up areas from scratch that are not present in the photo.
That is the reason why so many artists paint aided with photos. They
obviously saw the great advantage. I am pro-photos not anti. Nothing
could be worst than a painting with out-of-proportion objects. My
argument is that, one, Bouguereau does not use photos. Two, if photos
becomes a clutch, it would result in a poor painting. You mentioned
"modifying the colors". That is the problem. A photo-addict painter
relies on memory to make up the colours so it is downright impossible
to obtain a real-life facsimile (unless you don't care... a valid
reason).
> If he/she is commissioned to do an actual portrait that must look very much like a particular person
Now, this is one and only area that Bouguereau used photos, but for
only for the face of the "sitter". The body is real and probably
someone else. Even Bouguereau commit mistakes. Some portraits have
heads that doesn't seem right at the joins. I think Bouguereau does
not have the skill to make things up (which is also seen in some other
minor parts of several paintings).
Edward G. Nilges
> In article <b06b8a$9jq$1...@panix1.panix.com>, g...@panix.com says...
>
> >He means the genre, I suppose. I don't know how Hitler got
> >into this. Frazetta has not aimed his work at the museum
> >scene. It may wind up there someday, but the artist chose to
> >pay different dues to different dues-collectors. According
> >to Ivor's buddy, its ultimate fate is a matter of its abstract
> >formal properties, not its genre, content or other narrative
> >attributes.
>
> Thanks. I couldn't have said it more succinctly
> myself. I have no strong interest in cartoon
> art (or Fantasy Art either, for that matter), but
> as far as I know, Frazetta himself wouldn't claim
> to be anything other than a cartoonist or illustrator.
>
> Norman Rockwell was always adamant about being
> referred to as an illustrator.
I think that is because Rockwell was an intelligent man, who saw that
no "fine" artist could prosper in early 20th century America.
Up until the expansion of Federal support for the arts after the war,
very few Americans could expect to make a living as fine artists
because Americans simply did not see the need for much art. Even
after Americans of the Gilded Age got rich, their taste ran usually to
Bouguereau nudes in the smoking room (their to acquire an interesting
Havana patina that modern curators have to scrub off) and flowers for
the ladies drawing room.
Samuel F. B. Morse originally proposed to be an artist but discovered
that the road to fame and fortune lay in "practical" inventions.
Norman Rockwell never seems to have despised abstract artists. One of
his most famous paintings shows a grey flannel suit businessman
looking at a Jackson Pollock with respect. But Rockwell chose to have
a comfortable family life in New England and took responsibility for
that choice.
> Taking pride in one's
> craft is, IMHO, the real common denominator among
> all 'good' artists of whatever stripe - fine, hobby, week-ender,
> illustrator, cartoonist, commercial, designer,
> architect - you name it...
Not to the extent where the interest in craft replaces the art. You
rarely find truly great artists talking about art materials and
technique, any more than truly great golfers talk about the sort of
irons or system that will make the bad golfer into a good golfer.
Dr. Slick
> > cross-hatch over oils):
> >
> > http://www.drslick.org/untitled1.jpg
>
> Not bad. Guy looks a little hostile in close up.
>
> The great lesson you learned about the eyeball is the accent on the
> spherical.
>
> considered how its formulation, which may be a trade secret, may
> interact with the oils and destroy your effect over time?
>
> I use sharpies with color pencils but would never combine them with
> paint because of the possibility of degeneration.
>
dunno, history will see how the Sharpie reacts with oil paints.
I just couldn't see doing the cross-hatching with a brush and
black oil paint: it just wouldn't be the same, line width would vary
too much. I was looking for a technical pen (Rotring) effect, but
technical pens aren't made that wide.
Well, the Mona Lisa and the Great Pyramids are also
disintegrating.
Slick
Mani Deli
http://www.artrenewal.org/museum/b/Bouguereau_William/mark_walker1.asp
John Ng
> That is because my choice would have to reflect the decisions of a
> community of informed art lovers where a higher level of informedness
> (as shown by MFAs, teaching roles, or amusing and informed talk at
> those fabled cocktail parties) makes the opinion more valuable.
I am not informed?
In other words, you are saying that your decision on what to hang in
museums is based on what is commercial to a section of arty fardies?
In other words, as the high-priest of art, it is what you dictate and
not what is actually good? You also suggest that whoever supports the
most cocktail party and invites the most mouths gets to choose the art
form of the day?
> I fear that in recent years, media companies like Disney have brought
> financial pressure to bear upon museums by donating money with strings
> attached and this means acceptance of hack work by museums in place of
> genuine artistic endeavor.
That is because they are trying to support more cocktail parties so
that the arty-fardies can be amused and do informed talks about a new
form of art call cartoons.
> The ONLY way to change this is increased community support for the
> arts and I am afraid that this means at the Federal level, a massive
> expansion in the National Endowment for the Humanities.
