Imitatiion, forgery and merit
mdeli
The genuinely exceptional artist is damned difficult to imitate. This
is rarely the case with MAA especially in its later examples. In MAA
each artist basis all his work on one simple idea, like colored
stripes, a splatted canvas or schmiery somewhat recognizable images
which are stylistically and technically simple. The important thing
here is to give the public the impression that no one had ever done
this sort of thing before, that it's NEW.
Although there were indeed great artistic innovators the present day
artzy-fartzy aesthete doesn't realize that the subject matter of great
art is not entirely unique. Are Raphael's Madonnas unique, Rembrandt's
portraits? Vermeer's interiors or someone's landscapes unique? The
best paintings are unique in their execution.
Many artists tried to reach the heights of the greatest masters but
never accomplished the feat. Nevertheless many of these artists
produced fine paintings. Terborch and Jan Steen are not in the same
class as Vermeer but their paintings are admired and as carefully
preserved as are those of so many other lesser masters.
In MAA there is no such thing as a lesser master. Picasso imitators
are considered trash. A fake Pollock is worthless. Matisse imitators
are considered hack art school incompetents. With MAA value is a
matter of believing a work to be a signed original. Only the signature
really counts. On the other hand if a forged signature were found on a
very fine old master painting, as has often been the case, it is not
considered trash but is still judged on the basis of quality. If the
quality is of a high order the work still retains a high value.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
RBrac53660
getty museum. the forger at least fooled a lot people in high places.
I'm sure you'll have a proof positive answer
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
RBrac53660
that the getty bought for some odd millions of dollars that could be a fake.
And is also important to classical art.
Ricardo Pontes
what drawings are those that you are talking about? I see that the forgers
did not fool you thou, whatever that means.
Ricardo Pontes
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010405030850...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
RBrac53660
>thou
mean?
And if you would like to take this further could you please tell me what a
Kurious Boy is?
John Mashler
I allowed myself to get entangled in a web and a black widow in hot pursuit.
But I have recovered and realise that it is wise to stay distanced from those
who are clearly, as you say, stupid. My milk of human kindness has quickly
turned to yoghurt since arriving here.
I enjoyed the sections from your book on originality in art, and am with you
all the way on this. Which is where my first post here was intended to go - I
wanted to find out what is considered *cutting edge* ..... and as you will have
witnessed, recieved nothing but insults (which I duly returned). Today's
artists are unable to answer these questions because, I believe, they are swept
up in the tide of hype. The great concern is that students do not spend enough
time learning composition. We only have the chance to teach them in a matter of
a few weeks before they go on to degree level and we suffer constantly from the
pressure of dealing with lazy students, and students who frankly need many
years of teaching for them ever to be a good artist. It is frustrating. I try
always to teach my students to work in a well defined, traditional,
compositional scheme that later, when they have matured enough to use the tools
we teach, they can assert their dogma with conviction and authority. Using the
Madonna as an example of a subject matter constantly returned to, I am able to
demonstrate, with the help of an annual trip to the National Gallery in London,
how the artists were less concerned with the historical event or archaeological
accuracy but with statements expressing deeply felt values and truths through
the way the subject matter is handled, rather than through choice of subject
matter. Does that make any sense?
Modern day artists would do well to return, constantly, to the issues of
composition and stop trying to run before they can walk. They can only do that
by looking back at the Great Masters.
John
mdeli
>Modern day artists would do well to return, constantly, to the issues of
>composition and stop trying to run before they can walk. They can only do that
>by looking back at the Great Masters.
>John
I can't agree. The emphasis in modern academic training today seems to
be a lot of double-talk about composition. The majority of what is
considered great modern art isn't complex enough to contain much in
the line of composition. Most of what is said about it can be equally
applied to floor covering and bed sheets. Few aphorisms about
composition are universally valid.
What is primarily lacking is the ability to create the illusion of the
third dimension because students don't learn anything much about
drawing. Many accidents form far more interesting compositions than
most overly hyped modern schmiers.
As to composition and abstraction I again advise those here to peruse
the fractals of Sylvie Gallet on the net. That's modern art which can
hold a viewer's attention.
Lissa Robinson
In one post mdeli wrote:
I can't agree. The emphasis in modern academic training today seems to
be a lot of double-talk about composition. The majority of what is
considered great modern art isn't complex enough to contain much in
the line of composition. Most of what is said about it can be equally
applied to floor covering and bed sheets. Few aphorisms about
composition are universally valid.What is primarily lacking is the ability to create the illusion of the
third dimension because students don't learn anything much about
drawing. Many accidents form far more interesting compositions than
most overly hyped modern schmiers.
and then he wrote:
Its art. Bullshit is an art.
When Christo farts, its art. When Marilyn praises a room full of
banannas, its art. Duchamp's pisspot is art. So is Rockwell and
Dali.
But the real question is IS ANY OF THIS art ANY GOOD?
Most of the Modernists and "artzy fartzies" Mani refers to (or hates) WERE classically trained. For example, he always includes Christo as one of those artzy fartzies who doesn't know how to draw and builds "silly" environmental installations because he can't do anything else. But guess what? He is wrong. Take a look at this site and then tell me that Christo does not know how to draw. Mani's rhetoric is based in his own anger at not being famous. At best, his work is in itself only mediocre.
Tracy Miller
>
>An interesting discussion topic: what exactly are the differences?
>I've seen a lot of incorrect differentiations between art and illustration
>here, but nothing that touches on the real differences.
mdeli
You make a point I am well aware of.
>Most of the Modernists and "artzy fartzies" Mani refers to (or hates) WERE
>classically trained.
A very few were.
>For example, he always includes Christo as one of those artzy
>fartzies who doesn't know how to draw and builds
Wrong. I never mentioned Christo's drawing abilities. I was always
impressed by Christo's conventional work. It was very competent but
not particularly creative. It was nothing great but saleable. However
Christo is not judged for that work is he?
I believe Christo is very clever and chose to become a charlatan and
won at that game. As I have said many times here I admire this quality
while I find the massive population of losers at that game amusingly
ludicrous.
It might surprise you to know that I have nothing against the
prevailing fashionable bullshit. It certainly gives one an opportunity
to joke about it and give a contrary opinion. Its an opportunity for
hours of amusment.
As to education and the creed of charlatans that is the main product
of art teaching today, I enjoy pointing it out here. Does it upset me?
Not at all. Its the business of the art student to use his brain and
question what he is being taught.
As I said many times here, "the less people who know their craft the
more work for those who do."
>"silly" environmental
>installations because he can't do anything else. But guess what? He is wrong. Take
>a look at this site and then tell me that Christo does not know how to draw.
>Mani's rhetoric is based in his own anger at not being famous. At best, his work
>is in itself only mediocre.
>
Art fundamentalist psychobabble: anyone who likes what the artzy
fartzy doesn't happen to like is angry, bitter, neurotic etc.
In fact I believe the opposite namely, that those who don't know their
craft and choose to devote their lives to schmiering around are angry
because they earn little more than abstract money and can't understand
how a few patzers who paint as badly as they do make fortunes. They
don't understand this because they are lost in the starving artist
myth and are too dumb to take the trouble to find out how the system
really works.
>
>There are often so many holes in Mani the Manic's logic that I usually
>can't be bothered ...but since he took the time to set himself up for such
>a royal slaying ...oh well, what the hay!
Haven't seen any refutation by you and most others here of any of my
serious points especially my "logic."
mdeli
artist on the schmier circuit here. Welcome back.
(Dan Fox) wrote:
>Well done, Lissa. Mani got kicked out of art school (by his own admission)
>and has never forgiven art schools or the art world.
I was fortunate to be dismissed out of a Bauhaus type monastery which
I won't name. This pleases Dan no end as he has taught that sort of
crap. He loves to make believe that this somehow bothered me. I had
lots of fun there good sex, dope and fun students and never paid
tuition. Lots of very amusing and illuminating stuff can be found
about my art school adventures in my book.
To make Dan feel better I next studied at the Art Students League
mostly on scholarships and ended my years there by winning a MacDowell
scholarship to Europe. Furthermore the judge that pulled the majority
vote in my favor was non other than his holiness Clement Greenberg who
happened to like a big schmier I did especially to impress the Artzy
fartzies on the jury. Indeed, I have never found any reason to
forgive the art world as it has always rewarded me.
> He uses the internet
>to vent a full-blown delusional system that neither you nor I will ever
>touch - but sometimes his posts give birth to interesting discussions as
>to how and why he is wrong.
Check out my "full-blown delusional system," by looking at Dan Fox's
schmiers on his web site. He has a whole set of new crap which differs
little from the last set except for pretentious religious titles (has
Dan been born again?) and the addition of a bit of Twombly type scrawl
which is presently necessary in order to keep up with the latest
fashionable concoctions.
I suspect Dan's work attracts the pauper class of richies who can't
afford a charlatan like Twombly.
>An interesting discussion topic: what exactly are the differences?
>I've seen a lot of incorrect differentiations between art and illustration
>here, but nothing that touches on the real differences.
I presume Dan possesses the correct definition.
mdeli
won at that game. As I have said many times here I admire this quality
while I find the massive population of losers at that game amusingly
ludicrous.
In spite of the artzy fartzy opinions to the contrary, I have nothing
against the prevailing fashionable bullshit. It certainly gives one an
opportunity to joke about it and give a contrary opinion. It provides
hours of amusement and diversion.
I also find the constant repetition of Art fundamentalist psychobabble
and reasoning rather amusing. It seems that anyone who states why he
dislikes what they he happens to like is angry, bitter and neurotic
etc.
I believe that those who don't know their craft and choose to devote
their lives to schmiering around and trying to be eccentric are angry
because they earn little more than abstract money and receive little
interest in their uninteresting incompetent output. They never take
the time to find out the system works and why so few patzers who paint
as badly as they do make fortunes. This is of course because they are
lost in the starving artist myth, except for the far smaller Fox class
of patzers.
This conference has given me a better incite into Modern Art
Fundamentalism than art school and the tomes of Artspeak I peruse.
RBrac53660
>and reasoning rather amusing. It seems that anyone who states why he
>dislikes what they he happens to like is angry, bitter and neurotic
>etc.
>
You should take a look at your self.
