Picasso and photography
mdeli
(This was written long before Hockney came out with his stupid book)
I recall a message from some time ago in which Eicher expressed
outrage that I should claim that Picasso used photographs and an
opaque projector.
An interesting article in the NY Times titled "Photographs that fed
Picasso's vision." (1-11-98) The article reveals how Picasso worked
from photographs. Included is a photo of Picasso doctoring a 35mm
slide. .
I have my information about Picasso's use of photos and projection
from private sources and now this article confirms my view.
I would like to point out that artists from Vermeer to Canaletto used
camera obscura and Degas, Picasso, Dali etc. all used photos. My view
is that what counts is the painting on the wall, not how one did it. I
encourage all to use all means in creating the finished work.
Of course aesthetic moralists and a thousand artzy-fartzy teachers
will cry outrage at this. The fact is that those who can't draw will
get little help by using photos. Those who can't draw really can't
even copy a photograph because they don't understand light and shade.
(Larry Rivers and Hockney show the best examples of contemporary
incompetent schmiered over photo projection)
Picasso's use of photos only goes to show his incompetence. My
favorite example is the portrait of his son, "Paulo and the Donkey."
You will notice that even in his best portraits he can't manage the
drapery and the hands.
I suppose that artzy-fartzies will offer the usual excuse for this
namely, that he wanted it that way. Well that may be, but whatever he
wanted its no better than very average student work. I might add that
in spite of all the raves about Picasso's great drawing ability, any
comparison of his academic student work to that of average academic
drawing of that period show that Picasso was nothing special. Of
course it is hard to see academic drawing of that period. I suspect it
is because it would show what nothing draphtsmen the great Modern
Academic artists really are.
I recall the recent discussion of Pollock here where the fact that he
could draw was mentioned. Well look at his drawings and judge for
yourself. Always ask yourself, if it was signed R. Mutt would it
amount to any more than garbage?
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
Craig Luce
show in the late 80's showing various modern artists studios--- esp the
cubists Braque and Picasso, that are FULL of African carvings and a lot
of photos..... in patches almost literally-translated in their
paintings. So what?
Is this more upsetting than seeing the 1880-90's influence of Japanese
woodcuts in the Impressionist art of Gaugin -- Van Gogh, etc? Not in
the least: Media, technique, and influence are independent of the
making of art.... even derivative artists like Rivers and Mani count on
the viewer to complete them. There's just different opinions.
One paintere friend insisted that I sit in front of a Rothko in the MOMA
for 15 mins and see if I could "get it"..... I came away thinking it was
indeed a great impact..... and though Rothko often referred to his works
in 'flower' and 'happy' terms, it seemd very aggressive, unlike the
casual - dismissive turn of the head I (a realist) had once given such
works.
INTENT is important of the artist, but IMPACT is the viewer's job....
take some time and SEE. And I mean the original, not some lame repro.
DeKooning can STILL knock you on your keister!!
C
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli <mani...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>
> (This was written long before Hockney came out with his stupid book)
>
--
The truth is an ambition which is beyond us.
Peter Ustinov
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
It's me one of your favourite incompetents - one of the little people - the
craftless people - the artless people - wishing you seasons greetings
I hope the new year brings you new and improved skill - can't have too much
skill - no skill no art - can't have that.
Got to know all about that light and shade stuff. You must be a scientist.
All those scientists they know all about that light and shade stuff. See
the drawing those archie guys that dig in the ground do - wow that's art -
they don't do many nudes though - can't draw nudes I guess
can't draw as well as you - no sir - not as well as you or your heroes - you
know the ones who draw all those nudes - wow - good stuff that - your right
that's art - you got my vote. They make those girls look just like they are
in front of you - that's art.
I was at your site - those nudes wow - good stuff that - wouldn't mind one
of those myself - you're good - but you know that. Hey - looken at your
stuff - you know your paintings - ever turn you on ? - ha bet it does.
got to go now - hope you like my xmas letter.
good by: keith
mdeli <mani...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3c28c2c5...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Edward
even when MANI is not that aggressive and biased in his reasoning (not
as bad as many people accuse him to be this way - all the time), and
even when he tries to bring some facts and draw attention to some
ART-RELATED stuff, many people in this forum still play the same tune
and keep on pouring nonsense.
For modern and abstract artists an ability to abstract from personal
assaults would be quite natural, I think.
But instead of that: all one may see is Mani is this, Mani is that...
Apart from incompetence in art there one may see a complete incompetence
and inability to sustain any conversation.
Somebody decided to ignore Mani.