So that they can give more cocktail parties? But why are you concern
with who gives the cocktail parties as long as there are coming?
Disney or NEH, it is all the same. You discuss Picasso one time and
you discuss Snow White another time... what is the difference? Surely
as an art writer you don't belive in good art, just more discussed art
by informed persons?
> I work to deadlines writing magazine articles and books. My editors
> and not me call the shots for they know what the readers and
> management want.
It really depends on what sort of magazines you write. There is only
a small readership if you go with Picasso but there would be a lot
more readers if it were Frazetta or Bouguereau. Does your management
acknowledge that there is rise in the popularity of realism?
> Having also worked as a fine artist I realize that
> there is a difference between art and hack work
I too am a fine artist. And I have also realized that Picasso has
hacked his way, primarily using words, when compared to a non-hacker
like Bouguereau... you agree with me on that?
> Picasso's work, which he made primarily to please himself.
Get youself some art literature on Picasso. His primary aim is to
satisfy his clients not himself.
Dr. Slick
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
>
> > But to say that one can tell from
> > camera/lens distortion alone if a painting was freehanded from models
> > or a projected picture is quite unbelievable to me. Other clues like
> > perspective accuracy, line straightness, and proportions seem like
> > more obvious indicators to me.
>
> No, you really can tell lens distortion unless the painter very
> consciously consider only the undistorted sections or mask it up. Are
> you telling me that you can't see camera distortion, or am I the only
> one who can? Maybe I should say the distortion of the eye and not
> camera distortion (it is which one you deem most accurate). You talk
> about accuracy of perspective and you are talking about camera
> distortion (or the other way round, eye distortion).
>
human eye had a lens, so it has distortion too. Someone can certainly
draw something with one eye closed, right? (this would take out the
3-d effect, which people often do to check proportions).
I'm saying that regular photos (not fish-eyed or other effect),
look "normal" to me, and can be compared to the actual scene. This is
not to say that pictures do justice to reality: they clearly do not.
>
> > He doesn't need to use the same photo for the sketch and final paintings.
>
> Why would he use different photos? Is his intention to fool people
> 100 years later (as to whether he use photos or not) or is his
> intention to make the best painting? You are saying that a person is
> incapable of drawing from real life unless he/she copies from a photo.
> Take a look at Ingres (particularly portraits), Jean Baptist Greuze
> and Pierre-Paul Prud'Hon.
>
This is not what i'm saying. Leonardo certainly could paint
freehand from life. That Jean Baptist Greuze is very nice stuff. But
it's not as photo-real as the Bouguereau. And i don't think
Bouguereau was trying to fool people, maybe he just changed his mind
about which photos to use, that's all.
>
> > Well if it was all just models, he must have spent quite a few
> > bucks on them. And the lighting of his paintings are very complex
> > (multiple reflections and such)...some involving the sun? And so he
> > must have oil sketched really fast before the sun went down!
>
> If you position a model properly and beside windows, you can "hold"
> the sunlight much longer. Sketching is fast for people who are
> skilled in it (and Bouguereau is). There is always the next day if it
> can't be done in time (not end of the world yet). You are just
> doubting the ability of the pre-camera masters! Believe me, talent
> can do the seemingly impossible. As you said, "Doing this freehand
> is fairly easy if you have decent feel for proportions". What makes
> you think Bouguereau doesn't have a "decent feel for proportions".
>
I'm not doubting Bouguereau's talent, and i don't think it's
impossible either. I just think his stuff is very photo-real, and if
he used some sort of camera obscura like Vermeer, i would believe
this. Just for the basic outline, and then continue with the live
models.
John, I not saying that you are wrong, it's just that everyone
has an opinion on the internet, and you gotta question people to find
the truth. I'm sure you do the same.
>
> That is the reason why so many artists paint aided with photos. They
> obviously saw the great advantage. I am pro-photos not anti. Nothing
> could be worst than a painting with out-of-proportion objects. My
> argument is that, one, Bouguereau does not use photos. Two, if photos
> becomes a clutch, it would result in a poor painting. You mentioned
> "modifying the colors". That is the problem. A photo-addict painter
> relies on memory to make up the colours so it is downright impossible
> to obtain a real-life facsimile (unless you don't care... a valid
> reason).
>
Sure it would result in poor painting if it were a crutch. That
still doesn't rule out the use of photos or a camera obscura. And
certainly you could come up with a nice flesh tone on your own, even
with a B/W photo.
Tracing or projecting a photo seems very close to using a camera
obscura on live models. If you can't free-hand well to a photo, you
won't be able to free-hand well to a live model.
>
> > If he/she is commissioned to do an actual portrait that must look very much like a particular person
>
> Now, this is one and only area that Bouguereau used photos, but for
> only for the face of the "sitter". The body is real and probably
> someone else. Even Bouguereau commit mistakes. Some portraits have
> heads that doesn't seem right at the joins. I think Bouguereau does
> not have the skill to make things up (which is also seen in some other
> minor parts of several paintings).