Neil Maxwell
>I believe Christo is very clever and chose to become a charlatan and
>won at that game. As I have said many times here I admire this quality
>while I find the massive population of losers at that game amusingly
>ludicrous.
>
it's worth pointing out that the skills/craft/expertise involved in
creating a large installation such as his are still skills, though
they are not what you seem to define as "art skills" (presumably only
involving paints and brushes?). As an engineer and an artist, I
admire the technical skills involved in his creations as well as the
inspiration and beauty of the completed piece. It's the combination
of artistic inspiration, technical skills, and the initiative to
execute the piece that all add up to art, in my opinion. Whether an
individual likes it or not is up to them, and has little effect on the
legitimacy of the art.
Do you include such things as Andy Goldsworthy's installations in this
same category? To me, they are more examples of inspiration,
technical skills, and implementation resulting in works of astonishing
beauty.
Fortunately, there is room in this world for all kinds of art and all
kinds of people to appreciate (or hate) it. Your maya may vary.
neil maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Marilyn Welch
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:16:25 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> >I believe Christo is very clever and chose to become a charlatan and
> >won at that game. As I have said many times here I admire this quality
> >while I find the massive population of losers at that game amusingly
> >ludicrous.
> >
> It's not clear to me what your criticisms of Christo are, however,
> it's worth pointing out that the skills/craft/expertise involved in
> creating a large installation such as his are still skills, though
> they are not what you seem to define as "art skills" (presumably only
> involving paints and brushes?).
I guess Mani has never seen Christo's drawings.
>
> Do you include such things as Andy Goldsworthy's installations in this
> same category? To me, they are more examples of inspiration,
> technical skills, and implementation resulting in works of astonishing
> beauty.
Isn't Goldsworthy actually painting with natural materials?
If it's only flat art that Mani accepts, Goldsworthy's photographs
would definitely qualify as ART.
Marilyn
>
Neil Maxwell
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
>Isn't Goldsworthy actually painting with natural materials?
>If it's only flat art that Mani accepts, Goldsworthy's photographs
>would definitely qualify as ART.
>
>Marilyn
>
Goldsworthy; he not only creates unusual, ephemeral objects of great
beauty using natural materials both delicate and massive, he then
proceeds to take stunning photographs that capture the essence of the
works quite nicely. I'm pretty jealous of a set of technical and
artistic skills like that...
I'm not sure if sculpture and photography fall under Mani's definition
of art, which I'm fortunately not bound by. I am sort'a curious to
see what he has to say about it.
Marilyn
Neil Maxwell wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 06:56:05 -0700, Marilyn Welch
> <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> >
> >Isn't Goldsworthy actually painting with natural materials?
> >If it's only flat art that Mani accepts, Goldsworthy's photographs
> >would definitely qualify as ART.
> >
> >Marilyn
> >
> Yah, I would agree with that. This is part of what I love about
> Goldsworthy; he not only creates unusual, ephemeral objects of great
> beauty using natural materials both delicate and massive, he then
> proceeds to take stunning photographs that capture the essence of the
> works quite nicely. I'm pretty jealous of a set of technical and
> artistic skills like that...
Maybe he has a bunch of minions doing the actual work (?)
I see that the infinite patience needed for sewing together rose petals or
maple leaves with pieces of fine straw as similar in a way to that needed
for fine art photography. (oh oh here it comes, "photography ain't art"
posts. Go away!)
He's been to Canada, I would love to see what he would do in my
environment on Vancouver Island.
>
> I'm not sure if sculpture and photography fall under Mani's definition
> of art, which I'm fortunately not bound by. I am sort'a curious to
> see what he has to say about it.
>
> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
He'll just keep on repeating in the same groove about 1950-60's art. He
says he doesn't get out much, maybe not since the late 60's.
Marilyn
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>
>Neil Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Yah, I would agree with that. This is part of what I love about
>> Goldsworthy; he not only creates unusual, ephemeral objects of great
>> beauty using natural materials both delicate and massive, he then
>> proceeds to take stunning photographs that capture the essence of the
>> works quite nicely. I'm pretty jealous of a set of technical and
>> artistic skills like that...
>
>Maybe he has a bunch of minions doing the actual work (?)
>I see that the infinite patience needed for sewing together rose petals or
>maple leaves with pieces of fine straw as similar in a way to that needed
>for fine art photography. (oh oh here it comes, "photography ain't art"
>posts. Go away!)
>He's been to Canada, I would love to see what he would do in my
>environment on Vancouver Island.
>
conceptualist who hires talented craftsfolk, a la Jeff Koons, and he
may even hire photographers, in which case my question to Mani is
moot. I was browsing one of his books that discussed some of the
techniques he used, though, and he sounded pretty hands-on. He'd
obviously need some help craning big hunks of rock into place, and
performing tedious, repetitive tasks like sewing leaves together.
This brings up the whole discussion of what defines the artist
(possibly segueing into Mani's "no skill" topic), and the
controversies around folks using workshop production techniques like
Chihuly, Kostabi, Dali, etc. I lean towards inspiration and vision
being more important than technical skill overall, but both are
important. Poor execution of a brilliant design can destroy its
aesthetic value, but the best execution of a mediocre concept won't
help. Japanese ukiyo-e prints are full of examples of both of these
concepts, as well as the workshop production values.
>>
>> I'm not sure if sculpture and photography fall under Mani's definition
>> of art, which I'm fortunately not bound by. I am sort'a curious to
>> see what he has to say about it.
>>
>> Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
>
>He'll just keep on repeating in the same groove about 1950-60's art. He
>says he doesn't get out much, maybe not since the late 60's.
>
No, apparently not. It's fascinating to read what he says (at first,
anyway), even though I don't agree with him much. He makes some good
points, but his steamroller agenda tends to obscure them, and his
conceptual blinders alienate lots of folks, it seems. To each their
own...
mdeli
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:16:25 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>I believe Christo is very clever and chose to become a charlatan and
>>won at that game. As I have said many times here I admire this quality
>>while I find the massive population of losers at that game amusingly
>>ludicrous.
>>
>It's not clear to me what your criticisms of Christo are, however,
>it's worth pointing out that the skills/craft/expertise involved in
>creating a large installation such as his are still skills, though
>they are not what you seem to define as "art skills"
Indeed they are BS skills.
(presumably only
>involving paints and brushes?).
Presumed by you!
>As an engineer and an artist, I
>admire the technical skills involved in his creations as well as the
>inspiration and beauty of the completed piece.
Tell us how you feel about a skilled department store window.
Neil Maxwell
On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:46:03 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>
>>It's not clear to me what your criticisms of Christo are, however,
>>it's worth pointing out that the skills/craft/expertise involved in
>>creating a large installation such as his are still skills, though
>>they are not what you seem to define as "art skills"
>
>Indeed they are BS skills.
>
I wish you'd elaborate a bit. I assume (there's that problem again,
but what choice do I have?) that you're talking about his
self-promotion skills, which have more to do with personality than
with artistic rendering. I'm talking about technical skills; that is,
the skills necessary to go from a mental concept to a physical
manifestation. I'm agreeing with you that technical skills can be a
key part of creating art, and I'm trying to find out where you draw
the line. Is canvas-stretching an art skill? Pigment mixing? Rock
chiseling? Capturing light on film?
I suppost I'm reaching for the conclusion that a person with
sufficient skill and creativity (as recognized by mdeli) who chose to
create something categorized as abstract would then be an artist
creating art, by the implications of the "no skill no art" manifesto.
Otherwise, you're defining art by content as well, and that seems like
a dead-end street, similar to some of your complaints about the MA
conspiracy.
>(presumably only
>>involving paints and brushes?).
>
>Presumed by you!
>
Please elaborate, and my presumptions will be unnecessary.
>>As an engineer and an artist, I
>>admire the technical skills involved in his creations as well as the
>>inspiration and beauty of the completed piece.
>
>Tell us how you feel about a skilled department store window.
I'm not sure how to interpret this (pesky one-liners), but does this
mean that a skilled artist (as recognized by mdeli) who creates a
department store window is not making art? That a department store
window designer can't be an artist? That creation by commission is
automatically not art? That certain areas of creative implementation
can't be considered art, regardless of the skill or creativity of the
person implementing them?
This sounds suspiciously like the thoughts of the suspect MA system,
who disdain Norman Rockwell because of his subject matter. I don't
know where you stand on him, so this may be a bad example.
I'm not trying to be difficult, just looking for logical consistency
(which is a major fault of mine, I'll admit).
mdeli
>I suppose I may regret this...
>
Why?
> I'm talking about technical skills; that is,
>the skills necessary to go from a mental concept to a physical
>manifestation.
It depends on the final product doesn't it.
> I'm agreeing with you that technical skills can be a
>key part of creating art, and I'm trying to find out where you draw
>the line.
The viewer draws the line. He senses whether artwork is creative and
done with skill.
> Is canvas-stretching an art skill? Pigment mixing? Rock
>chiseling? Capturing light on film?
>I suppost I'm reaching for the conclusion that a person with
>sufficient skill and creativity (as recognized by mdeli) who chose to
>create something categorized as abstract would then be an artist
>creating art, by the implications of the "no skill no art" manifesto.
"No skill no art" is a statement not a manifesto.
Abstraction done with masterly skill: Egyptian, Chinese, Persian etc.
Abstraction is found in most all classical and modern artwork.
Skill in the most general sense is the ability to make or do something
others can't do and thus creating something that people want.
After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
foundation with ones talents and ideas and attempts to create what is
regarded by others as artwork. This sometimes results in an ability
to create something people want and sometimes to creating something a
great number of people treasure for a long time (what most consider
great art.)
To all those who believe that I advocate nothing more than learned
skills I can only say that they are mistaken. I do advocate that all
art must rest on a foundation of the fundamental skills and that
anything which lacks this foundation and is presently classed as great
art will fail to withstand the test of time.
I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which inhabits our
museums does not even possess a modicum of skill.
I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be great art which anyone
with even a modicum of skill can imitate and even forge. I see no
merit in a work's claim of being first when it exhibits nothing more
than flat drips, stripes or schmiers.
If an artist hasn't the skill to do something most others can't do his
only real alternative is Bullshit.