Fine. Do not address him, if you feel this way.
But this does not mean that conversation should stop or choke with
meaningless boring tirades against Mani or ANY personality.
Why on earth can't you refrain from going to personalities and do not
flare up at very Manis' postings?
Deplorable postings - for the most part.
<sigh>
Try to be reasonable and behave like civilzed people.
It's not the planet of apes.
Edward.
------------------------
Merry Christmas!
Happy New Year!
And let the true ART spirit be with THOSE who understand it!
mdeli
>One paintere friend insisted that I sit in front of a Rothko in the MOMA
>for 15 mins and see if I could "get it"..... I came away thinking it was
>indeed a great impact..... and though Rothko often referred to his works
>in 'flower' and 'happy' terms, it seemd very aggressive, unlike the
>casual - dismissive turn of the head I (a realist) had once given such
>works.
Well Rothko certainly seems different for many people. I see boredom,
laziness and stupidity. Next time you spend 15 minuits with Rothko
take a look at the passers by you might just notice how little it
interests most of them.
>
>INTENT is important of the artist, but IMPACT is the viewer's job....
An artists intent is of no interest unless the artist can convey it to
the viewer and that requires skill. The viewer doesn't look at
paintings with a job in mind.
>take some time and SEE. And I mean the original, not some lame repro.
>DeKooning can STILL knock you on your keister!!
>
How sore is your kiester?
Note, that what you wrote has nothing to do with the quote.
If it looks like it was done by a five year old its the artist's
problem not the viewer's.
>> (This was written long before Hockney came out with his stupid book)
>>
>> I recall a message from some time ago in which Eicher expressed
>> outrage that I should claim that Picasso used photographs and an
>> opaque projector.
>>
etc. etc.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
Is this one of your "I'll take the noble high ground days?"
take care: Keith
Edward <dx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C29630F...@yahoo.com...
Edward
(who enjoy their drab meanness & nastiness) only in virtual world!
In real life I apply certain efforts to avoid people with mind drained
by cynicism.
As for "noble days": hmmm, one day you may want to to be reasonable and
stop trying to drown everyone in the swamp of your reeking arrogance and
conceit - and you will feel that life is definitely better that you had
thought.
However, the progress of this sort is often unattainable for small
"minds".
Edward
discussion
such as (I've posted before) what you might see in the flames of a fire or
in the ever changing clouds above?
I think that there are two sorts of effect a painting might have on the
viewer:-
First is what the artist has intended and second is in the imagination of
the
viewer. The second may well be claimed by the artist as the product of his
talent, but what if two viewers have exactly opposite perceptions?
For example, one might say Rothko has stirred up their passions for war or
aggression while another might say they feel the painting says "chill out,
man"
, while another may just see yet another geometric shape, roughly produced.
I think (up to now at least) that much of what I have read on such works
cannot be explained in a fashion that holds up to being spoken out loud
in the company of others without raising hoots of laughter and incredulity.
Sorry for the sensitivities of those earnest followers of abstract fashion,
but unless all those who criticise it are not intelligent enough to
understand,
then the world awaits the book which will finally open the curtains on it.
Here is your opportunity Mr.Strickland!
Seasonal Best Wishes, and here's hoping for a better world.
N.H
p.s, yes, but de Kooning leans towards realism though. Fabulous colours
and textures. Very sexy too, although is that just my own perception?
"Craig Luce" <Crai...@Medical-Illustration.com> wrote in message
news:3C28E6F0...@Medical-Illustration.com...
>snip<
mdeli
"There ought to be an absolute dictatorship...a dictatorship of
painters...a dictatorship of one painter...to suppress all those who
have betrayed us, to suppress the cheaters, to suppress the tricks,
to suppress the mannerisms, to suppress charms, to suppress history,
to suppress a heap of other things. But common sense always gets away
with it.
Above all, let's have a revolution against that! The true dictator
will always be conquered by the dictatorship of common sense...and
maybe not!" (Cashiers de Art,
Conversation Avec Picasso, 1949)
Todd Strickland
Good topic for discussion, the distinction between a painter's
intention and a viewer's interpretation.
Some general considerations:
1) interpretation always takes place in the mind of the viewer,
whether the work is abstract or not.
2) even representational works can elicit multiple--even
contradictory--interpretations.
3) works which support multiple interpretations are not inferior
because of that fact.
4) knowing the artist's intention is fine, if you can deduce that from
somewhere. But what counts is what viewers see in the work. If a
painting supports a particular interpretation then that interpretation
is valid, even if it contradicts the intention of the painter.