>
>
You mean some of Bouguereau's portraits have heads that don't
seem right? In other words, he wasn't able to take the head of one
photo and place it correctly on the dress of another photo? I think
he would have the skill to do this well if he could free-hand a model
(or even paint a camera obscura outline) so well.
Ok, so you admit that he did use photos for the faces of
commissioned portraits. Do you have a website link or a book that has
this info?
Dr. Slick
Ivor E. Black
says...
>I was looking for a technical pen (Rotring) effect, but
>technical pens aren't made that wide.
I assume you're referring to those types of
technical pens that have tubes for nibs.
You need to think DRAFTING TOOLS and you'll
find the solution to your dilemma. I've never
used the spreadable quill type drafting pen
with paint, but it should work if the paint
is thinned to ink consistency. Also, the
types of pen nibs used by calligraphers
come in very wide widths - Speedball is the
brand I'm familiar with.
Ivor E. Black
>You
>rarely find truly great artists talking about art materials and
>technique, any more than truly great golfers talk about the sort of
>irons or system that will make the bad golfer into a good golfer.
You obviously don't hang out with golfers.
Just as artists I know are constantly looking
for 'better brushes' - golfers of my acquaintance,
including the Merry Mex Lee Trevino, are constantly
looking for better clubs. How do you think the
latest club technology came into being? Graphite
shafts, titanium heads, etc.
Now all we need are some graphite shafts for
our brushes and bristles of titanium to match the
golf analogy!
Ivor E. Black
pigsm...@hotmail.com says...
>> Picasso's work, which he made primarily to please himself.
>
>Get youself some art literature on Picasso. His primary aim is to
>satisfy his clients not himself.
The first sentence above contains the correct
biography re: Picasso. The latter is simply
opinion of the wishful thinker who would
re-write biography to suit his own belief system.
Picasso breathed art, ate art, shat art and
otherwise lived art. It was inevitable that
he be recognized as the art genius of the
20th century by international consensus.
Neil Maxwell
Nilges) wrote:
>OK, if I had a job as a museum administrator, managing funds by
>definition limited, guess what.
>
>I would hang Picasso and discard Frazetta.
>
>That is because my choice would have to reflect the decisions of a
>community of informed art lovers where a higher level of informedness
>(as shown by MFAs, teaching roles, or amusing and informed talk at
>those fabled cocktail parties) makes the opinion more valuable.
Is this Politics or Art? Do you cease to like something (or hide your
liking) because someone you may admire or respect dislikes it? It
sounds like high school students deciding what style clothing is
acceptable for others to wear. It's OK to kowtow to the pressures of
your peers, but it's good to recognize it for what it is.
>I fear that in recent years, media companies like Disney have brought
>financial pressure to bear upon museums by donating money with strings
>attached and this means acceptance of hack work by museums in place of
>genuine artistic endeavor.
Same pressure, just a different direction and a different tool used to
apply it. These pressures are a fact of life. If you recognize them
for what they are and use the appropriate ones to support your own
goals, there's nothing wrong with them. How much you can bend before
peer pressure or economic incentives is a personal decision, and you
can still produce Art with compromises.
>The ONLY way to change this is increased community support for the
>arts and I am afraid that this means at the Federal level, a massive
>expansion in the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Hmm, I'm sure Bush has that in his budget plans. He'd approve of a
21st century Norman Rockwell.
>Indeed, when President Al Sharpton makes me the head of the NEA, I
>shall use the opportunity to get rid of corporate sponsorship that
>equates hack work with art.
Would Hillary be his VP? She likes making others do what she wants
them to do. Seriously, corporate sponsorship is just another choice.
Don't like the results? Don't look at them! Don't buy Absolut! Flip
past the ads! Don't try to censor them, though.
>I work to deadlines writing magazine articles and books. My editors
>and not me call the shots for they know what the readers and
>management want. Having also worked as a fine artist I realize that
>there is a difference between art and hack work, but in recent years,
>corporations have tried to sell the public on the wrong idea that
>work, made with all sorts of compromises on deadline, is "just the
>same" as Picasso's work, which he made primarily to please himself.
It's a rare artist who can work with no compromises and support
him/herself. There are some (and folks here would argue whether
Picasso was one), but that's the exception rather than the rule.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Edward G. Nilges
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message
>
> > That is because my choice would have to reflect the decisions of a
> > community of informed art lovers where a higher level of informedness
> > (as shown by MFAs, teaching roles, or amusing and informed talk at
> > those fabled cocktail parties) makes the opinion more valuable.
>
> I am not informed?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that while you may
believe that guys like Phillipe de Montebello, former Met curator, are
"artsie fartzies" who ram their taste down the throat of an unwilling
public, what they actually are are people who combine their taste with
that of a knowledgeable community.
>
> In other words, you are saying that your decision on what to hang in
> museums is based on what is commercial to a section of arty fardies?