The problem with the Modern Academic Art fundamentalist is that he is
solely exposed to the certified holy stuff occupying the modern
sections of museums. He believes that this alone represents the great
art of this century. He is rarely familiar with the rest of this
century's artwork which is carefully kept out of museums lest the
viewer be allowed to compare.
>>Tell us how you feel about a skilled department store window.
>
>I'm not sure how to interpret this (pesky one-liners), but does this
>mean that a skilled artist (as recognized by mdeli) who creates a
>department store window is not making art?
I'm not discussing what art is. I maintain that a department store
window is far more interesting than a bunch of junk lying on a museum
floor and calling itself art.
> That a department store window designer can't be an artist? That creation by commission is
>automatically not art? That certain areas of creative implementation
>can't be considered art, regardless of the skill or creativity of the
>person implementing them?
You said this not me.
>This sounds suspiciously like the thoughts of the suspect MA system,
>who disdain Norman Rockwell because of his subject matter. I don't
>know where you stand on him, so this may be a bad example.
He's a great American artist hardly allowed in museums.
>I'm not trying to be difficult, just looking for logical consistency
>(which is a major fault of mine, I'll admit).
Its an asset not a fault.
Neil Maxwell
each other as I suspected, only that we apparently differ in what we
consider skills, and therefore what we define as art, and that's
pretty much the way of the world. As a novice, relatively uneducated
in art theory, I try to keep an open mind about what I see in museums,
so if it appeals to my heart or mind or soul or gut, I think of it as
art, and I do find myself liking some heaps of stuff on the floor.
Possibly I'll get more selective with experience, but I'm finding the
opposite is true so far. However, I like to look through recent art
auction catalogs, and I'm often amazed at the things people will pay
lots of money for.
There's a maxim known as Sturgeon's Law that states "90 percent of
everything is crap", and I believe that this applies to pretty much
everything in life, including art of every description. In my
opinion, relatively modern art hasn't been winnowed yet, and there is
still much chaff, while with older art, only the best (by the
standards of the day) has been preserved at all, so we don't even see
the 90% that didn't make the cut.
Of course, many artists' works were considered trivial or too extreme
during their lifetimes and were "discovered" many years after their
deaths. It's only chance that keeps such works from being destroyed
in the first place. On the other hand, many artists were celebrated
during their lifetimes, only to sink into obscurity (sometimes
well-deserved) later. I certainly see some opportunities for this in
modern art, though I wouldn't paint an entire movement with the same
broad brush.
It's pretty hard to predict what will be considered a masterpiece 100
years from now. I can only assume that 90% of our predictions will
be wrong.
neil maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
ps - I agree that Rockwell was a great American artist, but I only
came to this conclusion after seeing a large and comprehensive exhibit
of his works in Atlanta's High Museum of Art several years back. I
don't know if this exhibit traveled elsewhere, but this one museum
(which also had a major Picasso exhibit a few years earlier), at
least, was willing to give him quite a bit of time and space. I only
visit Atlanta every few years, so I'm not sure about the High Museum's
long-term focus, beyond their (and my) fondness for "outsider" art,
which the southern US has a rich tradition of.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
mdeli
>Thanks for the elaborations. I find that we're not so far off from
>each other as I suspected, only that we apparently differ in what we
>consider skills, and therefore what we define as art, and that's
>pretty much the way of the world.
If you read my past messages you will notice that I carefully avoid
defining art. I prefer to speak about the quality of artwork and leave
this impossible definition to others.
>As a novice, relatively uneducate in art theory, I try to keep an open mind about what I see in museums,
Most so called art theory is little more than convoluted nonsense. Any
statement that has any merit in this topic is about stating the
obvious. Of course this is done with a maximum of obfuscation so one
sometimes has to decode it.
>so if it appeals to my heart or mind or soul or gut, I think of it as
>art, and I do find myself liking some heaps of stuff on the floor.
>Possibly I'll get more selective with experience, but I'm finding the
>opposite is true so far.
Probably because the vast majority of modern work which is allowed
into museums is little more than fashionable garbage.
> However, I like to look through recent art
>auction catalogs, and I'm often amazed at the things people will pay
>lots of money for.
The good thing about auction catalogs is that they mostly show a full
spectrum of available artwork and leaving the viewer with a free
choice. This is the opposite of the modern museum.
> In my
>opinion, relatively modern art hasn't been winnowed yet, and there is
>still much chaff, while with older art, only the best (by the
>standards of the day) has been preserved at all, so we don't even see
>the 90% that didn't make the cut.
>
>Of course, many artists' works were considered trivial or too extreme
>during their lifetimes and were "discovered" many years after their
>deaths.
This is mostly Modern Academic Art Mythology. Most all artists were
admired and rewarded in thier lifetimes. Exceptions were rare.
> It's only chance that keeps such works from being destroyed
>in the first place. On the other hand, many artists were celebrated
>during their lifetimes, only to sink into obscurity (sometimes
>well-deserved) later.
Most artists of the past who were at least craftsman are only obscure
to those steeped in Modern Art. Look at an artist catalog in a good
art library. All sorts of fine artwork appears in auction catalogs and
is avidly collected. In the past artists who didn't know their craft
ended up doing something else. Today there is a huge inflation of
failures who call themselves artists. There is good reason for their
failure.
> I certainly see some opportunities for this in
>modern art, though I wouldn't paint an entire movement with the same
>broad brush.
I don't. However I find at least 90% of the stuff inhabiting the
modern sections of museums without a modicum of merit.
>
>It's pretty hard to predict what will be considered a masterpiece 100
>years from now. I can only assume that 90% of our predictions will
>be wrong.
I don't agree, but that is another subject.
>ps - I agree that Rockwell was a great American artist, but I only
>came to this conclusion after seeing a large and comprehensive exhibit
>of his works in Atlanta's High Museum of Art several years back.
There's the rub! Rockwell and work done with great skill,
craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
have purchased over the years.
What's on the wall is what counts and if its any good the majority of
viewers over time will sense it. Modern Art depends on keeping fine
work out of public view.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
John Hutchinson
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3b69c180...@news.psi.ca...
> (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>
> >ps - I agree that Rockwell was a great American artist, but I only
> >came to this conclusion after seeing a large and comprehensive exhibit
> >of his works in Atlanta's High Museum of Art several years back.
>
> There's the rub! Rockwell and work done with great skill,
> craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
> sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
> simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
> have purchased over the years.
>
Norman Rockwell's work is uninspired. His subject matter is cheap and
overly sentimental. In his works, he portrayed the mythical America created
and promoted by advertising and propaganda sectors. This is not surprising
when you consider what magazines featured his work. In short, his work is
real cornball stuff, like pin-up calendars, Disney movies, big band music,
and other cheesy Americana. I'm not big on illustrators, but since it's the
trend to elevate them to the status of great artists, why not consider
artists like N.C. Wyeth or Howard Pyle who actually produced inspiring art
(even if great pirate paintings may not qualify as high art).
mdeli
that when someone doesn't happen to like Norman Rockwell I haven't
called him names, said he is bitter, insane etc.
"John Hutchinson" wrote:
>"mdeli" wrote in message
>> (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
>>
>> >ps - I agree that Rockwell was a great American artist, but I only
>> >came to this conclusion after seeing a large and comprehensive exhibit
>> >of his works in Atlanta's High Museum of Art several years back.
>>
>> There's the rub! Rockwell and work done with great skill,
>> craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
>> sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
>> simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
>> have purchased over the years.
>>
>
>Norman Rockwell's work is uninspired. His subject matter is cheap and
>overly sentimental. In his works, he portrayed the mythical America created
>and promoted by advertising and propaganda sectors.
Most of his most serious work which isn't cartoon like portrays a
facet of American life. Whether you happen to not like it is another
matter.
>This is not surprising
>when you consider what magazines featured his work. In short, his work is
>real cornball stuff, like pin-up calendars, Disney movies, big band music,
>and other cheesy Americana.
In contrast I believe that the majority of Modern Academic Art is
vacuous intellectual kitsch which needs a constant barrage of artspeak
in order to maintain any interst what so ever. Its only value if any
lies in a coveted signiture.
> I'm not big on illustrators, but since it's the
>trend to elevate them to the status of great artists, why not consider
>artists like N.C. Wyeth or Howard Pyle who actually produced inspiring art
Both are impressionists who I find second rate and fairly incapable
of the complexity that I find first rate. Their draftsmanship isn't
the best.
>(even if great pirate paintings may not qualify as high art).
I presume you believe that a large Picasso schmier does.
RBrac53660
masobach
> >
> > Rockwell and work done with great skill,
> > craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
> > sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
> > simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
> > have purchased over the years.
> >
Howdy Mani,
No matter how you look at it, fella, you are defining your *personal
taste*, and not describing museum policies even in a general way. You
do this because you need to explain to yourself why something *you*
don't like is in a museum.
Ask yourself this: Why am I unable to differentiate between a personal
bias and a widespread recognition of something I fail to grasp?
Countless people have pointed this out to you in one way or another
for years,
some so eloquently that you have benn absolutley unable to respond.
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Masobach
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>
>Norman Rockwell's work is uninspired. His subject matter is cheap and
>overly sentimental. In his works, he portrayed the mythical America created
>and promoted by advertising and propaganda sectors. This is not surprising
>when you consider what magazines featured his work. In short, his work is
>real cornball stuff, like pin-up calendars, Disney movies, big band music,
>and other cheesy Americana. I'm not big on illustrators, but since it's the
>trend to elevate them to the status of great artists, why not consider
>artists like N.C. Wyeth or Howard Pyle who actually produced inspiring art
>(even if great pirate paintings may not qualify as high art).
>
different kinds of inspiration and art. While you may not approve of
what Rockwell portrays, it's just another aspect of life interpreted
and portrayed by someone who has committed a great deal of their life,
skill, and effort to their particular vision. Accessible or popular
art has always been easy to scorn, but appeal to the masses doesn't
reduce the legitimacy of it, in my opinion, nor does a seemingly
derogatory label such as "illustrator".
Perhaps I'm falling into your cornball Americana stereotype (first
time for me!), but my family enjoyed the Rockwell exhibit greatly, and
we all came away with a new appreciation for him. Lest this
pigeonhole them as cheesy sentimentalists, they also liked some of the
Cornell, Close, Koons, Warhol, and Ofili works we recently saw at the
SFMOMA, (for a few of the pieces they talked about afterwards - no
Rockwell there!). Maybe there is a sentimentalist thread in all of
that, after all, but I guess that's the good sentimentalism.