5) the "aesthetic" enjoyment of art does not require that we interpret
the work in any intellectual fashion. If a painting is impressive,
pleasing, powerful in its aesthetic qualities it can be appreciated as
art, even if we have no clue what it's about. This is true of both
abstract and representational art.
The interpretation of art (as opposed to aesthetic appreciation) is
work; there's no way around it. The viewer who seeks to understand
what a painting "means" is going to have to look closely at such
things as the narrative, allegory, symbolism, allusion, and formal
structure of the painting; they have to consider the style and period
of the piece; they have to look at this painting in light of
philosophical trends; they have to compare the work (in their minds,
at least) to other works by the same artist, as well as
contemporaries' works. This is as true of Perugino as Rothko.
Some look at Rothko and ask, "What does it mean?" They then look at
Ingres and say, "It's beautiful." Well, why not reverse the situation
and say that Rothko's paintings are simply beautiful (I think they
are, at least) and ask what is the "meaning" of Ingres? This
"problem" of art's meaning isn't really particular to abstract art.
Try coming up with an interpretation of Ingres' The Bather of
Valpicon. I don't mean simple praise of its beauty or skill, or a
description of its aesthetic impact; what does the painting mean?
For some reason this requirement for a unified, easily expressible
interpretation is always thrust upon abstract art, but is rarely asked
of other styles (when interpretation can most definitely be asked of
ANY style). The typical viewer of a Renaissance crucifixion may
recognize the scene, but they rarely "understand" the painting; to get
that requires more effort than the average viewer is willing to
expend.
Todd Strickland
mdeli
painting: they make art. People want Art. And they are given it. But
the less Art there is in painting the more painting there is."
(Parmelin, Picasso Plain, 1964, p. 30)
I guess that's why a lot of Modern Art is just a lot of paint which I
have always suspected would have been much better off had it just been
left in the tube.
discussion
"Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:910eb03.01122...@posting.google.com...
> "discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
news:<reKW7.145$qS6.2...@newsr2.u-net.net>...
comment under the afflunce of incahol. I mixed him up with another
Dutchman.
Yes, a simple image. A naked female painted by a male for the interest of
other males. A little large to be held in one hand, though. It seems to me
also worth a look for it's careful and skilful paintwork. A 'placement' of
a commodity to the target market.
In direct answer, yes, a painting which has some realism in it does not
qualify as a work of art with that alone. Ingres is always picked upon by
the pro- impressionist/abstract bloc because he represents a backwater in
art - particularly French art at that time. From my reading he may be
applauded
by them for for being part of the cause of the extreme impressionist phase
or fashion.
It is my opinion that Western art has arrived at the same backwater with
it's minimalist works. If I am right, the next 50 years will produce more
and
more realism, with a sharp turn away from the current fashion simply to
cater for demand. The buyer will rule, and later generations will point to
the 20th century and it's art as truly representaitonal of a soulless world,
dedicated
to materialism, militarism and self-interest, and a people overwhelmed by
visual images.
People have rejected the past (art for this ng) because they have found the
world
changing so quickly that references to the past are out of date within a
generation.
Therefore if father liked it, it must be old hat and therefore be rejected.
Each generation
demands something new, and when that is used up, out it is thrown.
True art spans not just a generation, but lives.
> This
> "problem" of art's meaning isn't really particular to abstract art.
> Try coming up with an interpretation of Ingres' The Bather of
> Valpicon. I don't mean simple praise of its beauty or skill, or a
> description of its aesthetic impact; what does the painting mean?
>
> For some reason this requirement for a unified, easily expressible
> interpretation is always thrust upon abstract art, but is rarely asked
> of other styles (when interpretation can most definitely be asked of
> ANY style). The typical viewer of a Renaissance crucifixion may
> recognize the scene, but they rarely "understand" the painting; to get
> that requires more effort than the average viewer is willing to
> expend.
>
> Todd Strickland
A complex painting such as many a Renaissance one, could sustain many
a viewpoint without there being a problem. They contain the work of teams
of master painters, and the subject matter was squeezed into all available
space, such as your Raphael's School of Athens.
The message was a multiple one to many requirements. I can think of the
religious hierarchy who would request the subject matter. There might be
someone included in the story such as a bishop used to represent someone
such as a Saint. This might be a merchant if that was who ordered it.
If the work were to be hung in a cathedral, then it was used to display
the story of the Bible to the illiterate. I have read that local politics
found
it's way into some paintings and social norms and trends were also on
display. Painting modes and skills and methods and materials changed
and this also helped to give a different aspect.