People in the hinterlands, the back-country, the north forty, believe
in a systematic projection and oversimplification of intellectual life
and for this reason are prone, in a variety of fields, to hypostatize
cliques, claques, cabals and conspiracies in which the leaders in any
variety of fields, from computer science to art, gather regularly for
secret meetings to set policy and fashion.
For example, Richard Milhouse Nixon built a career on his claim that
Eastern liberals formed this sort of group.
But what this yokel (me) actually discovered in New York City,
Princeton and Hollywood was that people in these trend-setting regions
hate each other and are set in "deadly hate, the one against another"
not by Richard Crookback but by competition for place and position.
As it happens, museum boards reflect a spectrum of informed and
uninformed taste and in recent years have been more than ready to
accept realism and commercial art, because the lack of funding of the
National Endowment for the Humanities has increased the pressure upon
museums. The Art Institute of Chicago has cleaned the cigar smoke off
of several abominable Bougeuereaus in recent years in response to the
Yahoo part of the spectrum which in Chicago has always had more of a
say than in New York.
> In other words, as the high-priest of art, it is what you dictate and
> not what is actually good? You also suggest that whoever supports the
> most cocktail party and invites the most mouths gets to choose the art
> form of the day?
Really, this is a TV image. Administrators of cultural institutions
today don't go to cocktail parties: they probably got to AA meetings
instead. Major museums do NOT push any one style: they provide a
range of styles including garbage like Bouguereau in response to
multiple pressures.
Not once during the hey-day (in the long-dead era of 1940..1960) of
abstraction did the Art Institute of Chicago pull down Grant Wood's
odious American Gothic which unlike Ben Shahn or Reginald Marsh, had a
smooth finish which destroyed his ironic point that indeed, parts of
the Midwest were indeed regressing towards the Middle Ages: for
EXCESSIVE respect for craft and materials is something that induces in
the artist a disempowering mediaevalism in which he thinks (against
the facts) that his mastery of yegg tempera makes him special in the
absence of an actual guild.
>
>
> > I fear that in recent years, media companies like Disney have brought
> > financial pressure to bear upon museums by donating money with strings
> > attached and this means acceptance of hack work by museums in place of
> > genuine artistic endeavor.
>
> That is because they are trying to support more cocktail parties so
> that the arty-fardies can be amused and do informed talks about a new
> form of art call cartoons.
>
Really, if you want to go to cocktail parties, then for pete's sake,
buy a martini shaker and throw your own. I detect in Nixon's and your
rage against the image of a group of all the genders and races,
swilling cocktails and in general having fun, the sort of
self-defeating Puritan rage which simultaneously desires to replace it
with a group of near-dead white males, snarling about how they can
draw, and to join the fun.
>
> > The ONLY way to change this is increased community support for the
> > arts and I am afraid that this means at the Federal level, a massive
> > expansion in the National Endowment for the Humanities.
>
> So that they can give more cocktail parties? But why are you concern
> with who gives the cocktail parties as long as there are coming?
> Disney or NEH, it is all the same. You discuss Picasso one time and
> you discuss Snow White another time... what is the difference? Surely
> as an art writer you don't belive in good art, just more discussed art
> by informed persons?
>
No, I think Disney's work sucks. It corrupts girl children into
believing that they have to conform to a physical, Caucasian ideal,
and Disney's clumsy efforts (in Lilo and Stich) to change preserve the
second-order features of the original ideal, and become in that recent
film anti-haole racism.
I'll never forget just how boring the series Spin and Marty was and
how it so unsubtly tried to cram classism and sexism down the throats
of my generation during the ramp-up to the assassination of JFK and
the Vietnam War.
In this connection, Disney's lawyers have just persuaded our corrupt
Supreme Court, the one that threw out the popular vote for Al Gore in
2000, to extend copyright to nearly 100 years. What this means is
that if a social critic tries to popularize Mickey Rat and thereby
point out the lack of the American Innocence portayed by Mickey Mouse,
his free speech can be circumscribed by Disney's lawyers.
It is true that courts have been in the past deferential to parodies
but this is changing. Because yesterday's decision sets precedent,
the law may devolve to a point where ANY parody of mainstream culture
can be targeted by a deep pocketed assault on free speech.
>
> > I work to deadlines writing magazine articles and books. My editors
> > and not me call the shots for they know what the readers and
> > management want.
>
> It really depends on what sort of magazines you write. There is only
> a small readership if you go with Picasso but there would be a lot
> more readers if it were Frazetta or Bouguereau. Does your management
> acknowledge that there is rise in the popularity of realism?
>
Yes, it does. Far before modernism and in the time of Poussin, the
best art was usually appreciated only by a small number of people
aristocratic materially or (like me) by inclination without having the
funds to always satisfy one's refined taste.