I'll admit I didn't try to influence my kids with my previous
assessment of Rockwell, which was very similar to yours, as I like to
hear their own reactions to art, rather than echoes of my prejudices.
My favorite question to them at museums and galleries is "Which piece
would you like to have in your room?", and the answer often surprises
me (which is why I keep asking it).
One person's art is another person's dreck...
Fawn Dew
neil.maxw...@nosp-mintel.com says...
>I'll admit I didn't try to influence my kids with my previous
>assessment of Rockwell, which was very similar to yours
I admire Rockwell for what he did, which
is to make people smile with his art.
It's too bad today's generation doesn't
appreciate that IN CONTEXT of Rockwell's
time, he was much admired by just about
anyone who you might ask - man on the
street sort of people. Today we find
people so damned cynical they can't
appreciate anything unless it's smothered
in sensationalism, angst, and sexual
innuendo.
mdeli
>Mani, arbitor of limiting taste, wrote:
>> >
>> > Rockwell and work done with great skill,
>> > craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
>> > sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
>> > simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
>> > have purchased over the years.
>> >
>
>
>Howdy Mani,
>
>No matter how you look at it, fella, you are defining your *personal
>taste*, and not describing museum policies even in a general way.
Can you name a large museum collection that owns Rockwell or any top
so-called illustrators and comic artists and cartoonists and exhibits
them along with other contemporaries?
>You
>do this because you need to explain to yourself why something *you*
>don't like is in a museum.
Not at all. I have always suggested that museums exhibit work
representing both sides of the presently polarized opinion. I also
suggested two curators, one from each side.
>
>Ask yourself this: Why am I unable to differentiate between a personal
>bias and a widespread recognition of something I fail to grasp?
Ask yourself the same loaded question.
>Countless people have pointed this out to you in one way or another
>for years,
>some so eloquently that you have benn absolutley unable to respond.
>Why?
Probably because you don't read my responses.
RBrac53660
>Can you name a large museum collection that owns Rockwell or any top
>so-called illustrators and comic artists and cartoonists and exhibits
>them along with other contemporaries?
>
The High Low exhibit Museum of Modern Art New York city, not all in there
collection is AE. Not sure if Rockwall was in it but I'm pretty sure he was.
Also I think the national Gallery (U.S.) has him too.
You are still boring
Get on a rampage or something!
Marilyn
RBrac53660 wrote:
Obsessed with Rockwell. Even Rockwell didn't admire Rockwell as much.
Must be the heat in Toronto, they've just announced a Heat Alert, advising the
population to go to cooling shelters. Mani is refusing to go because there are no
computers there.
Marilyn
RBrac53660
wow above 80 f I feel sorry for you'll
>Mani is refusing to go because there are no
>computers there.
No that is not it. He has a point to make. Part of the problem is that his
masturbation leaves to much residue. The second part is that one masterbates
alone with the enjoyment of self. And then thirdly one might become worldly
and share....................?
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Marilyn
RBrac53660 wrote:
> >Must be the heat in Toronto,
>
> wow above 80 f I feel sorry for you'll
>
Up to 101 degrees F, in some places. Plus they get the pollution from Detroit.
(thanks America!).
>
> >Mani is refusing to go because there are no
> >computers there.
>
> No that is not it. He has a point to make. Part of the problem is that his
> masturbation leaves to much residue. The second part is that one masterbates
> alone with the enjoyment of self. And then thirdly one might become worldly
> and share....................?
> www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Sure, it could be gross performance art.
ljrobins
mdeli wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2001 07:14:02 -0700, maso...@yahoo.com (masobach) wrote:
>
> >Mani, arbitor of limiting taste, wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Rockwell and work done with great skill,
> >> > craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
> >> > sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
> >> > simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
> >> > have purchased over the years.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >Howdy Mani,
> >
> >No matter how you look at it, fella, you are defining your *personal
> >taste*, and not describing museum policies even in a general way.
>
> Can you name a large museum collection that owns Rockwell or any top
> so-called illustrators and comic artists and cartoonists and exhibits
> them along with other contemporaries?
Why do comic artists and cartoonists *need* to exhibit in galleries??? Their
art is made to fit within a more populist and mass media structure like
newspapers, books and magazines. Placing them within the white cube context is
not very well thought out if you ask me. My question is *why* would they want
to be in that context????????
Lissa
NightMist
wrote:
>
>
>mdeli wrote:
>
>>
>> Can you name a large museum collection that owns Rockwell or any top
>> so-called illustrators and comic artists and cartoonists and exhibits
>> them along with other contemporaries?
>
>Why do comic artists and cartoonists *need* to exhibit in galleries??? Their
>art is made to fit within a more populist and mass media structure like
>newspapers, books and magazines. Placing them within the white cube context is
>not very well thought out if you ask me. My question is *why* would they want
>to be in that context????????
>
>Lissa
>
>
Because they feel it would validate them as artists?
Because with all the bullshit floating about 'illustrators' and
'cartoonists' and what have you, they feel they _need_ to validate
their art?
JMHO
Barbara
mdeli
wrote:
>
>
>mdeli wrote:
>
>> On 6 Aug 2001 07:14:02 -0700, maso...@yahoo.com (masobach) wrote:
>>
>Why do comic artists and cartoonists *need* to exhibit in galleries???
I could ask you why incompetent schmiers and painted stripes need to
be in galleries.?
The art scene is totaly polarized. Both sides deserve to be exhibited
in places claiming to exhibit great art. Let the public decide what it
the art it likes.
>Their
>art is made to fit within a more populist and mass media structure like
>newspapers, books and magazines.
Most anything claiming to be art is in newspapers mags. etc.
>Placing them within the white cube context is
>not very well thought out if you ask me. My question is *why* would they want
>to be in that context????????
The same reason that Modern Academic Art is in that context.
mdeli
artist on the schmier circuit here. Welcome back.
(Dan Fox) wrote:
>Well done, Lissa. Mani got kicked out of art school (by his own admission)
>and has never forgiven art schools or the art world.
I was fortunate to be dismissed out of a Bauhaus type monastery which
I won't name. This pleases Dan no end as he has taught that sort of
crap. He loves to make believe that this somehow bothered me. I had
lots of fun there good sex, dope and fun students and never paid
tuition. Lots of very amusing and illuminating stuff can be found
about my art school adventures in my book.
To make Dan feel better I next studied at the Art Students League
mostly on scholarships and ended my years there by winning a MacDowell
scholarship to Europe. Furthermore the judge that pulled the majority
vote in my favor was non other than his holiness Clement Greenberg who
happened to like a big schmier I did especially to impress the Artzy
fartzies on the jury. Indeed, I have never found any reason to
forgive the art world as it has always rewarded me.
> He uses the internet
>to vent a full-blown delusional system that neither you nor I will ever
>touch - but sometimes his posts give birth to interesting discussions as
>to how and why he is wrong.
Check out my "full-blown delusional system," by looking at Dan Fox's
schmiers on his web site. He has a whole set of new crap which differs
little from the last set except for pretentious religious titles (has
Dan been born again?) and the addition of a bit of Twombly type scrawl
which is presently necessary in order to keep up with the latest
fashionable concoctions.
I suspect Dan's work attracts the pauper class of richies who can't
afford a charlatan like Twombly.
Tim Simmons
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3b76df5c...@news.psi.ca...
Hello. I looked at a few of Dan's paintings here
http://www.danfoxart.com/New_Work_Part_I/new_work_part_i.html
It looks to me that he has willfully abandoned the intermediate tones of
gray for the irreducible primary colors in an attempt to evoke a more
visceral response from..... oh, heck! Who am I kidding? They look like
they were painted by a first-grader.
See my lengthy post on skill as an addendum to this post.
tim
john cheall
Dan Fox's work is hilariously inept.
Why not post some life drawings on your site Dan and show us whether you can
draw for real. Then at least we shall see if your work is abstract through
choice or because it's all you can manage.
JC
Chris
Does one detect a bit of defensive posturing here? Not to put too fine a point
on it, but perhaps those who spend their lives painstakingly hand copying
photographs with double-ought brushes (and expend a substantial effort trying
to prove it really is art) might not be the best candidates for casting
stones..
Chris
john cheall
Ever heard of Photorealism?
It is art that requires neither a gallery nor an explanation for it to be
read.
I offer none.
JC
Chris
Yes I have John. But Photorealism is a far more ironic and intellectually
challenging endeavor than copying photographs. For those who are interested,
a a good summary (of Photorealism, with examples) is at:
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/photorealism.html .
Regards,
Chris
mdeli
>Not to put too fine a point
>on it, but perhaps those who spend their lives painstakingly hand copying
>photographs with double-ought brushes (and expend a substantial effort trying
>to prove it really is art) might not be the best candidates for casting
>stones..
>
>Chris
>
lives painstakingly hand copying photographs with double-ought
Chris
>
> >
> Can you supply us with the names of a few artists who "spend their
> lives painstakingly hand copying photographs with double-ought
> brushes and quote some of the "stones they cast."
> ...no skill no art
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
>
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Well, here's one: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jcheall/contents.htm . If one is
going to paint photos, Gerhard Richter 's methods are more interesting. As for the
stones, scan back a few posts in this thread.
BTW JC; Dan was kind enough to put up a scan of a quick sketch, looks ok to me.
Can you put one up, just to balance the scales? (No photo-tracings please :)
Chris
Neil Maxwell
>The ignorant know very well that abstract artists can't draw - if they
>could, by god, they would make real art (i.e, traditional figurative work).
>They know this because their perceptions are undeveloped. In fact, it is
>necessary to learn traditional skills first, then go on to abstraction if
>you want to, because it is more difficult. By the same token the ignorant
>discuss the virtues of various rock musicians while the rest of us listen
>to Joshua Bell, Alicia de la Rocha, or Kathy Battle. (look them up.)
>
It seems to me that we have here the crux of the issue: The
inflexibility of the two camps, partially brought on by the
name-calling and mud-slinging. There's more than enough room in the
brainpan for the appreciation of both de la Rocha and Hendrix, for
sensitive interpretations of 200 year old compositions and for wiring
talented hands directly to the creative spigot. Ignorance is tied to
narrowmindedness, in my opinion, and the blade cuts both ways.