So many different combinations, there was and is enough to keep any viewer
interested.
My point has been to ask those who interpret such minimalist paintings:
could they not arrive at such without the painting? Is it not coming solely
from
their imagination? How can a single geometric object like a rectangle or
say a red canvas with a very thin white vertical line down it's centre move
someone who was not ready to be moved by the next thing they came
across?
N.H
Todd Strickland
Let me start by saying it wasn't my intention to pick on Ingres. I
chose The Bather of Valpicon because it's one of the indisputable
masterpieces of Western art. I didn't choose it because I dislike it
in any way, or because I think it isn't open to any kind of
interpretation (I certainly do believe it is open to interpretation).
I simply wanted to show that interpretation of art, any style of art,
is not easy or obvious. Interpreting Ingres' art is just as difficult
as interpreting Rothko's. Likewise, not interpreting, but simply
admiring, is just as valid a response to Rothko as to Ingres. My
whole point is that ultimately, they are engaged in the same
undertaking, that of making art.
> It is my opinion that Western art has arrived at the same backwater with
> it's minimalist works. If I am right, the next 50 years will produce more
> and
> more realism, with a sharp turn away from the current fashion simply to
> cater for demand.
I don't think this age caters to demand any more than previous ages,
but I may be wrong about that.
As to your opinion on Minimalism, you're right on the money! In fact,
this chapter of art history already played out in the '60s and '70s.
Minimalism was something of an aesthetic cul de sac, and Postmodern
tendencies such as Photorealism, Neo-expressionism, and Neo-figurative
styles, to some extent, grew out of a rejection of Minimalism. In
particular, a number of the Photorealists who came out of Cal Arts in
the '60s have been quite vocal in their criticism of Minimalism, and
their art clearly shows this rejection.
This is natural; the new school always reacts against the old.
Minimalism itself was somewhat a rejection (although in some ways a
continuation) of the excesses of Abstract Expressionism and Pop art.
The fact that Minimalism pointed to an artistic dead end doesn't mean
that it was a "failure" of a movement, only that it was destined to be
a short lived one. This fact wasn't lost on the Minimalist artists,
and I don't think any of them believed people would simply stop
painting after them. It was a road to follow for a time, and when the
road ended, most of them moved on to other styles.
> The buyer will rule,
What sells isn't necessarily what is remembered, and vice versa...
> and later generations will point to
> the 20th century and it's art as truly representaitonal of a soulless world,
> dedicated
> to materialism, militarism and self-interest, and a people overwhelmed by
> visual images.
I like the fact that you are interpreting here, as opposed to the
off-hand rejection I see so often in this ng. To look for the ways
art reflects its age is a worthy goal of the art critic. I think
you've touched on a seminal point of Postmodernism by citing "a people
overwhelmed by visual images." Media overload is pervasive in our
society, and many contemporary artists address this point, from their
own personal perspective, in their art. I don't believe that fine
artists, in any significant way, add to this visual overload; even
Warhol's Marilyns aren't nearly as overexposed as a Back Street Boys'
video, or an Alpo dog food commercial.
You see a soulless, materialistic, militaristic world reflected in
Modern art; I see that world REJECTED in Modern art. That's a bit of
an overgeneralization, I realize; artists are people, like any others,
and some of them championed this or that cause, political movement,
technology etc., while others rejected it. But I strongly believe
that in this age one of the reasons we turn to art is because it is
made by INDIVIDUALS, not machines or corporations. The artist stands
in opposition to this "dehumanizing" age, asserting his or her
individuality and uniqueness through art. That doesn't mean that all
art is equal in quality; the more significant of whatever is produced
will stand the test of time. But basically, that's what artists do in
society (and that's why society, on the whole, is hostile to the
artists' profession). Picasso's Guernica spoke out against
militarism, not for it; unfortunately, the world didn't listen to him.
> People have rejected the past (art for this ng) because they have found the
> world
> changing so quickly that references to the past are out of date within a
> generation.
More good art critical observations, although I tend to disagree.
Postmodernism is all about referencing the past, reevaluating it,
deconstructing it, or just plain having fun with it. Have you seen
any of Mani's paintings on his web page? They are full of art
references, and this kind of referencing works extremely well in this
day and age. Audiences are receptive to it, and are generally
sophisticated enough to catch many of the references; I don't think
that would have been true in the past.