The problem in the 1980s was that Reagan's and Jesse Helm's gradual
withdrawal of funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities
has forced museums to start to appeal to mass tastes in order to
continue to support their core audience, class acts like me who when
we are in the chips donate money to museums and when we are broke
volunteer to be docents.
In the 1960s and 1970s, tax dollars supported museums that did not
have to attract crowds of morons to mega-exhibitions to support their
core activities and I think this was a good thing. I would rather tax
monies support a half empty museum with a low admission charge for
this represented, in the 1960s, a sanctuary against the marching
morons outside.
I say this honestly as a tax payer myself, for this would be a better
use of public funds (which are indeed public and which are not stolen
from anyone, for taxation is the price we pay for civilization) than
military hardware.
>
> > Having also worked as a fine artist I realize that
> > there is a difference between art and hack work
>
> I too am a fine artist. And I have also realized that Picasso has
> hacked his way, primarily using words, when compared to a non-hacker
> like Bouguereau... you agree with me on that?
You do not know what you are talking about. Picasso did not write
anything, and if you want a real mouth, check out Dali's book of
"advice" for artists which is available through Dover.
Dali's book mocks its own reader, in the Surrealist fashion of a hack
who found through conservative politics, stealing the ideas of Duchamp
and Ernst, and the appearance of skill only, for not being rich and
famous, and like an abusive father in a dysfunctional family, provides
advice which if followed leads to failure.
For example, mirroring Dali's hatred and fear of women, advice is
found on the same page to get laid a lot yet remain chaste lest one's
artistic *mana* be polluted, advice which is impossible to follow.
>
>
> > Picasso's work, which he made primarily to please himself.
>
> Get youself some art literature on Picasso. His primary aim is to
> satisfy his clients not himself.
>
The only period in which this is true is the 1920s and during this
period, Picasso reverted to realism to satisfy wealthy
neoconservatives of that era who also supported Sergei Prokofiev's
return to tonality.
Dr. Slick
> In article <1d15af91.03011...@posting.google.com>, radi...@aol.com
> says...
>
> >I was looking for a technical pen (Rotring) effect, but
> >technical pens aren't made that wide.
>
> I assume you're referring to those types of
> technical pens that have tubes for nibs.
>
Yes, Rapidograph Rotring in particular.
> You need to think DRAFTING TOOLS and you'll
> find the solution to your dilemma. I've never
> used the spreadable quill type drafting pen
> with paint, but it should work if the paint
> is thinned to ink consistency. Also, the
> types of pen nibs used by calligraphers
> come in very wide widths - Speedball is the
> brand I'm familiar with.
I've thought about using the Speedball type calligraphy tips, as
this would have much less width variation as a brush. But in order to
make the oil paint flow well, it may be required to use alot of
thinner or turps, rendering the black paint too light. The Sharpie
(or other permanent black ink) may be darker.
I'll try it one day, but the Sharpie was an interesting
experiment. Funny, people occassionally comment on how different my
paintings are, that they seem to be done by different people. This is
only because i'm always trying something new, and haven't had the time
to do a whole batch of work in one cohesive style.
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> >He means the genre, I suppose. I don't know how Hitler got
> >into this. Frazetta has not aimed his work at the museum
> >scene. It may wind up there someday, but the artist chose to
> >pay different dues to different dues-collectors. According
> >to Ivor's buddy, its ultimate fate is a matter of its abstract
> >formal properties, not its genre, content or other narrative
> >attributes.
>
> Thanks. I couldn't have said it more succinctly
> myself. I have no strong interest in cartoon
> art (or Fantasy Art either, for that matter), but
> as far as I know, Frazetta himself wouldn't claim
> to be anything other than a cartoonist or illustrator.
>
Absolutely incorrect. Frazetta certainly has an ego, and has
unfortunately bought into the elitism of the term "fine artist". He
would like to be called a fine artist, who occasionally did comic art.
Just read any of his books. What do you call paintings done for
posters, which are complete works in themselves (not comics)?
I was looking through a book of the 100 top American Artists, and
most of them were commercial artists/illustrators. Very few artists
can make a living just creating paintings for museums only! (this
seems to be part of the "fine art" definition).
Of course, me or anyone else (including Frazzeta himself)
defending what title he should have has nothing to do with where his
art will go. It's already hanging in a museum, his own! Haha, no
artsy fartsy's ass to kiss!
> Norman Rockwell was always adamant about being
> referred to as an illustrator. Taking pride in one's
> craft is, IMHO, the real common denominator among
> all 'good' artists of whatever stripe - fine, hobby, week-ender,
> illustrator, cartoonist, commercial, designer,
> architect - you name it...
Like i said, some artists defy labels: Warhol, etc. Commercial
art can turn into fine art by cultural shifts alone (the art/song
remains the same).
Perhaps this is what Jimmy page/Robert Plant meant by this title:
great works of art are timeless and remain the same, while our
perception of them changes.
Slick
Ivor E. Black
says...