I've always felt that anyone who focuses on one sect of an art
(whether visual, performing, musical, or whatever) to the exclusion of
others is missing a big chunk of life, but to each their own.
Please note that this thoughtful interlude is directed to both sides,
even though it's a reply to Dan's post.
john cheall
The life-drawing contest however would be a most degrading exercise.
Just check my paintings.
Chris
I did, but I didn't find any figure work Perhaps I missed it, and you
could point it out.
Regards,
Chris
john cheall
what is wrong with small brushes?
Chris
> and one more thing
>
> what is wrong with small brushes?
Absolutely nothing, it is the size of the mind that wields the brush
that matters.
Regards;
Chris
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3B78034E...@ns.sympatico.ca...
that he hadn't understood - maybe, one day, when I grow up and turn
nice, I will try something like that...
--
Want of variety leads to satiety.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Neil Maxwell <neil.maxw...@nosp-mintel.com> wrote in message
news:3b7809c2....@scnews.sc.intel.com...
> I've always felt that anyone who focuses on one sect of an art
> (whether visual, performing, musical, or whatever) to the exclusion of
> others is missing a big chunk of life, but to each their own.
>
Yes, I would agree with you, on the whole. However, it is also true, in
general, that art that takes more effort to understand and doesn't
reveal all at once is ultimately more rewarding - opera is considerably
more exciting than bubblegum pop music, for example.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris
- or was it Dear Abby?) put it - 'It ain't what you got, but how you use
it " LOL...
Cheers;
Chris
Dan Fox wrote:
> Are you saying size doesn't matter?
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
john cheall
Though the last hotel I stayed in had abstract works on the wall - or was it
just where the decorators hadn't quite finished - I'm not sure. You would
have probably loved it anyway.
Thanks for the crit. mr 'violent and constant'.
Neil Maxwell
>Peter, you said this better than I could have. Of course all music, like
>all art, is not created equal. From my experience, however, this is
>something the popular mind will never understand. Arguments that stress
>quality being 'just a matter of opinion and preference' abound. It's like
>talking about astrology.
>
>> >
>> Yes, I would agree with you, on the whole. However, it is also true, in
>> general, that art that takes more effort to understand and doesn't
>> reveal all at once is ultimately more rewarding - opera is considerably
>> more exciting than bubblegum pop music, for example.
>
At the risk of going further astray from RAF, I would also agree, in
general. However, I'd quibble with the word "exciting" in favor of
the previously used "rewarding". My 12 year old is fond of simple
classical works like Carmen and various Vivaldi and Mozart pieces, but
she's much more excited when the pop songs she hears several times a
day come on yet again. I expect the love of classical and other more
complex musical forms to grow long past when she leaves behind the boy
bands, though.
On the other hand, my wife is a bit of a connoisseur of vocal music,
yet she finds herself admiring the skill of N'Sync, and discusses with
my daughter how they compare to BackStreet Boys, who don't have nearly
as much harmonizing aptitude. The popular mind as personified by my
daughter (a single data point, granted) has no problems understanding
the inequality of these groups, and only lacks the technical
understanding of why her opinion and preference reflected this.
In any case, art appreciation is a subjective thing, and so I would
agree to lump it in with talking about astrology, in that both are a
matter of belief, and neither can be proven rigorously. If quality
refers to technical skills (only part of the picture to me), these are
somewhat easier to quantify, but I believe that this applies to
popular music as well as more rarified/elitist forms. For example,
YoYo Ma, while not in the same class as the previous examples of
musicians, is quite adept at performing popular compositions and
soundtracks, and has even appeared on Sesame Street, as have Itzhak
Perlman, Richard Stoltzman, and other classical musicians who do not
dismiss popular culture out of hand.
Sharon Barcone
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010813153058.830$h...@newsreader.com...
> Are you saying size doesn't matter?
>
Seems size only matters if you are using "small" brushes".
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
mdeli
>Well you know Dan, as that great arbiter of American taste (Ann Landers
>- or was it Dear Abby?) put it - 'It ain't what you got, but how you use
>it " LOL...
...but if you aint got it you can't use it.
Tim Simmons
> The ignorant know very well that abstract artists can't draw - if they
> could, by god, they would make real art (i.e, traditional figurative
work).
> They know this because their perceptions are undeveloped. In fact, it is
> necessary to learn traditional skills first, then go on to abstraction if
> you want to, because it is more difficult.
Hello. Would you mind explaining how abstract art is "more difficult"? In
what way(s)? I am asking an honest question here and really would like
your thoughts.
By the same token the ignorant
> discuss the virtues of various rock musicians while the rest of us listen
> to Joshua Bell, Alicia de la Rocha, or Kathy Battle. (look them up.)
>
I love the indirect jab. Name-dropping, too. But, if I cited twenty great
classical composers, what does that prove? That I have access to the
library?
> Using the logic of the ignorant, Mani once said I couldn't draw a toe. To
> make the point for all abstract artists, I dug out some demonstrations I
> did a long time ago. Here is an entire foot, toes and all. Ingres it's not
> - but then, who is?
>
> Now, guys - let's see your drawings.
>
>
I can't draw well. Guitar is (was) my thing. Anyway, I'd like an honest
explanation as to why someone would paint 6 or 7 large canvases of nothing
but solid one-colored stripes and display them as if they contain any
redeeming values. I want to know this because maybe I am missing something.
I did just plop into this NG unannounced and I am not a person who talks a
load of crap to get people fired up. In an earlier post, I simply gave my
honest (and possibly ignorant) opinion.
Nice foot, btw.
Thanks,
Tim
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter, you said this better than I could have. Of course all music,
like
> all art, is not created equal. From my experience, however, this is
> something the popular mind will never understand. Arguments that
stress
> quality being 'just a matter of opinion and preference' abound. It's
like
> talking about astrology.
>
definition of a snob is somebody who believes that excellence exists and
that it is important.
>
>
> > >
> > Yes, I would agree with you, on the whole. However, it is also true,
in
> > general, that art that takes more effort to understand and doesn't
> > reveal all at once is ultimately more rewarding - opera is
considerably
> > more exciting than bubblegum pop music, for example.
>
> --
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On 13 Aug 2001 19:21:51 GMT, danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
> >Peter, you said this better than I could have. Of course all music,
like
> >all art, is not created equal. From my experience, however, this is
> >something the popular mind will never understand. Arguments that
stress
> >quality being 'just a matter of opinion and preference' abound. It's
like
> >talking about astrology.
> >
> >> >
> >> Yes, I would agree with you, on the whole. However, it is also
true, in
> >> general, that art that takes more effort to understand and doesn't
> >> reveal all at once is ultimately more rewarding - opera is
considerably
> >> more exciting than bubblegum pop music, for example.
> >
>
> At the risk of going further astray from RAF, I would also agree, in
> general. However, I'd quibble with the word "exciting" in favor of
> the previously used "rewarding". My 12 year old is fond of simple
> classical works like Carmen and various Vivaldi and Mozart pieces, but
> she's much more excited when the pop songs she hears several times a
> day come on yet again. I expect the love of classical and other more
> complex musical forms to grow long past when she leaves behind the boy
> bands, though.
>
aesthetics that we are discussing and there isn't a philosophy newsgroup
devoted to aesthetics (yet, anyway). I think you are right about the use
of exciting - it was in order to make my prose less repetitive that I
used the word.
>
> On the other hand, my wife is a bit of a connoisseur of vocal music,
> yet she finds herself admiring the skill of N'Sync, and discusses with
> my daughter how they compare to BackStreet Boys, who don't have nearly
> as much harmonizing aptitude. The popular mind as personified by my
> daughter (a single data point, granted) has no problems understanding
> the inequality of these groups, and only lacks the technical
> understanding of why her opinion and preference reflected this.
>
other favourite the 'Kings Singers'.
>
> In any case, art appreciation is a subjective thing, and so I would
> agree to lump it in with talking about astrology, in that both are a
> matter of belief, and neither can be proven rigorously. If quality
> refers to technical skills (only part of the picture to me), these are
> somewhat easier to quantify, but I believe that this applies to
> popular music as well as more rarified/elitist forms. For example,
> YoYo Ma, while not in the same class as the previous examples of
> musicians, is quite adept at performing popular compositions and
> soundtracks, and has even appeared on Sesame Street, as have Itzhak
> Perlman, Richard Stoltzman, and other classical musicians who do not
> dismiss popular culture out of hand.
>
have their value, but one is generally more immediate.
Many great symphonies have been produced from themes from peasant tunes.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Tim Simmons <tim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bR1e7.8655$ZM2.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:20010813093542.034$p...@newsreader.com...
> > The ignorant know very well that abstract artists can't draw - if
they
> > could, by god, they would make real art (i.e, traditional figurative
> work).
> > They know this because their perceptions are undeveloped. In fact,
it is
> > necessary to learn traditional skills first, then go on to
abstraction if
> > you want to, because it is more difficult.
>
> Hello. Would you mind explaining how abstract art is "more
difficult"? In
> what way(s)? I am asking an honest question here and really would
like
> your thoughts.
>
in the real sense of artistic skill than producing an architecturally
accurate painting - because the real skill in art isn't in the hands,
but in the eyes and the brain. Seeing is everything - as John Berger's
'Ways of Seeing' managed so signally to fail to show!
Of course this applies to abstract art not modern decorative art (aka
'pure abstraction') which is indeed very simple and simple minded - not
that all decorative art is, some Islamic art, decorative as it is, is
also subtly abstract.
Marilyn
For some reason, I didn't get the original post but I got to see your drawing,
by clicking 'references.' Nice footwork !! Can't people tell that you can draw
by
looking at your paintings? Geez, what's wrong with their eyesight?
> "Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:20010813093542.034$p...@newsreader.com...
> > The ignorant know very well that abstract artists can't draw - if they
> > could, by god, they would make real art (i.e, traditional figurative
> work).
> > They know this because their perceptions are undeveloped. In fact, it is
> > necessary to learn traditional skills first, then go on to abstraction if
> > you want to, because it is more difficult.
>
> By the same token the ignorant
> > discuss the virtues of various rock musicians while the rest of us listen
> > to Joshua Bell, Alicia de la Rocha, or Kathy Battle. (look them up.)