Excellent! Now take this same critical approach and apply it to
Rothko. What do you see? Don't simply write it off as "a couple of
rectangels." I see forms which, while not necessarily representing
anything I can recognize, seem to hover, like a mist or atmosphere,
against a deep background. The forms are ambiguous, soft edged and
veriegated, but insistent; somewhat like forms from some half-sleep
dream. The paintings create a definite sense of space (without the
use of linear perspective). The colors are sometimes close (a dark
blue and a light blue against a "middle" blue background), sometimes
contrasting (reds over blues), but always "active" against the
background. The size of the painting, along with the optical effect
of the color, makes the space seem to expand and contract, to "reach
out" to the viewer (as opposed to classical perspective which
"invites" the viewer "into" the painting). This effect can be quite
calming, peaceful, impressive. It's not "Minimalist" in the
slightest.
I also see some connection with Romantic landscape painting,
particularly Turner. I don't think Rothko was painting "landscapes"
per se, but the effect of his paintings is somewhat like viewing a
Turner; you don't necessarily recognize the scene right away, but that
Romantic effect still moves you. So I see Rothko in the tradition of
Romanticism, and that brings to mind many allusions and associations
which effect my experience of his paintings.
That's what I see (and that's enough for me to appreciate it), but
what else do I "know" about it? Well, mythology and psychology were
widely read, discussed, and debated topics among painters in the '40s
and '50s. Rothko was widely known as a symbolist painter in the '40s,
and he wrote on topics such as Romanticism and the sources of myth.
It's safe to assume that his art is intended to reflect these
interests. Freud and Jung had already drawn the connection between
myth and the workings of the subconscious mind, so if Rothko wanted to
get to the source of myth (rather that just repeat the old myths
through conventional allegories), then he would need to make paintings
which could touch the subconscious of his viewers. I believe his
paintings are highly skilled attempts to do just that. As for me, I
think he was successful.
> My point has been to ask those who interpret such minimalist paintings:
> could they not arrive at such without the painting? Is it not coming solely
> from
> their imagination? How can a single geometric object like a rectangle or
> say a red canvas with a very thin white vertical line down it's centre move
> someone who was not ready to be moved by the next thing they came
> across?
How can simple pigment on canvas ever move us? It does so because
great artists have the skill to make their medium moving. This
"skill" doesn't come down to any simple list of techniques, but
ultimately comes from the creative potential of the artist. There is
no "right" or "wrong" way, only effective or ineffective. If many
people find Rothko's art moving, then he was effective (and therefore
skilled).
Todd Strickland
mdeli
I noticed a self portrait in one of my Ingres books. I wonder what
drawing aid Ingres used to do that. Think about it.
Then think about any artist's self portrait. There are thousands. Get
one of those aids and do a self portrait.
Caneletto used an obscura. This is well documented. However look at an
average painting of his with about fifty figures in them. Did he use
aids for each one?
Why didn't any artists leave rooms full of lenses and other optical
aids behind when they died? Why aren't there any portraits of artists
using such equipment? There must have been tons of such instruments
left behind.
Are any drawing aids illustrated in the original French encyclopedia?
Every type of machine of the time was illustrated and discussed.
The essence of what an art teacher who can't draw tells his students
is, "anyone can easily learn to draw but its no longer necessary in
order to produce art." Now that Hockney has come up with his
revelation, the average failure art student can have a change of heart
and say it was all done with aids anyway so why bother.
I often wonder why many art departments even bother giving a course
called drawing. Think of all the time one could save if they weren't
required to dirty up newsprint pads and started right off getting oil
paint on their jeans. They could instead spend all that lost time
learning the Artspeak necessary to defend their masterpieces.
Lets face it, if you're a poor Artspeaker you don't even have a
chance. So why waste time drawing when its no longer necessary and is
so easy to pick up by anyone who is silly enough to bother?
"I know very well that it is neither drawn nor painted as correctly as
a Bouguereau, and I rather regret this, because I have an earnest
desire to be correct." -Van Gogh
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
discussion
> "discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
news:<sJnX7.162$qS6.2...@newsr2.u-net.net>...
> >
>
I would like to elaborate on my statement re Ingres.
She has her head away and looks down, and is quite still.
The view is of the Voyeur. I see the posture as completely submissive,
the subject as one stolen by an intruder. I believe Ingres knew his market
very well indeed and this was a cynical attempt to keep the pot boiling.
[My apologies here for bringing in Manet here since I know other threads are
on similar lines.]
Compare this with Manet's famous nude and even Goya's naked maja.
Both look the viewer right in the eyes, inviting an interaction and
suggesting
a healthy outcome, even if at a price.
Any comment here from the females in this ng?
> >
> I don't think this age caters to demand any more than previous ages,
> but I may be wrong about that.