> I've thought about using the Speedball type calligraphy tips, as
>this would have much less width variation as a brush.
My first preference would be the draftsman's "ruling pen"
which I mentioned as an instrument that can be
adjusted to draw various line widths, as wide as
1/8 inch-plus, in my experience.
>This is
>only because i'm always trying something new, and haven't had the time
>to do a whole batch of work in one cohesive style.
Screw what others think. Keep making whatever appeals
to you, and your sense of 'adventure.' I have been
criticized for years for the diversity of subject matter
in my paintings. I have never been one who could
work serially - for long. Let the 'others' moan and
groan - they aren't the ones making the art and getting
the satisfaction from continual experimentation.
Dr. Slick
> >This is
> >only because i'm always trying something new, and haven't had the time
> >to do a whole batch of work in one cohesive style.
>
> Screw what others think.
This is funny coming from a fine art mag reader.
> Keep making whatever appeals
> to you, and your sense of 'adventure.' I have been
> criticized for years for the diversity of subject matter
> in my paintings. I have never been one who could
> work serially - for long. Let the 'others' moan and
> groan - they aren't the ones making the art and getting
> the satisfaction from continual experimentation.
Well, i agree with continual experimentation, especially if your
do art part time. However, i have recently been laid off, and if the
economy doesn't find me another engineering job, i'll have time to do
a series. And yes, i would like to make it into an art gallery and
sell paintings for a living (come on, we can all admit this), and
having a series increases your chances.
And i do want to do a bunch of paintings that are tied together
stylistically. A common thread through all of them, like chapters in
a book.
Slick
Ivor E. Black
> And i do want to do a bunch of paintings that are tied together
>stylistically. A common thread through all of them, like chapters in
>a book.
I think 'style' is inherent in everyone's handiwork,
as long as you aren't emulating someone else as you
learn. Trying to 'paint like Joe Painter,' instead of
painting intuitively, is undoubtedly the biggest deterrent
to developing your own style. And note that I used
the word - *developing.* I don't think anyone is going
to have a noticeable style 'right out of the box.'
It takes time to develop a body of work that people
will eventually see as unique to you. It's great
fun, once you've seen a lot of art, to be able to
walk into a gallery and say to your friend, "Oh, there's
a painting (or whatever) by Joe Painter" after recognizing
the 'style' from across the gallery.
Dr. Slick
>
> I think 'style' is inherent in everyone's handiwork,
> as long as you aren't emulating someone else as you
> learn. Trying to 'paint like Joe Painter,' instead of
> painting intuitively, is undoubtedly the biggest deterrent
> to developing your own style. And note that I used
> the word - *developing.* I don't think anyone is going
> to have a noticeable style 'right out of the box.'
> It takes time to develop a body of work that people
> will eventually see as unique to you. It's great
> fun, once you've seen a lot of art, to be able to
> walk into a gallery and say to your friend, "Oh, there's
> a painting (or whatever) by Joe Painter" after recognizing
> the 'style' from across the gallery.
It's fine to copy the style of an artist that you really admire,
as long as it's only a stepping stone to your own style.
I'd say a unique style is more important than pure technical
skill, although the latter will help you achieve the former.
Bob Dylan is a good example, you always know it's him even if he
sings a bit off.
Slick
Edward G. Nilges
> In article <f5dda427.03011...@posting.google.com>,
> spino...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >You
> >rarely find truly great artists talking about art materials and
> >technique, any more than truly great golfers talk about the sort of
> >irons or system that will make the bad golfer into a good golfer.
>
> You obviously don't hang out with golfers.
Golfers are a curious bunch:
Golfer He (GH): Hi, honey, I'm home!
Golfer's long-suffering wife (GLSW): Hello, dear, how was your game?
GH: Oh, a terrible thing happened today. Fred died at the sixth hole!
GLSW: Why, that's AWFUL!
GH: It sure was. Rest of the game was nothing but "hit ball: drag Fred."
:-)
Ivor E. Black
spino...@yahoo.com says...
>Golfers are a curious bunch:
>
> Golfer He (GH): Hi, honey, I'm home!
> Golfer's long-suffering wife (GLSW): Hello, dear, how was your game?
> GH: Oh, a terrible thing happened today. Fred died at the sixth hole!
> GLSW: Why, that's AWFUL!
> GH: It sure was. Rest of the game was nothing but "hit ball: drag Fred."
Oh GEEZ! Golfer jokes are as ubiquitous as
Lawyer jokes, aren't they. My favorite has
the golfer suddenly kneeling on the green
or tee box as a funeral procession passes on
the road abutting the golf course. When his
buddies ask him about his sudden reverence,
he replies, "That 'was' my wife!"
Edward G. Nilges
> spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G. Nilges) wrote in message
>
> > That is because my choice would have to reflect the decisions of a
> > community of informed art lovers where a higher level of informedness
> > (as shown by MFAs, teaching roles, or amusing and informed talk at
> > those fabled cocktail parties) makes the opinion more valuable.
>
> I am not informed?
>
> In other words, you are saying that your decision on what to hang in
> museums is based on what is commercial to a section of arty fardies?
> In other words, as the high-priest of art, it is what you dictate and
> not what is actually good? You also suggest that whoever supports the
> most cocktail party and invites the most mouths gets to choose the art
> form of the day?
(Sigh.)
Many people who overuse the Internet regard themselves as highly
"informed" when in fact they fail, partly as a consequence of overuse
of the Internet, to be part of a community, and I fall victim to this
as much as anyone.
You also failed to note that those fabled cocktail parties never
existed, and you failed to note that there is nothing wrong with a
desire for a little human contact. I always suspect people who rave
about liberals having cocktail parties to which they have not been
invited are, like Richard Nixon, nursing personal wounds.
>
>
> > I fear that in recent years, media companies like Disney have brought
> > financial pressure to bear upon museums by donating money with strings
> > attached and this means acceptance of hack work by museums in place of
> > genuine artistic endeavor.
>
> That is because they are trying to support more cocktail parties so
> that the arty-fardies can be amused and do informed talks about a new
> form of art call cartoons.
>
>
> > The ONLY way to change this is increased community support for the
> > arts and I am afraid that this means at the Federal level, a massive
> > expansion in the National Endowment for the Humanities.
>
> So that they can give more cocktail parties? But why are you concern
> with who gives the cocktail parties as long as there are coming?
> Disney or NEH, it is all the same. You discuss Picasso one time and
No, it's not, because under our legal system, Disney does NOT have to
allow the public any say outside of a market (which it can manipulate)
in the content it produces. This lack of oversight caused the sexism
of The Little Mermaid.
> you discuss Snow White another time... what is the difference? Surely
> as an art writer you don't belive in good art, just more discussed art
> by informed persons?
>
>
> > I work to deadlines writing magazine articles and books. My editors
> > and not me call the shots for they know what the readers and
> > management want.
>
> It really depends on what sort of magazines you write. There is only
> a small readership if you go with Picasso but there would be a lot
> more readers if it were Frazetta or Bouguereau. Does your management
> acknowledge that there is rise in the popularity of realism?
>
>
> > Having also worked as a fine artist I realize that
> > there is a difference between art and hack work
>
> I too am a fine artist. And I have also realized that Picasso has
> hacked his way, primarily using words, when compared to a non-hacker
> like Bouguereau... you agree with me on that?
>
>
> > Picasso's work, which he made primarily to please himself.
>
> Get youself some art literature on Picasso. His primary aim is to
> satisfy his clients not himself.
Gee, I'll do that. You might also care to bone up: for you refer to
Picasso as if he is still alive, which, uh, he is not.
Again. The ONLY time during Picasso's career when he "tried to
satisfy his clients and not himself" was during the 1920s and in this
period, to satisfy powerful clients including impresario Serge
Diaghalev of the Ballets Russe, Picasso reverted to neoclassical
REALISM.
One of the most tiresome things about artistic, literary or musical
neoconservativism, when discovered by tiresome people on the Internet,
is that it (as a modern gesture) has been done to death since the
1920s: T. S. Eliot's Royalist bank clerk pose dates from the 1930s,
and as it happens, French thinkers more or less discovered
anti-totalitarianism as early as the 1950s...it was in fact
rediscovered by Bill and Irving Kristol in the 1980s, and
re-re-discovered by Francis Fukuyama in the 1990s.
Picasso aced his entrance examinations to the academy in Madrid "to
satisfy his clients and not himself", where his clientele consisted of
the artistically very conservative admissions officers and not
himself.
During his early "Blue" and "Rose" periods, Picasso painted in a
rather realistic style but followed the colorism of the Fauves, not to
satisfy clients, for at this early stage he had no clients.
Following this period, Picasso entered the period of analytic Cubism
after viewing Cezanne, again with very few clients to satisfy. His
analytic Cubism then took a dialectical turn into "synthetic" Cubism
and the use of actual objects and papers torn from cigarette packets,
which led and did not follow the desires of his clients such as the
art dealer Daniel-Henri Kahnweiler.
But again, subsequent to this period and in the 1920s, Picasso married
a conservative emigre Russian ballerina (a member of the Ballets
Russe) who shared the bourgeois tastes of many emigres and who was as
a result high-maintenance. Possibly due to her importuning, Picasso
retreated from abstraction and analytic and synthetic Cubism, and
started to draw in a more academic manner, using a classic line to
delineate classical subjects. A favorite was the story of Theseus and
the Minotaur. This was in a way similar to his Russian contemporary
Serge Prokofiev in music, who retreated to tonality from atonality at
the same time.
But in the 1930s, Picasso left his wife and became rather politicised
as a result of a revolt in his native Spain by conservative army
officers against an elected regime, a revolt which triggered the very
bloody Spanish Civil War.
Picasso perhaps as a result of these political changes returned to
abstraction notably in Guernica, perhaps because realism tends to
prettify and even glorify the suffering of people in war-time (the US
military primarily will only sponsor realistic combat art for this
reason, in all probability.)
Towards the end of his life from 1940..1970, Picasso failed to attract
many wealthy potential clients because he became a member of the
French Communist Party and refused to return to Spain as long as
Franco (who was put into power, in violation of Spain's and
international law, by a military coup) stayed in power. However,
during this period, a critical mass of critics and collectors liked
his work and happened, as "limosine liberals" to be in agreement with
his politics...at this time, many (by no means all) rich people were
actually upset about economic difference and were actually willing to
pay steep progressive income taxes.
Now, perhaps I should read up on Picasso. But although all these
facts were keyed in from memory and extempore, they happened to be
based on several sources including John Berger's The Success and
Failure of Picasso and Francois Gilot's Life with Picasso. And, with
all due respect, if you believe Picasso is still alive, I would like
to know what you've been reading. Or smoking.
Edward G. Nilges
This is not so. The Republicans are opposed to any sort of Salon,
Royal Academy or National Endowment for the Humanities.
>
> >Indeed, when President Al Sharpton makes me the head of the NEA, I
> >shall use the opportunity to get rid of corporate sponsorship that
> >equates hack work with art.
>
> Would Hillary be his VP? She likes making others do what she wants
> them to do.
"Making others what you want them to do" happens to be a good
definition of politics, and ANY politician, no matter how
high-mindedly "libertarian" finds himself doing this.
>Seriously, corporate sponsorship is just another choice.
> Don't like the results? Don't look at them! Don't buy Absolut! Flip
> past the ads! Don't try to censor them, though.
Why not? You name "criticism" as "censorship" in a subtle semantic
shift, in which people of zero material power refuse even to try to
criticise lest they be thought "censors."
Whereas a real "censor" is someone backed by state power or a private
army who enforces his criticism.
In fact, the US government under the commerce clause of the
Constitution has long had all sorts of power to regulate commercial
speech, and no judge or attorney fails to make a distinction between
Absolut's speech and political speech.
Precisely because in the late 19th century, commercial speech was
abused to addict women to powerful opiates, enslave workers in logging
camps in the Pacific Northwest, and lie about the capabilities of
technology, there is no "free speech", as understood by the ordinary
slob, in advertising and it is a good thing.
Absolut is selling a product which addicts and kills ten percent of
its users, while enhancing the lives of 90%. For this reason, its
claims are surveilled and controlled by the government...and this is a
good thing.
Use of the commerce clause of the Constitution has saved countless
lives because since 1964 and the release of the Surgeon General's
report, tobacco company speech has been surveilled and controlled so
at a minimum they haven't been able to make health claims.
"Flip past the ads" ignores the hundreds of man-years of research
invested in making sure that the ad will communicate the needed
message even to people who think themselves sophisticated consumers.
It even ignores the powerful way in which paper communicates
repeatedly even when it is considered by the original consumer as part
of the garbage. You have to make a conscious choice to go to a Web
site, and market researchers have found as a result that Web sites
need to be designed for people who are already strongly interested in
the product.
Whereas if a recovering alcoholic repeatedly sees Cathy Ireland
selling Budweiser, implying that if he goes back then he will meet
Cathy Ireland, the damage is done.
You may wish to make a rhetorical appeal to people who believe
themselves above this, but the commerce clause of the Constitution
gives the government the right, which it has rarely abused, to
regulate commercial speech. To obtain the libertarian fantasy, you'd
have to amend the Constitution.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >Seriously, corporate sponsorship is just another choice.
> > Don't like the results? Don't look at them! Don't buy Absolut! Flip
> > past the ads! Don't try to censor them, though.
>
> Why not? You name "criticism" as "censorship" in a subtle semantic
> shift, in which people of zero material power refuse even to try to
> criticise lest they be thought "censors."
>
> Whereas a real "censor" is someone backed by state power or a private
> army who enforces his criticism.
>
Isn't that funny! When Teddy was losing the argument Teddy claimed his
opponents - who he had never met, who we backed by nothing but their own
words, were censoring him. When Teddy is losing a different argument he
claims that it is a 'subtle sematnic shift'.
Odd to see Teddy calling himself a 'person of zero material power who
refuses even to try to criticise this lest he be thought a censor'. Teddy
isn't usually that forthright in criticising himself - maybe this is the
start of a whole new bear.
--
The grandeur of real art, on the contrary, . . . is to rediscover, grasp
again and lay before us that reality from which we become more and more
separated as the formal knowledge which we substitute for it grows in
thickness and imperviousness--that reality which there is grave danger we
might die without ever having known and yet which is simply our life, life
as it really is, life disclosed and made clear . . . .
- Vladimir Nabokov "Marcel Proust (1871-1922)"