> >
>
I object.
In all my ignorance, I love
Dylan, Tom Waits, Neil Young, Lou Reed, Leonard Cohen, Laurie Anderson,
Patsy Cline, Bruce Springsteen...& more
Miles Davis,
Bach & Mahler for certain moods.
> > Using the logic of the ignorant, Mani once said I couldn't draw a toe. To
> > make the point for all abstract artists, I dug out some demonstrations I
> > did a long time ago. Here is an entire foot, toes and all. Ingres it's not
> > - but then, who is?
> >
> > Now, guys - let's see your drawings.
> >
> >
>
No scanner.
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
john cheall <jch...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nS5e7.49069$e%3.74...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Rather than a life drawing it might be more reciprocal if I provide an
> example instead of one of my early abstract works. It being 'more
difficult'
> perhaps it will better demonstrate my work in terms of the criteria
with
> which you fellows are involved.
>
What is this an abstraction of or, if you prefer, from what did you
abstract this picture?
Chris
>
>
> I can't draw well. Guitar is (was) my thing. Anyway, I'd like an honest
> explanation as to why someone would paint 6 or 7 large canvases of nothing
> but solid one-colored stripes and display them as if they contain any
> redeeming values. I want to know this because maybe I am missing something.
> I did just plop into this NG unannounced and I am not a person who talks a
> load of crap to get people fired up. In an earlier post, I simply gave my
> honest (and possibly ignorant) opinion.
>
> Nice foot, btw.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
Hi Tim;
Me again; apologies if I ragged you a little harder than I ought to have. It's
a newsgroup, and sometimes one forgets there are people at the other end of
one's posts...
As for why paint stripes - I guess the answer is, why not? Each person, artist
or not - should feel free to explore ideas that to them seem important, within
the context of respecting others' fundamental rights. The more people are able
to freely choose their own paths, the greater the benefit to all of us, in the
long run. (I am indebted to Hayek for that idea). Barnett Newman can paint big
stripes to his heart's content , even if in terms of aesthetics, I'd say the
visual effects he obtained with Voices of Fire were already thoroughly explored
by Germans in the 30's, and really did not need repeating. Time eventually
sifts out what is important, and what is not.
My only deep objection comes when one group of people attempts to guide the
choices of others through the use of force, or fraud. Which is why I can feel
free to poke fun at Newman's painting, as it was acquired through the use of
tax dollars (which are obtained through the threat - however genteel - of
force), and not a work freely given to the museum (which forms the basis of the
holodings in the US National Gallery), for the purpose of forming a centerpiece
to their collection, and raising the cultural level of Canadians. Buit that, in
turn, fundamentally denies the basic of humanity of what some deride as "the
herd" (rather than, of course, "the heard".)
Regards, and apologies;
Chris
PS. I did listen to all the sample tracks, I would have liked to hear more of
the one that was in a sense the least "musical", though I have forgotten its
name.
Neil Maxwell
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>I think that it is very closely connected to raf - it is the essence of
>aesthetics that we are discussing and there isn't a philosophy newsgroup
>devoted to aesthetics (yet, anyway). I think you are right about the use
>of exciting - it was in order to make my prose less repetitive that I
>used the word.
Yah, I agree. I've chased music much longer than art, and it's easier
for me to discuss, so while the subject is a bit OT, the concepts are
valid for many of this group's discussions..
>
>I am a tremendous fan of 'The Flying Pickets' whose skill exceeds my
>other favourite the 'Kings Singers'.
I'm unfamiliar with both of these groups, and have added them to my
"dig them up" list. We're always seeking new sounds at my house.
>
>Many great symphonies have been produced from themes from peasant tunes.
>
Surprisingly (or maybe not), these tend to be some of my favorites.
>--
>Want of variety leads to satiety.
>
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > >
> >Many great symphonies have been produced from themes from peasant
tunes.
> >
> Surprisingly (or maybe not), these tend to be some of my favorites.
>
To qualify that remark I should say that I need to be in the right mood
for Bach.
ABD
I may not be a great artist (yet) but I for one, think your work is
inspirational, Dan. It evokes a reaction in me, of calmness, and pure
creativity. It is a true pleasure to view.
The simple elegantness of your work is accentuated by the textural effect of
your backgrounds, and the careful use of color. Less is more.
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20010813093542.034$p...@newsreader.com...
> The ignorant know very well that abstract artists can't draw - if they
> could, by god, they would make real art (i.e, traditional figurative
work).
> They know this because their perceptions are undeveloped. In fact, it is
> necessary to learn traditional skills first, then go on to abstraction if
> you want to, because it is more difficult. By the same token the ignorant
> discuss the virtues of various rock musicians while the rest of us listen
> to Joshua Bell, Alicia de la Rocha, or Kathy Battle. (look them up.)
>
> Using the logic of the ignorant, Mani once said I couldn't draw a toe. To
> make the point for all abstract artists, I dug out some demonstrations I
> did a long time ago. Here is an entire foot, toes and all. Ingres it's not
> - but then, who is?
>
> Now, guys - let's see your drawings.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ABD
is in the hands. Meaning, the repetition of a task leads to skill. Almost
anyone can develop a skill, but not everyone can tap into the pool of
creativity so easily that we all possess. For some of us, it is a easy as
rolling out of bed. Others have to struggle. True genius does not have to
struggle, but chooses to in pursuit of their own view of excellence and
purity.
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9ladm3$1ec$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
ABD
was BORING and had cheap written all over it. There was little creativity
in it, merely schmiers of colors which seemed randomly chosen. It was
almost like a joke . . . let's see if they will buy this . . . anyone can do
this - mentality.
john cheall <jch...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bvXd7.8635$v86.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
ABD
gallery I managed, we sold a lot of Ralph Goings. Clients loved the salt
and pepper shakers.
> john cheall wrote:
>
> > Chris
> > Ever heard of Photorealism?
> > It is art that requires neither a gallery nor an explanation for it to
be
> > read.
> > I offer none.
> >
> > JC
> >
> > www.cheall.co.uk
>
> Yes I have John. But Photorealism is a far more ironic and intellectually
> challenging endeavor than copying photographs. For those who are
interested,
> a a good summary (of Photorealism, with examples) is at:
> http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/photorealism.html .
>
>
> Chris
>
>
Julie A
>
> It seems to me that we have here the crux of the issue: The
> inflexibility of the two camps, partially brought on by the
> name-calling and mud-slinging. There's more than enough room in the
> brainpan for the appreciation of both de la Rocha and Hendrix, for
> sensitive interpretations of 200 year old compositions and for wiring
> talented hands directly to the creative spigot. Ignorance is tied to
> narrowmindedness, in my opinion, and the blade cuts both ways.
>
> I've always felt that anyone who focuses on one sect of an art
> (whether visual, performing, musical, or whatever) to the exclusion of
> others is missing a big chunk of life, but to each their own.
>
> even though it's a reply to Dan's post.
I've been lurking here for a couple of months now (only posted once!), but
this discussion is one of the most interesting I've read so far.
Particularly your views, Neil - I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts,
and I completely agree with you in respect of people being narrowminded in
connection with art/the arts.
Julie
--
http://www.dust-blue.co.uk
http://www.inside-art.co.uk
Peter H.M. Brooks
ABD <1...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:ZBge7.20103$lr2.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> I feel that the real creativity is in the eyes and the brain, and the
skill
> is in the hands. Meaning, the repetition of a task leads to skill.
Almost
> anyone can develop a skill, but not everyone can tap into the pool of
> creativity so easily that we all possess. For some of us, it is a
easy as
> rolling out of bed. Others have to struggle. True genius does not
have to
> struggle, but chooses to in pursuit of their own view of excellence
and
> purity.
>
one thing that distinguished people at the very top of their profession
(musicians, artists, actors, etc. etc.) was not innate talent but lots
and lots of practice every single day.
So the first part of your post is right.
Tim Simmons
No apology needed (or expected). I just felt that I needed to defend my CD
with actual tangible evidence and maybe see if you had not listened to many
tunes. But yes, I admit, it's very song-oriented. Song meaning today's
verse-chorus-solo structure. It isn't opera, classical, jazz, country and
shouldn't be judged by the rules of any specific genre other than melodic
pop guitar goodies (like Satriani, Steve Vai, Brian May, Eric Johnson, etc.)
Although these have influenced me, I am making no claim to be "as good"
technically or musically. Just pretty good. hehehehheh
Gosh, I hope you don't mean "Sheer Genius". That was a joke to see how bad
a guitar could sound. Thankfully, it lasts only about 30 seconds. Well,
take care and thanks for the comments.
tim
Neil Maxwell
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>>
>Actually this is a myth. A study a couple of years ago showed that the
>one thing that distinguished people at the very top of their profession
>(musicians, artists, actors, etc. etc.) was not innate talent but lots
>and lots of practice every single day.
>
>So the first part of your post is right.
>
player Willie Mosconi to bon mot dilettante Oscar Wilde, along these
lines:
"I've been very lucky so far, and I find the harder I work, the
luckier I get".
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "I've been very lucky so far, and I find the harder I work, the
> luckier I get".
>
woman and she loves brave men. Fortune favours the well prepared mind.
Napoleon used luck in choosing his officers. On hearing of somebody's
sterling qualities he would ask; 'But is he lucky?'. Of course we all
know what happened to Boney in the end, but he had a fair bit of luck on
the way there.
Neil Maxwell
<jays...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I've been lurking here for a couple of months now (only posted once!), but
>this discussion is one of the most interesting I've read so far.
>Particularly your views, Neil - I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts,
>and I completely agree with you in respect of people being narrowminded in
>connection with art/the arts.
>
theory to discuss it with this crowd, but I grok tolerance and
aesthetic exploration pretty well. It's amazing the effect having to
explain things to your kids can have on questioning your assumptions
and opening your perceptions.
neil maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:50:25 +0100, "Julie A"
> <jays...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >I've been lurking here for a couple of months now (only posted
once!), but
> >this discussion is one of the most interesting I've read so far.
> >Particularly your views, Neil - I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your
posts,
> >and I completely agree with you in respect of people being
narrowminded in
> >connection with art/the arts.
> >
> Thanks for the kind words! I don't feel comfortable enough with art
> theory to discuss it with this crowd, but I grok tolerance and
> aesthetic exploration pretty well. It's amazing the effect having to
> explain things to your kids can have on questioning your assumptions
> and opening your perceptions.
>
learn - particularly to question assumptions!
reg
mdeli
>Napoleon used luck in choosing his officers.
He also chose his relatives for important positions which led to utter
disaster.
>On hearing of somebody's
>sterling qualities he would ask; 'But is he lucky?'. Of course we all
>know what happened to Boney in the end, but he had a fair bit of luck on
>the way there.
After he was finally blown-apart he said, " The British lose every
battle but the last."
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3b7aefb4...@news.psi.ca...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" > wrote:
>
>
> >Napoleon used luck in choosing his officers.
>
> He also chose his relatives for important positions which led to utter
> disaster.
>
you, he might have been misinformed about them and believed that they
were lucky.
>
> >On hearing of somebody's
> >sterling qualities he would ask; 'But is he lucky?'. Of course we all
> >know what happened to Boney in the end, but he had a fair bit of luck
on
> >the way there.
>
> After he was finally blown-apart he said, " The British lose every
> battle but the last."
>
say anything.
john cheall
john cheall
challenging endeavor than copying abstract expressionists
john cheall
I think it's time you shared your work with the group.
can you walk the walk?
JC
Tim Simmons
> we are waiting Dan
>
>
>
Tim S.:
In fact, I've been holding my breath for almost a week now.
Dan, I'm eager to find out how painting 4 or 5 stripes across a white canvas
is "more difficult" than say, painting something similar to "The Last
Supper" by Da Vinci.
Waiting patiently,
Tim
Dale Ford
mdeli wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 09:09:27 -0600, ljrobins <ljro...@cadvision.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >mdeli wrote:
> >
> >> On 6 Aug 2001 07:14:02 -0700, maso...@yahoo.com (masobach) wrote:
> >>
> >Why do comic artists and cartoonists *need* to exhibit in galleries???
>
> I could ask you why incompetent schmiers and painted stripes need to
> be in galleries.?
>
> The art scene is totaly polarized. Both sides deserve to be exhibited
> in places claiming to exhibit great art.
I agree.
Dale
> Let the public decide what it
> the art it likes.
>
>
> >Their
> >art is made to fit within a more populist and mass media structure like
> >newspapers, books and magazines.
>
> Most anything claiming to be art is in newspapers mags. etc.
>
> >Placing them within the white cube context is
> >not very well thought out if you ask me. My question is *why* would they want
> >to be in that context????????
>
> The same reason that Modern Academic Art is in that context.
Dale Ford
mdeli wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2001 07:14:02 -0700, maso...@yahoo.com (masobach) wrote:
>
> >Mani, arbitor of limiting taste, wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Rockwell and work done with great skill,
> >> > craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
> >> > sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
> >> > simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
> >> > have purchased over the years.
> >> >
> >
> >
> >Howdy Mani,
> >
> >No matter how you look at it, fella, you are defining your *personal
> >taste*, and not describing museum policies even in a general way.
>
> Can you name a large museum collection that owns Rockwell or any top
> so-called illustrators and comic artists and cartoonists and exhibits
> them along with other contemporaries?
I would guess many illustrators would not like their work hanging beside a
Titian, a Van Gogh, a Bacon, a whatever. It is like parking your Honda Civic
beside a Ferrari. Nothing wrong with a Honda but compare it to a Ferrari and
well it doesn't compare.
Dale
>
>
> >You
> >do this because you need to explain to yourself why something *you*
> >don't like is in a museum.
>
> Not at all. I have always suggested that museums exhibit work
> representing both sides of the presently polarized opinion. I also
> suggested two curators, one from each side.
Yea one playing the Banjo and the other a guitar. They can fight over the 5.50
available for new acquisitions.
>
>
> >
> >Ask yourself this: Why am I unable to differentiate between a personal
> >bias and a widespread recognition of something I fail to grasp?
>
> Ask yourself the same loaded question.
>
> >Countless people have pointed this out to you in one way or another
> >for years,
> >some so eloquently that you have benn absolutley unable to respond.
> >Why?
>
> Probably because you don't read my responses.
Andrew D
+mdeli wrote:
+
+> On 6 Aug 2001 07:14:02 -0700, maso...@yahoo.com (masobach) wrote:
+>
+> >Mani, arbitor of limiting taste, wrote:
+> >> >
+> >> > Rockwell and work done with great skill,
+> >> > craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
+> >> > sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
+> >> > simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
+> >> > have purchased over the years.
The West Australian Art Gallery "hides" the best historical Australian
work in a poorly signposted gallery, away from the main gallery. I've
spoken to many artists who, despite numerous visits, were unaware our
gallery still had any decent Australian art from around the turn of the
century (1850-1940).
+> >Howdy Mani,
+> >
+> >No matter how you look at it, fella, you are defining your *personal
+> >taste*, and not describing museum policies even in a general way.
+>
+> Can you name a large museum collection that owns Rockwell or any top
+> so-called illustrators and comic artists and cartoonists and exhibits
+> them along with other contemporaries?
+
+I would guess many illustrators would not like their work hanging beside a
+Titian, a Van Gogh, a Bacon, a whatever. It is like parking your Honda Civic
+beside a Ferrari. Nothing wrong with a Honda but compare it to a Ferrari and
+well it doesn't compare.
+Dale
But in this case, Rockwell is surely the "Ferrari" whilst Pollock, Rothko
and others hanging in public galleries are something less than a single
wheel.
Face it Dale, which would you buy - a carefully crafted piece of exquisite
engineering, the result of countless hours of dedicated workmanship - or a
pile of junk thrown together and "called" a car? Which one is a real car -
and which one is just a con?
I'm sure many artists (sorry, "illustrators") would be more than happy to
see their works hang next to (or in place of) much of the trash that is
foisted on the public as "great art"...at public expense. I expect much of
the general public, who pay the taxes that pay for exhibits, would be
happier too.
How can anyone suggest that three red stripes on a canvas is "great art"
while Rockwell was "just an illustrator"? Sheeesh!
Andy.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
RBrac53660
>
>"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
>
With a really myopic view of art
Dale Ford
Andrew D wrote:
> In article <3B814153...@mb.sympatico.ca>, bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> +mdeli wrote:
> +
> +> On 6 Aug 2001 07:14:02 -0700, maso...@yahoo.com (masobach) wrote:
> +>
> +> >Mani, arbitor of limiting taste, wrote:
> +> >> >
> +> >> > Rockwell and work done with great skill,
> +> >> > craftsmanship and ideas which anyone can sense without a modern art
> +> >> > sermon is rarely allowed into Modern museum collections. The reason is
> +> >> > simple, the viewer will compare this to the crap that the curators
> +> >> > have purchased over the years.
>
> The West Australian Art Gallery "hides" the best historical Australian
> work in a poorly signposted gallery, away from the main gallery. I've
> spoken to many artists who, despite numerous visits, were unaware our
> gallery still had any decent Australian art from around the turn of the
> century (1850-1940).
That's a crime.
>
>
> +> >Howdy Mani,
> +> >
> +> >No matter how you look at it, fella, you are defining your *personal
> +> >taste*, and not describing museum policies even in a general way.
> +>
> +> Can you name a large museum collection that owns Rockwell or any top
> +> so-called illustrators and comic artists and cartoonists and exhibits
> +> them along with other contemporaries?
> +
> +I would guess many illustrators would not like their work hanging beside a
> +Titian, a Van Gogh, a Bacon, a whatever. It is like parking your Honda Civic
> +beside a Ferrari. Nothing wrong with a Honda but compare it to a Ferrari and
> +well it doesn't compare.
> +Dale
>
> But in this case, Rockwell is surely the "Ferrari" whilst Pollock, Rothko
> and others hanging in public galleries are something less than a single
> wheel.
>
Hey I am not an abstract expressionist. However Pollock's canvases for lack of a
better description is the reality of process over structure. He at one time was a
social realist then became an abstract expressionist. His abstract work, what ever
you might call it, was also very original and distinctive. I.E. He was the first
to do it.
Rothko's canvases have kind of a zen like thing occurring in them. Very mysterious
forms floating in an ambiguous space. Very meditative. They really don't reproduce
well at all. The tonal variations are just too subtle. Again very original, very
distinctive, first to do it, and very well crafted.
>
> Face it Dale, which would you buy - a carefully crafted piece of exquisite
> engineering, the result of countless hours of dedicated workmanship - or a
> pile of junk thrown together and "called" a car? Which one is a real car -
> and which one is just a con?
Well we differ because I don't think either of your examples are cons. And a Honda
is every bit a real car as a Ferrari, just not the same thing. And as a result the
market is bigger for Hondas, Honda makes more money. Rockwell made big bucks
that's for sure.
>
>
> I'm sure many artists (sorry, "illustrators") would be more than happy to
> see their works hang next to (or in place of) much of the trash that is
> foisted on the public as "great art"...at public expense.
I don't disagree that some of the work is trash. Nothing you have mentioned
though. But I have seen some in the big galleries and thought what the #@$**@#.
The BS does get thick some times. But that is due to the fact that the art world
today is so fragmented people don't know where to look. As artists that is
partially our fault.
The other problem is that galleries want an artist with only one voice, and the
same voice all the time. For example if I paint a picture of a purple cow and the
gallery sells that cow, they want more of the same. It is good business. They
develop a market for my purple cows. People know me as a purple cow painter and
now trendy people with cash want a purple cow, because after all Ford does purple
cows. They up the price (supply and demand) and we all make more money. Now if I
want to progress as an artist and not stagnate as a cow painter, I have a problem.
I want to do something else, I change my style, I create a problem for the gallery
as now they have to create a new market for my realistic landscapes. Big problem
because the gallery has been saying oh don't buy those realistic landscapes of
that other artist that is so passé.
That is the dilemma of our profession. It causes some artists to stagnate, rest on
their laurels and produce crap because they want to eat after all and success is
nice. So they keep doing the same purple cow, it becomes automated, uninspired, a
waste of canvas. But they are making money and gaining fame. That fame often gets
them into the big public galleries. I believe that the public galleries need
to throw open the door and put the work of newer artists whatever the style in the
galleries for display. I'll hang my paintings up beside a well know artist any
day.
Mani is right here. Throw the work on the walls. In in for that.
And if they won't open the doors then we as artists must be creative and find ways
to display our work, (without relying strictly on the commercial gallery), to the
populace in order to kick the damn doors down.
WhooooAhhh !!!!!!!!
> I expect much of
> the general public, who pay the taxes that pay for exhibits, would be
> happier too.
>
> How can anyone suggest that three red stripes on a canvas is "great art"
> while Rockwell was "just an illustrator"? Sheeesh!
I never said that. And I have no problems with illustration but illustration is
not furthering the lines of art history.
Dale
RBrac53660
>find ways
>to display our work, (without relying strictly on the commercial gallery)=
>, to the
>populace in order to kick the damn doors down.
>WhooooAhhh !!!!!!!!
>
The only problem is that the populace is there stupid. Then you wind with
painters Like Peter Max painting for the populace or Norman Rockwll painting
for the Saturday Eve Post. Hell even commercial artist today think there fine
artist in there commercial art. Part of the porblem is cultral colonialism
from the grand ole USA.
Oh great now I'm gonna get thrown in jail for sedition.
Tim Simmons
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010820234358...@mb-ml.aol.com...
> >Andy.
> >
> >"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
> >
>
> With a really myopic view of art
>
Tim S.:
I note that you did not try to address Andy's actual objection and merely
made an ASSertion. Claiming his view is myopic is not the same as showing
it to be myopic. I am not even a great artist or have a vast knowledge of
art history but if you folk are going to meet somewhere in the middle, both
need to put up or shut up. Mani and many others have put their beliefs out
in the open and if you think they are wrong, why not SHOW it? You do know
how to make an argument? You state your case and then provide evidence to
back it up.
So, again, how is 4 red stripes across a white canvas "great art" while the
illustration of Norman Rockwell is less?
Please provide a persuasive argument - not mere assertions. I, for one, am
very interested in this debate. I make no apologies about currently siding
with those who desire to see art containing detail, finesse, subtlety,
technical ability, knowledge of color, composition, and see it all combined
into a single painting. About all one can say of a 4 striped-canvas is that
it has no color clashes.
Thanks,
Tim
Todd Strickland
> I'm sure many artists (sorry, "illustrators") would be more than happy to
> see their works hang next to (or in place of) much of the trash that is
> foisted on the public as "great art"...at public expense. I expect much of
> the general public, who pay the taxes that pay for exhibits, would be
> happier too.
>
> How can anyone suggest that three red stripes on a canvas is "great art"
> while Rockwell was "just an illustrator"? Sheeesh!
>
> Andy.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
I just don't get it with the Rockwell crowd in this newsgroup.
Rockwell is a million times more popular than Pollock; In his lifetime
his works graced the cover of the Saturday Evening Post for decades,
brought directly into the homes of millions of Americans; I'm not
sure, but I guess that he died as a wealthy man (at least, much
wealthier than Pollock!); his work hangs in galleries and museums
around the world; when his works go on the market they sell for over a
million dollars; Rockwell kitsch is an industry in itself; I've seen
Rockwell calenders, Rockwell bedsheets, Rockwell dinnerwear! On the
rare occassions when I see Pollock kitsch it is still unusual enough
to be ironic, but not so with Rockwell because it's everywhere! I see
Rockwell reproductions used in advertisements, on billboards, on the
sides of buses and trains; Rockwell has even entered the English
language, as in the phrase "I had a Norman Rockwell childhood."
Imagine someone saying they had a "Jackson Pollock childhood" (scary
thought!)! So what's all this bullshit about Norman Rockwell not
getting the recognition he deserves? Rockwell isn't getting proper
credit if Pollock hangs in MOMA? What is this complex you people have
about "Modern art?"
If a popularity contest is what you're looking for then Rockwell wins
hands down! Now stop griping about how unfair the art world is!
Todd Strickland
Clara Knett
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>Face it Dale, which would you buy - a carefully crafted piece of exquisite
>engineering, the result of countless hours of dedicated workmanship - or a
>pile of junk thrown together and "called" a car? Which one is a real car -
>and which one is just a con?
You've evidently never encountered the sculpture
of one John Chamberlain...or an entire gallery
full of his works as can be found at the Menil
in Houston, where they even named the gallery
where his work is displayed after him...
Dik F. Liu
writes:
>You've evidently never encountered the sculpture of one John Chamberlain...or
an entire gallery full of his works as can be found at the Menil in Houston,
where they even named the gallery where his work is displayed after him...<
His sculptures are marvelous. I have only seen individual pieces here and
there. Museumgoers in Houston are lucky to have a gallery full of his works.
Dik
Neil Maxwell
D) wrote:
>But in this case, Rockwell is surely the "Ferrari" whilst Pollock, Rothko
>and others hanging in public galleries are something less than a single
>wheel.
>
>Face it Dale, which would you buy - a carefully crafted piece of exquisite
>engineering, the result of countless hours of dedicated workmanship - or a
>pile of junk thrown together and "called" a car? Which one is a real car -
>and which one is just a con?
>
Most analogies break down fairly easily, but here we go...
Because of the objectiveness of what defines a car, you identify one
pretty easily, while the definition of art is quite subjective and
taste-oriented. That said, owning a Ferrari is not a casual matter;
they are tricky to drive, often uncomfortable, expensive to maintain,
and unreliable. Most people are better off with a Honda. Automotive
aficionados avidly seek nearly non-functional cars such as "concept
cars", and they are admired and appreciated by other aficionados,
while a commuter would label it junk because it wouldn't fill his
needs. They fill different requirements for different people.
When I find myself having a knee-jerk reaction to art, I ask myself
these basic questions: Was it executed with skill, either intuitive
or technical? Is it inspired? Does it touch my intellect, heart,
soul, or gut?
All of these things balance in my mind, and an excess of one can make
up for the lack of another. If it moves me, that goes a long way.
Your maya may vary.
Andrew D
rbrac...@aol.com (RBrac53660) wrote:
+>Andy.
+>
+>"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
+With a really myopic view of art
It's funny how promoting representational art is "myopic" but dismissing
it as "mere illustration" is "enlightened".
Andy D.
Andrew D
+Andrew D wrote:
[snip]
+> The West Australian Art Gallery "hides" the best historical Australian
+> work in a poorly signposted gallery, away from the main gallery. I've
+> spoken to many artists who, despite numerous visits, were unaware our
+> gallery still had any decent Australian art from around the turn of the=
+> century (1850-1940).
+That's a crime.
Hence my involvement in the discussions taking place here.
[snip general agreement on the principles of what's "art" and what should
be in galleries. Sorry to snip but the text came through in fragmented
chunks]
+> How can anyone suggest that three red stripes on a
+> canvas is "great art" while Rockwell was "just an illustrator"? Sheeesh!
+I never said that. And I have no problems with illustration but illustrat=
+ion is not furthering the lines of art history.
I recall that, as a child, "art" involved spreading all sorts of colours
around on paper then slowly progressing to geometric shapes - all coloured
differently of course. Admittedly we used poster paints and butcher's
paper, but other than the quality of materials, the process resembled that
of much of the work hanging in public galleries. How is it "furthering the
lines of art history" when adult 'artists' explore "naive art" or resort
to "scribbling"? I'm afraid it looks more like regression to me.
Andy D.
Andrew D
ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp (Todd Strickland) wrote:
[snip]
+I just don't get it with the Rockwell crowd in this newsgroup.
+Rockwell is a million times more popular than Pollock; In his lifetime
+his works graced the cover of the Saturday Evening Post for decades,
+brought directly into the homes of millions of Americans; I'm not
+sure, but I guess that he died as a wealthy man (at least, much
+wealthier than Pollock!); his work hangs in galleries and museums
+around the world; when his works go on the market they sell for over a
+million dollars; Rockwell kitsch is an industry in itself; I've seen
+Rockwell calenders, Rockwell bedsheets, Rockwell dinnerwear! On the
+rare occassions when I see Pollock kitsch it is still unusual enough
+to be ironic, but not so with Rockwell because it's everywhere! I see
+Rockwell reproductions used in advertisements, on billboards, on the
+sides of buses and trains; Rockwell has even entered the English
+language, as in the phrase "I had a Norman Rockwell childhood."
+Imagine someone saying they had a "Jackson Pollock childhood" (scary
+thought!)! So what's all this bullshit about Norman Rockwell not
+getting the recognition he deserves? Rockwell isn't getting proper
+credit if Pollock hangs in MOMA? What is this complex you people have
+about "Modern art?"
+If a popularity contest is what you're looking for then Rockwell wins
+hands down! Now stop griping about how unfair the art world is!
I think many of us would agree with you. Sure, "traditional",
"representational", "realist" art is "popular" - but public galleries
around the world (galleries funded by taxpayers) seem to shun technically
brilliant art in favour of art requiring little, if any skill.
That's all the discussion is about (for me anyway). I repeat my previous
gripe that people visiting the Western Australian Gallery, for example,
could be forgiven for believing Australia never had any representational
artists - ever! This is because all the artistic greats have been
relegated to a poorly signposted gallery outside the main gallery which is
mostly filled aboriginal art (and quite legitimately) and "modern art".
Huge amounts of space are dedicated to oversized canvases spattered and
smeared with paint (I think it's paint) or various sorts of abstract
collage. Most of the work is just plain UGLY. It is dark and depressing -
and boring.
I've been to exhibitions judged by our local "art elite" and without fail
prizes are awarded to the most depressing, unfathomable, unskilled works
while the works of "gifted" artists (I don't really subscribe to the
concept of ability being a gift) go unawarded. The upshot is that the good
art sells and the awarded art usually goes home with the artist if it
wasn't acquired by the local authority holding the exhibition (probably to
the exasperation of ratepayers).
I'm not against "modern art" or abstract or expressionism. Each to his/her
own. But it irritates me no end that the public gallery my taxes help to
support continues to promote the ugly and obscene to the exclusion of
great art.
"Traditionalists" are constantly being told to be more open to
alternatives (I'm myopic apparently) but the reality is that it is the
modern art elite running many public galleries who seem to be
closed-minded about variety in art.
Andy D.
RBrac53660
>hands down! Now stop griping about how unfair the art world is!
>
But life isn't fair mommy