>
> This is natural; the new school always reacts against the old.
Yes, observation of the past confirms this, but I look for threads from the
past that are worthy to be drawn upon for our viewing pleasure and
instruction.
I want to believe that whatever the latest fad in the art world, there is
still a
mountain of wealth bequested by Artists who meant their works to live on
after them. I see much of it that is in a different league, although here
and there,
in magazines I see work that deserves a much greater audience.
In the same vein:-
The Turner Prize, in particular depresses me so much, as it has become the
both the art joke of the year and the serious output of the year's best
known
artists [UK only].
>snipped<
>Much snipped<
> More good art critical observations, although I tend to disagree.
> Postmodernism is all about referencing the past, re-evaluating it,
> deconstructing it, or just plain having fun with it.
In one sentence you have both agreed with me and disagreed. To have fun
with the past and to deconstruct it does not show the reverence that is
needed
to understand and appreciate it. I believe this shows quite the opposite.
Re-evaluation and 'referencing' will do.
> Have you seen
> any of Mani's paintings on his web page? They are full of art
> references, and this kind of referencing works extremely well in this
> day and age. Audiences are receptive to it, and are generally
> sophisticated enough to catch many of the references; I don't think
> that would have been true in the past.
>
Sadly I have now visited Mani Dali's site. It has the kind of work that
I (simple distrusting me) suspect will eventually be rejected by it's
creator and exposed as a catch for all art poseurs who thought it was
really art. Where is the joy, the romance, the spiritual uplift?
[and indeed, the message?] All I see are finely crafted doodles.
Maybe I am turned off so much because I see the current world this way too.
How can I compare this to say [offhand] Fragonard's The Swing, or
Constable's Salisbury Cathedral, or Reynold's Countess Spencer
and daughter Georgina, Goya's Dona Isabel de Porcel? [and many, many more]
> > Therefore if father liked it, it must be old hat and therefore be
rejected.
> > Each generation
> > demands something new, and when that is used up, out it is thrown.
> > True art spans not just a generation, but lives.
> >
> >snipped<
> > >
> > > Todd Strickland
> >snipped<
> Todd Strickland
mdeli
"When I was their age I could draw like Raphael, but it took me a
lifetime to learn to draw like them."
The jerk thought he could draw like Raphael, can anyone point out any
evidence?
I guess Picasso was stupid enough to believe the yes-men who
surrounded him.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Craig Luce
Todd Strickland wrote:
>
> ......snip
> >
> > > Good topic for discussion, the distinction between a painter's
> > > intention and a viewer's interpretation.
> > >
> > > Some general considerations:
> > > 1) interpretation always takes place in the mind of the viewer,
> > > whether the work is abstract or not.
> > > 2) even representational works can elicit multiple--even
> > > contradictory--interpretations.
> > > 3) works which support multiple interpretations are not inferior
> > > because of that fact.
> > > 4) knowing the artist's intention is fine, if you can deduce that from
> > > somewhere. But what counts is what viewers see in the work. If a
> > > painting supports a particular interpretation then that interpretation
> > > is valid, even if it contradicts the intention of the painter.
> > > 5) the "aesthetic" enjoyment of art does not require that we interpret
> > > the work in any intellectual fashion. If a painting is impressive,
> > > pleasing, powerful in its aesthetic qualities it can be appreciated as
> > > art, even if we have no clue what it's about. This is true of both
> > > abstract and representational art.
All quite good, Todd. Artists in this group will relate. The making of
art is often disparate from its interpretaion.
...snip
> > The buyer will rule,
>
> What sells isn't necessarily what is remembered, and vice versa...
God help us (the culture) if Kincaid is the rule
...snip
> How can simple pigment on canvas ever move us? It does so because
> great artists have the skill to make their medium moving. This
> "skill" doesn't come down to any simple list of techniques, but
> ultimately comes from the creative potential of the artist. There is
> no "right" or "wrong" way, only effective or ineffective. If many
> people find Rothko's art moving, then he was effective (and therefore
> skilled).
This last sentence makes all the writing worthwhile....
This should be the rule. Even for this group.
C>
Craig Luce
mdeli wrote:
>
> When visiting an exhibition of children's drawings, Piscasso remarked:
> "When I was their age I could draw like Raphael, but it took me a
> lifetime to learn to draw like them."
>
> The jerk thought he could draw like Raphael, can anyone point out any
> evidence?
True, Picasso could never draw that well--- I have yet to see a drawing
of his (I heard Picasso left 6 warehouese full of art that we have ween
x% of)..... On this alone, I agree with this writer.
Oh, and Hockney's book proves nothing except that his name can sell books.
C>
mdeli
>that it was a "failure" of a movement, only that it was destined to be
>a short lived one.
Minimalism is alive and well and started around 1905. From that point
on Modern Academic Art is minimalism. It is having a hard time trying
to convince us that practically nothing is of interest.
>How can simple pigment on canvas ever move us? It does so because
>great artists have the skill to make their medium moving. This
>"skill" doesn't come down to any simple list of techniques, but
>ultimately comes from the creative potential of the artist. There is
>no "right" or "wrong" way, only effective or ineffective. If many
>people find Rothko's art moving, then he was effective (and therefore
>skilled).
By this reasoning Kinkade is very skilled. I believe that you can
apply these platitudes to practically anyone, especially those you
don't like.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
John Ng
non-artistic people, they do appear to be good drawings. However, to
people who are acquainted with art, it is nothing more than mediocre,
and surely nowhere near Raphael... or even my own doodles (... and
that is bad). In other words, his drawings are no more than a
beginner artist, and anybody in art school should have done better.
John
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> I have seen some of Picasso's "realism" drawings. To many
> non-artistic people, they do appear to be good drawings. However, to
> people who are acquainted with art, it is nothing more than mediocre,
> and surely nowhere near Raphael... or even my own doodles (... and
> that is bad). In other words, his drawings are no more than a
> beginner artist, and anybody in art school should have done better.
>
> John
>
So did Picasso, too
-lauri
John Ng
> So did Picasso, too
And therefore are you agreeing that Picasso could never draw, and his
words about being able to draw like Raphael were just lies?
John
mdeli
>Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message news:<3C346072...@netti.fi>...
>
>> So did Picasso, too
>
>And therefore are you agreeing that Picasso could never draw, and his
>words about being able to draw like Raphael were just lies?
>
I wouldn't call them lies. Picasso was constantly surrounder by
drooling admirers and money men who treated him like the sun king.
Picasso's statements of which I have read many, in my opinion, show
that he wasn't very intellegent and had a certain street crudness.
When one is constantly surrounded by yes-men one tends to believe them
after a while. However I suspect that even Picasso was plagued by
doubts. But then if others say Raphael, why not agree.
Picasso's styles and Dumping:
I maintain that there are only two really major Picasso styles, the
utterly ugly and the just about bearable. This vacillation between the
excruciating and the bearable is a Picasso characteristic which
anyone, even the artistically insensitive, can easily distinguish.
After painting something bearable, Picasso always seemed to
test his audience to see what degree of ugliness, carelessness or lazy
simplicity he ccould dump on them next. Perhaps this is why Picasso
was constantly plagued by doubts about his audience.
Working to purposefully achieve little more than the outrageous
usually has as strong an effect on the artist as on his doting
clientele. Such an artist rarely avoids becoming jaded about what he
is doing and often feels compelled to test the love of his adoring
audience. He does this by giving them something even more minimal and
less carefully done then usual to probe their limits of tolerance.
Dumping as practiced by most top Modern Artists is an expression of
insecurity. It is the artist subconsciously saying, "I will do my
worst not only in order to once again irritate my enemies but to see
whether my audience still loves me." It is the emperor's tailors
expressing momentary doubt.
Many artist's are possessed by urges to satirize their patrons about
whom they may well have justified nagging doubts. The Modern Artist is
in part a professional satirist. Certainly Picasso was little else.
Modern Academic Art evolved around satire. The minimal, the ugly, the
outrageous, all have satirical origins. Cubism and the extremes of
Malevich, Matisse's paintings of schmiery green heads are all
examples of works which were originally dumpings.
mdeli
first qualify this, as I consider him an artist rather than a
charlatans like Rothko or Pollock and so many others.
Corot gets high marks from historians because he is considered a
for-runner of impressionism. And historians can point to him as a nice
guy.
Corot did four sorts of subject matter all ordinary academic:
Academic like "Hager in the wilderness" which I don't think has any
outstanding qualities besides ordinary academic competence. If it
turned out to be by any academic second rater I doubt it would excite
moderns at all.
At his most popular are Corot's landscapes. I consider them dull and
repetitive and easily imitated by anyone with a bit of landscape
skill. I believe they are considered so important because the were
supposedly done out doors which for some reason is considered of vast
importance.
Then there are his nudes which at worst are little better than art
school abominations and when he decided to be more careful, are
ordinary third rate academic.
Lastly there are his figures, portraits, peasants. They are in totally
academic format and in the dull colors of all that is considered
academically boring usually with a very sloppy schmiery landscape
background. I suspect these are made more acceptable today because
his sitters are rather ugly, poorly rendered and this poses no threat
to modern academic no-skill-realism.
In case you didn't know it Corot won medals from the Salon and some of
his pictures were procured by the government and he was made a member
of the Legion of Honor. His paintings sold well but many of his
paintings are copies of earlier works and there are also lots of
forgeries. Corot also showed great interest in photography and owned
hundreds of nature photos.
I could never see much attractiveness in Corot and similar French
painters going on through the impressionists when I had the
opportunity to compare works. In landscape there are the Americans of
the Hudson River school, French and Germans. When comparing the exact
same format of figures Corot comes off as a student reject who
couldn't last at the Academy Julian. On top of this each European
museum I visited had similar work by 19th cent. artists unknown beyond
the borders of their countries. With good reason.
If you want a big name in the 19th century it paid to be French and
somewhat sloppy.
discussion
Hockney has exposed his to the world, and I have no doubt
he expected a debate..
Of course, if you are saying that without the testimony of a witness,
nothing can be proved, then you would be right, but I think you are
being more specific here.
N.H
"Craig Luce" <Crai...@Medical-Illustration.com> wrote in message
news:3C33779D...@Medical-Illustration.com...
ubuje...@free.fr
>Camille Corot is in my opinion a completely overrated artist. Let me
>first qualify this, as I consider him an artist rather than a
>charlatans like Rothko or Pollock and so many others.
>
>Corot gets high marks from historians because he is considered a
>for-runner of impressionism. And historians can point to him as a nice
>guy.
this purely due to political considerations, corrot was a socialist
(one of the first) as suche he got a plus 200 ranks in the french
critics ranking.
>Lastly there are his figures, portraits, peasants. They are in totally
>academic format and in the dull colors of all that is considered
>academically boring usually with a very sloppy schmiery landscape
>background. I suspect these are made more acceptable today because
>his sitters are rather ugly, poorly rendered and this poses no threat
>to modern academic no-skill-realism.
herre is the point, the subject are quite good from a political point
of vue, the priests are dull and acting badly, the peasants are
working like staloinist stakanovich and the like.
>
Craig Luce
archives)--- more than expected by anyone, I'm sure.
C>
David Sharpness
> "When I was their age I could draw like Raphael, but it took me a
> lifetime to learn to draw like them."
You can make a painting everywhere in focus, like a camera set to
infinity taking a picture of things distant. Or you can emphasize a
focused area, leaving the surrounding areas blurred, which is usefull
in many ways. Or, you can paint as children do.
It's my understanding that this is what Picasso was explaining.
He painted one called The Sailor which has the feature that wherever
you focus on is surrounded by the blurred periphery, the way we see
all the time, and it is done intentionally, and it's a good painting.
When we're children we are surround by a very big periphery with a
child's focus.
In many ways, Picasso's work resemble the fantasies animators come up
with-- cartoons, comics, animated films.
Does the bull in Guernica represent the catholic church and the pope?
I happened upon a political satire cartoon of the time and it had a
minotaur bull like Guernica and it represented the pope. Picasso was
a communist wasn't he?
I looked for this on the web and found it interpreted that Picasso was
using subliminal imageries—a kind of spell casting with colors.
Picasso's always good for a talkabout!
David
Rainbow, CA
1.04.02
mdeli
"He had a feel for adjectives, but few ideas. He listened to me and
gratified me with answers full of modifiers. His whole brilliance lay
in his skill as plagiarist and stager--as a jewel-setter. When all was
said and done, Picasso was a duettist. He always needed a partner:
Ingres, Delacroix, Velazquez, and others I forgot. But he was a
eunuch, a caricaturing imitator who tore down and made fun of what he
could not outdo. All he knew how to do was distort as he copied."
[Dali #257 confessions]
Picasso answered these accusations by saying, "I never do a painting
as a work of art, all of them are researches."
Imitation in art is less of a crime than it is often made out to be.
The key is not total originality but producing the finest quality
work. The artist who is least inimitable is really the most creative.
Picasso never imitated the great masters in the same way he filched
ideas from his contemporaries. He was utterly incapable of painting
even an imitation of a great work. He merely caricatured them and very
poorly at that. What he really produced in his imitation paintings
were cock-eyed schmiers, coarsely painted on top of projected images
of his favorite old masters, over which he added, here and there, his
personal style of crude caricature.
Critics would do well to remember that the artist who is the very
first to create a work that almost anyone can copy or imitate is only
a poor artist who once had a novel idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli