Age & Creativity
William Markiewicz
Hokusai said, "At seventy years I'm starting to learn."
My artist friend said, "By the time he's 40, the artist has already
shot his bolt. He spends the rest of his life repeating himself."
In my view those two attitudes illustrate the Oriental and Western
philosophical attitudes toward creativity. I discuss it in my current
issue of Vagabond Pages http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond
William
(I posted this header about January 12. It never went to newsgroup
archives and it leaves me wondering if the group ever saw it at all. )
Charles Eicher
> Hokusai said, "At seventy years I'm starting to learn."
>
> My artist friend said, "By the time he's 40, the artist has already
> shot his bolt. He spends the rest of his life repeating himself."
>
> In my view those two attitudes illustrate the Oriental and Western
> philosophical attitudes toward creativity. I discuss it in my current
> issue of Vagabond Pages http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond
I have a firm policy of never viewing advertised web pages. I broke this
policy to view your web page. I now pledge even MORE firmly than ever: I
will NEVER EVER view an advertised web page. Don't call me, I'll call you.
If its worth seeing, I'll find it myself.
Your essay (not to mention nearly every article you write) is full of
offensive racism and obvious mistakes. Let me just dissect one:
> The Oriental creator looks for a perfection that preexists on some
> esoteric super-human level. According to
> this approach, the human, through his own error, has lost connection with
> Perfection, with "paradise", and the
> Oriental creator has a sort of a monk-like religious duty to patiently
> seek the way back, following the masters'
> rules and formulas.
This theory actually owes more to the Italian Renaissance, and Leonardo in
particular. Leonardo wrote about how the artist was the 'divine
intercessor', he acted as the hand of god here on earth, and interpreted
the divine vision in a way it could be interpreted by mere mortals. This
theory (as applied to artists) has no predecessors, as far as I know, it
solely originated in the West, in the renaissance. This is completely
opposite of the buddhist theories that you (incorrectly) refer to.. You are
apparently obliquely referring to the concept of 'nirvana' and our own
delusions in the real world. Asian sages admit that delusion clouds all
thinking, preventing us from seeing paradise in our own world. Artists such
as Leonardo were exactly the opposite, thinking that only their pure
artistic ability allowed others to see things as they 'truly were'...
You also misinterpret the concept of "following the master's rules and
formulas".. For thousands of years, originality was not even considered as
a factor in asian arts; rather, it was how well one could copy one's
master's work that was the measure of one's greatness. Even today, there
are asian artists who work in styles dating back thousands of years. To
them, innovation would be anethema. And there are artists across the world
doing the same thing.
Let me summarize. In your short article, you make offensive generalizations
about asian culture, artists, and just about everyone else on earth. Was
this your intention?
I will NEVER view advertised web pages. NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER again.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Charles Eicher
> Hokusai said, "At seventy years I'm starting to learn."
>
> My artist friend said, "By the time he's 40, the artist has already
> shot his bolt. He spends the rest of his life repeating himself."
It has also been said that there are no child-prodigies in visual art.
While some children posess amazing manual skills, they do not have the
emotional maturity that underlies all great art. They may produce amazing
renderings, but it is mere illustration, if it lacks emotional depth.
However, there are mathematical child-prodigies, it has also been said that
every great mathematician was washed up at age 25, there are virtually no
instances of mathematicians making major breakthroughs after that age, they
mere work on theories derived from their prior youthful rush of energy.
Mathematics requires no emotional depth, only pure calculation. Even
idiot-savants can do that.
> In my view those two attitudes illustrate the Oriental and Western
> philosophical attitudes toward creativity. I discuss it in my current
> issue of Vagabond Pages http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond
While I have a strict policy against viewing web pages that solicit viewers
in this fashion, I will make an exception in your case. I have rarely found
a cultural comparison that can be distilled to such a simple equation. I
have yet to find a single intelligent essay discussing 'creativity' in
asian culture.
BTW, the accepted usage is 'asian' not 'oriental', unless you are saying
"occidental vs. oriental" (which is more correct than 'Eastern vs.
Western').
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
| BFA: Painting |
|BA:Asian Lit & Culture|
William DeRaymond
- William Markiewicz wrote:
>
> Hokusai said, "At seventy years I'm starting to learn."
>
> My artist friend said, "By the time he's 40, the artist has already
> shot his bolt. He spends the rest of his life repeating himself."
>
-
> In my view those two attitudes illustrate the Oriental and Western
> philosophical attitudes toward creativity. I discuss it in my current
> issue of Vagabond Pages http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond
>
-
> William
>
> (I posted this header about January 12. It never went to newsgroup
> archives and it leaves me wondering if the group ever saw it at all. )
I began my art practice under my master, when he was about 88 years old. He died at the age of 102 in May of 95. Up until the last year of his life he was creating paintings and sculpture. When he was 98 years old he did a beautiful portrait head of Charles Blockson, who is the curator of The Black History Museum at Temple Univ. It was installed there. You can check it out if you'd like at:- http://www.worldlightproductions.com/salemme.html
- When he was 59 years old he began meditating 2 hours a day, just watching his breath. He continued that practice - zazen - for 30 years. His work was the natural flowering of an original genius. His lifetime basically spanned the 20th century.
- It was always amazing to me when he would exclaim in childlike enthusiasm (at the age of 98 or so)"you know I'm improving!"
- He is a great inspiration.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
William DeRaymond
- I began my art practice under my master, when he was about 88 years old. He died at the age of 102 in May of 95. Up until the last year of his life he was creating paintings and sculpture. When he was 98 years old he did a beautiful portrait head of Charles Blockson, who is the curator of The Black History Museum at Temple Univ. It was installed there. You can check it out if you'd like at:
- http://www.worldlightproductions.com/salemme.html
- When he was 59 years old he began meditating 2 hours a day, just watching his breath. He continued that practice - zazen - for 30 years. His work was the natural flowering of an original genius, a lifetime which basically spanned the 20th century.
William Markiewicz
>In article <330dc...@oasis.idirect.com>, vaga...@idirect.com wrote:
>> Hokusai said, "At seventy years I'm starting to learn."
>>
>> My artist friend said, "By the time he's 40, the artist has already
>> shot his bolt. He spends the rest of his life repeating himself."
>>
>>....<.deleted>.....l
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>Your essay (not to mention nearly every article you write) is full of
>offensive racism and obvious mistakes. Let me just dissect one:
>.......<deleted>.......
>| Charles Eicher |
>| -=- |
>| cei...@inav.net |
You reject my position in a very confusing way, then you contradict
yourself repeating my own arguments with your name under them. And
what does it have to do with racism anyway?
And don't confound information with advertising.
William
http://web.idirect.com/~vagabond
Mdeli
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>However, there are mathematical child-prodigies, it has also been said that
>every great mathematician was washed up at age 25, there are virtually no
>instances of mathematicians making major breakthroughs after that age, they
>mere work on theories derived from their prior youthful rush of energy.
>Mathematics requires no emotional depth, only pure calculation. Even
>idiot-savants can do that.
Once again Eicher proves himself a wellspring of misinformation.
Anyone can read a history of mathematics and see that the above statement is
nonsense. Most great mathematicians lived to old age and produced mountains of
great work throughout their lives. I name a few Gauss, Euler, Erdos, Cantor..
I like the "emotional depth." Stuff. I presume Eicher is an emotional depth
expert. I guess his combination of Zen Boobism and postmodernism also encourages
him to fantasize about science.
Mani DeLi
Charles Eicher
In article <5f29r8$1...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
> Once again Eicher proves himself a wellspring of misinformation.
>
> Anyone can read a history of mathematics and see that the above statement is
> nonsense. Most great mathematicians lived to old age and produced mountains of
> great work throughout their lives. I name a few Gauss, Euler, Erdos, Cantor..
In fact, Gauss and Euler were two of the specific examples I was thinking
of. Both were prodigies, and most of their major works were done in their
youth. While they did have lengthy careers, most of it was just
elaboration, and derivation from their early ideas.
Don't get on my case about this, it isn't my theory, it was told to me by
mathematicians, some of whom were complaining about being washed-up old men
at the age of 24, when they were in Grad school. You should sympathize with
them, Mani, being washed-up before you could finish art school, and having
spent the rest of your life elaborating on that.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
M. Pinto
i think that you're "intellectually inadequate and factually uninformed",
yet at the same time deliberately provocative, which serves the rather
basic purpose of reinforcing the ideas of the Other...and yes, you're even
mildly entertaining. hah.
On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, mdeli wrote:
> "ARTSPEAK," unlike other languages aims at incomprehensibility. It is
> designed to seem fraught with a deep meaning which most always
> evaporates under scrutiny.
>=20
> Artspeak is unclear even to those who regularly use it. It is the
> jargon of the "in": critics, celebrities, academics, historians,
> gallery owners, museum directors and artists. Critics refer to it as
> the "language of modern art," while constantly lamenting that no one
> understands it. It is the lingo of intellectual kitsch.
>=20
> The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:=20
> 1- always use at least two hundred words where you could have used
> twenty.=20
> 2- always use obscure terms especially when writing esoteric theory.
> 3- when stating your objective opinion make it sound like it is
> universally accepted as unquestionable truth.
> 4- drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises
> that you are well read.
> 5- sound very serious. Any humor should be obscure, even grave.=20
>=20
> Artspeak generally addresses some of the following themes:
> 1- it is a subjective way of saying what amounts to, "I like this
> particular quality in the picture." in very longwinded prose.=20
>=20
> 2- esoteric theories around unrelated subjects like the forth
> dimension , quantum mechanics and sociological stuff and psycho-babble
>=20
> 3-pedantic comparative stuff. Best example is found in five pound
> Mondrian books which spend time talking about how he could have
> influenced Vermeer. When I went to school I recall a lot of talk about
> how Brancuzi influence on Michelangelo.
>=20
> Artspeak aims at a range between two audiences:
> 1- to captivate the Artzy fartzy who claims he comprehends the deeper
> meaning of what is said. That is until he is asked for the meaning. =20
>=20
> 2- to intimidate the non-Artspeaker for whom the obscure terms and
> flowery inflated syntax are designed to make him feel intellectually
> inadequate and factually uninformed. It serves to prevent any thoughts
> that the object in question might really be just another Put-on.
>=20
> The main stream of Modern Academic Artspeak today flows from the
> source of its originators the three Bergs who Tom Wolf complains about
> in "The Painted Word." Along with these but of secondary importance
> are the holiest newspaper critics. Though more widely read they are
> not considered the founders of the theoretical nonsense which fills
> the space of their articles and reviews.=20
>=20
> The two greatest and most intellectual MAA Artspeakers are Greenberg
> and Moholi Nagy. Greenberg was the Picasso of Artspeak. His timing and
> geographical location gave a whole population of totally incompetent
> artists their break to fame. If not for him they would have been
> members of that vast army of disgruntled incompetents who never did
> make it.=20
>=20
> Abstract Expressionism is primarily a product of Greenberg=92s writing
> and the style of Artspeak he founded. His theory of flatness gave
> post-war Modern Academic Art its establishment respectability. No de
> Kooning, Rothko, Kline etc. would survive without a steady stream of
> Greenbergian style Artspeak to prop up its inflated pricetag.
>=20
> Most MAA painting is of little real interest beyond its portfolio
> value and worthy of little more than a fifteen second glance by the
> man in a rush.
>=20
> The real artists today are those critics who can master Artspeak to
> such an extent that the richy viewer imagines he sees the be-all and
> end-all in a large canvas containing a few stripes, a chop suey of
> schmiers or a gigantic display of very incompetent realism. =20
>=20
> The only really valid things one can say about art are historical and
> technical. Most all else no matter how expressed is really subjective.
> All art theories which claim aesthetic universality have a half-life
> of about 20 years. All eventually become defunct
>=20
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>=20
>=20
mdeli
"ARTSPEAK," unlike other languages aims at incomprehensibility. It is
designed to seem fraught with a deep meaning which most always
evaporates under scrutiny.
Artspeak is unclear even to those who regularly use it. It is the
jargon of the "in": critics, celebrities, academics, historians,
gallery owners, museum directors and artists. Critics refer to it as
the "language of modern art," while constantly lamenting that no one
understands it. It is the lingo of intellectual kitsch.
The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:
1- always use at least two hundred words where you could have used
twenty.
2- always use obscure terms especially when writing esoteric theory.
3- when stating your objective opinion make it sound like it is
universally accepted as unquestionable truth.
4- drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises
that you are well read.
5- sound very serious. Any humor should be obscure, even grave.
Artspeak generally addresses some of the following themes:
1- it is a subjective way of saying what amounts to, "I like this
particular quality in the picture." in very longwinded prose.
2- esoteric theories around unrelated subjects like the forth
dimension , quantum mechanics and sociological stuff and psycho-babble
3-pedantic comparative stuff. Best example is found in five pound
Mondrian books which spend time talking about how he could have
influenced Vermeer. When I went to school I recall a lot of talk about
how Brancuzi influence on Michelangelo.
Artspeak aims at a range between two audiences:
1- to captivate the Artzy fartzy who claims he comprehends the deeper
meaning of what is said. That is until he is asked for the meaning.
2- to intimidate the non-Artspeaker for whom the obscure terms and
flowery inflated syntax are designed to make him feel intellectually
inadequate and factually uninformed. It serves to prevent any thoughts
that the object in question might really be just another Put-on.
The main stream of Modern Academic Artspeak today flows from the
source of its originators the three Bergs who Tom Wolf complains about
in "The Painted Word." Along with these but of secondary importance
are the holiest newspaper critics. Though more widely read they are
not considered the founders of the theoretical nonsense which fills
the space of their articles and reviews.
The two greatest and most intellectual MAA Artspeakers are Greenberg
and Moholi Nagy. Greenberg was the Picasso of Artspeak. His timing and
geographical location gave a whole population of totally incompetent
artists their break to fame. If not for him they would have been
members of that vast army of disgruntled incompetents who never did
make it.
Abstract Expressionism is primarily a product of Greenberg’s writing
and the style of Artspeak he founded. His theory of flatness gave
post-war Modern Academic Art its establishment respectability. No de
Kooning, Rothko, Kline etc. would survive without a steady stream of
Greenbergian style Artspeak to prop up its inflated pricetag.
Most MAA painting is of little real interest beyond its portfolio
value and worthy of little more than a fifteen second glance by the
man in a rush.
The real artists today are those critics who can master Artspeak to
such an extent that the richy viewer imagines he sees the be-all and
end-all in a large canvas containing a few stripes, a chop suey of
schmiers or a gigantic display of very incompetent realism.
The only really valid things one can say about art are historical and
technical. Most all else no matter how expressed is really subjective.
All art theories which claim aesthetic universality have a half-life
of about 20 years. All eventually become defunct
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
mdeli
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:52:45 -0600, cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher)
wrote:
>In article <5f29r8$1...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
>
>> Once again Eicher proves himself a wellspring of misinformation.
>>
>> Anyone can read a history of mathematics and see that the above statement is
>> nonsense. Most great mathematicians lived to old age and produced mountains of
>> great work throughout their lives. I name a few Gauss, Euler, Erdos, Cantor..
>
>In fact, Gauss and Euler were two of the specific examples I was thinking
>of. Both were prodigies, and most of their major works were done in their
>youth. While they did have lengthy careers, most of it was just
>elaboration, and derivation from their early ideas.
Nonsense. Why don't you get the facts before you gas off.
>Don't get on my case about this, it isn't my theory, it was told to me by
>mathematicians, some of whom were complaining about being washed-up old men
>at the age of 24, when they were in Grad school.
In other words you don't know what you are talking about.
> You should sympathize with
>them, Mani, being washed-up before you could finish art school, and having
>spent the rest of your life elaborating on that.
>
Eicher's clairvoyant Zen Boobist postmodern intuition is at work on my
biography now. It amounts to wishful thinking. Do you also stick pins
in the voodoo dolls in your installations?
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art
wsp
> On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, mdeli wrote:
>
> > designed to seem fraught with a deep meaning which most always
> > evaporates under scrutiny.
> >
drivel snipped
M. Pinto wrote:
>
> i think that you're "intellectually inadequate and factually uninformed",
> yet at the same time deliberately provocative, which serves the rather
> basic purpose of reinforcing the ideas of the Other...and yes, you're even
> mildly entertaining. hah.
>
Don't forget his other "qualities:" habitually reductive, hostile,
cynical and self-loathing!
wsp
> >In fact, Gauss and Euler were two of the specific examples I was thinking
> >of. Both were prodigies, and most of their major works were done in their
> >youth. While they did have lengthy careers, most of it was just
> >elaboration, and derivation from their early ideas.
>
> Nonsense. Why don't you get the facts before you gas off.
I don't see you "proving" it is nonsense; easy to make the claim though,
it is your expertise at bullshitting. Why don't you go to the
encyclopedia (just your speed) and get a few facts and make it look like
you know something more than a few little facts?
>
> >Don't get on my case about this, it isn't my theory, it was told to me by
> >mathematicians, some of whom were complaining about being washed-up old men
> >at the age of 24, when they were in Grad school.
>
> In other words you don't know what you are talking about.
Oh, the usual transparent tactic, sounds like a little distracting
retort. Too bad there is nothing, again, to prove CE doesn't know what
he is talking about. I get C.E.'s point though, he's refering to his
sources and sMeli is calling them bullshit. He calls all sources
bullshit, that's how he stays so underneath things.
>
> > You should sympathize with
> >them, Mani, being washed-up before you could finish art school, and having
> >spent the rest of your life elaborating on that.
> >
> Eicher's clairvoyant Zen Boobist postmodern intuition is at work on my
> biography now.
No clairvoyance is needed. The picture of you has emerged: you're a
loser. No one likes you and if it weren't for usenet no one would pay
any attention to you.
M. Moser
I am an artist and work within the Modernist tradition. I find alot of
what Mani Deli says hard to refute but I think what is overlooked is
the intimacy of a contemporary practice, the variety of creative labour
and discovery which is a whisper compared to the shout of alot of the
work and writtings referred to. In the end the dismissive and negative
geeralizations lack art and skill.
wsp
M. Moser wrote:
>
> I am an artist and work within the Modernist tradition. I find alot of
> what Mani Deli says hard to refute
His diatribe is easy to refute because he claims *ALL* is as he says it
is. He's very simplistic and very reductive about that to which he
refers (all of modern art).
He's finds an outlet for his own intense feelings of inadequacy in his
efforts to universalize his singularly dismissive position.
He's saying, "don't bother with modern art, it is all bullshit." That's
why he's a bullshit expert..
To be sure, there are some people talking about things to themselves and
thinking they are making sense. There are even some intentional
"bullshitters" out there. There are even "art movements" that have
failed due to the inadequacy of their theoretical positions. However,
the intelligent person has the ability to separate it all out; that's
your job!
> but I think what is overlooked is
> the intimacy of a contemporary practice, the variety of creative labour
> and discovery which is a whisper compared to the shout of alot of the
> work and writtings referred to.
I hear what you mean, the quietest people are often the most highly
developed intellectually and spiritually.
> In the end the dismissive and negative
> geeralizations lack art and skill.
That's not all his generalizations lack!!
M. Pinto
then why bother responding?
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, mdeli wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 23:53:17 -0800, "M. Pinto" <pi...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >i think that you're "intellectually inadequate and factually uninformed",
> >yet at the same time deliberately provocative, which serves the rather
> >basic purpose of reinforcing the ideas of the Other...and yes, you're even
> >mildly entertaining. hah.
> >
> >
> I think you are a twit who has nothing to say.
mdeli
M. Pinto
>>
>>That's not all his generalizations lack!!
>Can you imagine being in a class given by this patronizing jerk?
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
can you imagine teaching a class to this patronizing jerk??
Neal Weiss
In article <331b7d1c...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
> The only really valid things one can say about art are historical and
> technical.
Greenberg wrote about both; your ignorance underlines your demagoguery.
They are 'the only really valid things one can say'?
Your brand of demagoguery is what defines 'artspeak' in the pejorative sense.
Artspeak in the complimentary sense would be the application of
intelligence and insight to specialized material and subject matter, with
reference to art.
Thank god for educated individuals (a deficit in this country) able to
tell the difference.
You get no further responses to your posts because they have no merit.
Get an Education,Then Do Your Homework, Then Read Greenberg Before You
Misrepresent Him,
-N
-----------------------------------------
Neal Weiss
Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
mdeli
Its nice to know that my essays here evoke the paranoid effusions of
our resident Duchamp urinal expert "Pisspot" Parker. It assures me
that I'm on the right track.
>M. Moser wrote:
>>
>> I am an artist and work within the Modernist tradition. I find alot of
>> what Mani Deli says hard to refute
>
>
Pisspot Parker answers:
>His diatribe is easy to refute because he claims *ALL* is as he says it
>is. He's very simplistic and very reductive about that to which he
>refers (all of modern art).
>
>
>He's finds an outlet for his own intense feelings of inadequacy in his
>efforts to universalize his singularly dismissive position.
>
The usual psychobabble.
>
>He's saying, "don't bother with modern art, it is all bullshit." That's
>why he's a bullshit expert..
>
Speaking of bullshit you haven't made a concrete statement about
anything said here since your Duchamp's urinal lectures. All your
messages merely express your anger at those who happen to agree with
me.
>To be sure, there are some people talking about things to themselves and
>thinking they are making sense. There are even some intentional
>"bullshitters" out there. There are even "art movements" that have
>failed due to the inadequacy of their theoretical positions. However,
>the intelligent person has the ability to separate it all out; that's
>your job!
>> but I think what is overlooked is
>> the intimacy of a contemporary practice, the variety of creative labour
>> and discovery which is a whisper compared to the shout of alot of the
>> work and writtings referred to.
>I hear what you mean, the quietest people are often the most highly
>developed intellectually and spiritually.
>
>> In the end the dismissive and negative
>> geeralizations lack art and skill.
>
wsp
mdeli wrote:
>
> Its nice to know that my essays here evoke the paranoid effusions of
> our resident Duchamp urinal expert "Pisspot" Parker. It assures me
> that I'm on the right track.
Name calling again? I think people will start to call you "sMeli"
> >his diatribe is easy to refute because he claims *ALL* is as he says it
> >is. He's very simplistic and very reductive about that to which he
> >refers (all of modern art).
> >
> >
> >He's finds an outlet for his own intense feelings of inadequacy in his
> >efforts to universalize his singularly dismissive position.
> >
> The usual psychobabble.
I think it expresses your condition rather well. You certainly aren't
unique; your very easy to understand. Alot of people are pissed off
royally and do the same thing: "he finds an outlet for his own intense
feelings of inadequacy in his efforts to universalize his singularly
dismissive position."
> >
> >
> >He's saying, "don't bother with modern art, it is all bullshit." That's
> >why he's a bullshit expert..
> >
> Speaking of bullshit you haven't made a concrete statement about
> anything said here since your Duchamp's urinal lectures. All your
> messages merely express your anger at those who happen to agree with
> me.
What naturally twisted logic. I'm not angry with anyone who supposedly
agrees with you. If I am angry at anything it would be how much
dismissive cynicism based upon willful ignorance there seems to be in
the world. You are just the tip of the iceberg.
>
> >To be sure, there are some people talking about things to themselves and
> >thinking they are making sense. There are even some intentional
> >"bullshitters" out there. There are even "art movements" that have
> >failed due to the inadequacy of their theoretical positions. However,
> >the intelligent person has the ability to separate it all out; that's
> >your job!
>
> Can you imagine being in a class given by this patronizing jerk?
Read what I say just above and tell me what is "patronizing jerk" about
it?
Your response is yet another cheaply constructed accusation. It means
nothing because that's all you can do; there's no logic or reason to it.
You can't even see what I am saying, you can't respond directly to it,
you must just naturally do the most primative thing: you accuse. You
distort things pathetically to try to gain the "advantage," as you
perceive it. You want people to agree with your "singularly dismissive
position." You even miss that I don't really give a shit, I am just
telling it like I see it. I think my language is rather clean and
clinical when I get on your case.
Go ahead continue the attempts to get people to agree with you. You
should know there are at least four "kinds" of people here.
1. Those who agree wholeheartedly with the positions of open-mindedness,
education, curiosity, healthy skepticism, reserved judgement etc. etc.
(IOW the opposite of yours: willfull ignorance, cynicism, intolerance).
They don't have the time to deal with your mutterings.
2. Those who could care less about this whole thing and see you AND me
as having a flame war and thus we are both "assholes"
3. The people who benefit from your nasty dismissive, ignorant,
attitude, which they say makes them think out their own positions
better; they don't come around to your cynical ways, they can't come
around to your way, because at the onset they are thinking people.
4. The imaginary people in your head who agree with what you say. They
may be in another newsgroup, but I don't see them here. If there were
anyone here I hope they can take the ball and run with it, i.e. get some
decent discussion going: NOT the angry diatribe you contribute. Then if
they did this they wouldn't be agreeing with you now would they?
So, apparently the only value you have is for the people in 3. above.
Keep up the good work!
Jonathan Clift
In article <331FD0...@olympus.net>, wsp <w...@olympus.net> wrote
>>
>> >To be sure, there are some people talking about things to themselves and
>> >thinking they are making sense. There are even some intentional
>> >"bullshitters" out there. There are even "art movements" that have
>> >failed due to the inadequacy of their theoretical positions. However,
>> >the intelligent person has the ability to separate it all out; that's
>> >your job!
>>
>
Sorry, this isn't very relevant to the "fame war" you're having, but
could you give us some examples of the "art movements" that have failed
because their theory wasn't up to scratch?
From my (admittedly very limited) knowledge of these things, I'd say
personality conflicts were much more likely to have been the problem in
most cases. Bit like this group, really.
--
Jonathan Clift
mdeli
On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 02:57:57 -0500, nwe...@tiac.com (Neal Weiss)
wrote:
>In article <331b7d1c...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
>(mdeli) wrote:
>
>> The only really valid things one can say about art are historical and
>> technical.
>
>Greenberg wrote about both; your ignorance underlines your demagoguery.
Your academic arrogance underlies you inability to answer any of my
points. I'm well versed in Greenberg. He even helped me win a McDowell
scholarship by voting for one of my abstractions.
I stand by my word, Greenberg didn't know shit about technique.
>They are 'the only really valid things one can say'?
>Your brand of demagoguery is what defines 'artspeak' in the pejorative sense.
>Artspeak in the complimentary sense would be the application of
>intelligence and insight to specialized material and subject matter, with
>reference to art.
Indeed, Artspeak is asslicking complimentary. It is shill
complimentary. When did I deny that? Artspeak also fails to address
90% of all artwork produced.
Greenberg said:
"Experience, and experience alone, tells me that representational
painting and sculpture have rarely achieved more than minor quality in
recent years, and that major quality gravitates more and more toward
the nonrepresentational."
Whose experience? Anyone who believes Greenberg of course; with the
result that anything representational was not to enter any avant garde
space. Now the viewer who confined his viewing to MAA and no other
contemporary work would only see major quality in nonrepresentational
flat painting because he saw nothing else. Should he attempt to make a
comparison MAA theory warns that this is fruitless because modern art
was something utterly new, different and defined by a new language.
"The real and fundamental source of the dissatisfaction we may feel
with abstract painting lies in the not uncommon problems offered by a
new language." -Greenberg
In other words the problem lies with those who those who won’t make
the effort to understand Artspeak.
>Thank god for educated individuals (a deficit in this country) able to
>tell the difference.
How often do you thank God?
>You get no further responses to your posts because they have no merit.
>Get an Education,Then Do Your Homework, Then Read Greenberg Before You
>Misrepresent Him,
This pompous ass has nothing better to say to those he disagrees with
than to pass out homework and say "get educated." Its the usual art
school crap by someone who probably is bringing up the next generation
of failures.
Mani Deli
...no skill no art
Marliyn
To:
> ...no skill no art
A newspaper columnist offered this suggestion for artist population
control:
"It might be quite simply arranged to stage an armed
conflict between the Abstractionists and the Realists,
another inter-mural struggle between the Non-Objectives
and the Surrealists; and even a suicide pact amont the
Old-Timers, leaving the field uninterruptedly open
to the young Avant Garde." 'Galleries vs Artists,' ca.1951
The more things change, the more...
Is mdeli a Realist?
MW
Michael & Michelle
I am always a little apprehensive towards ideas that are based upon
"partial truths," for the simple reason, that they tend to sound so
irrefutable.
In essence, Mani DeLi's argument might be a partially valid one, but he
seems to ignore the fact that in most professional spheres there is what
one might call "shoptalk".
I for one, would defy any layman to make head or tail out of essays
written by philosophers such as Wittkenstein, Maleau-Ponty or Gilbert
Ryle, and even if you might argue that they are all what we might
consider to be "professional thinkers" and we are just, in comparison,
a bunch of "amateur thinkers," consider any other scientific field of
study - don't doctors have their professional jargon, or lawyers, and
how about programmers?
DeLi seems to infer that art (being a 'visual' language) ought to be
understood by any layman. In truth this is not really the case (as we
are all well aware)
Neither, is art necessarily something associated with skill, even though
previously the concept of art and craft were hardly to be separated.
But one can't deny that artistic styles and concepts of the 20 th
centuary have had a baring on the "outside" - The famous dictum of the
architect Miles van der Rohe, "Less is more", enjoys unquestioned
authority.
Art is something that is created in "context" to prevailing external
'elements' (for want of a better term), - didn't the industrial
revolution have any baring on art when craft was replaced by technology?
Should we refute the concept of "idea art?" (a concept based on the view
that the material used, is merely a 'servant' of some abstract notion
which can be detached from it and examined on it's own.)
Perhaps he thinks that we ought to revert to creating art like Michael
Angelo or Leonardo Da Vinci? -But somehow I doubt that this is to be!
Michelle Hoffman
(Jerusalem, ISRAEL)
mdeli
Michael & Michelle wrote:
>I am always a little apprehensive towards ideas that are based upon
>"partial truths," for the simple reason, that they tend to sound so
>irrefutable.
>In essence, Mani DeLi's argument might be a partially valid one, but he
>seems to ignore the fact that in most professional spheres there is what
>one might call "shoptalk".
The Artspeak in Magazines Newspapers and the theories written in the
Acadameze dialect of Artspeak is not "shoptalk," it is nonsense.
>I for one, would defy any layman to make head or tail out of essays
>written by philosophers such as Wittkenstein, Maleau-Ponty or Gilbert
>Ryle, and even if you might argue that they are all what we might
>consider to be "professional thinkers" and we are just, in comparison,
>a bunch of "amateur thinkers," consider any other scientific field of
>study - don't doctors have their professional jargon, or lawyers, and
>how about programmers?
Philosophy and science claim a rational.
There is no professional agreement on Artspeak terms; there are no
scholarly agreed on definitions. There is no rational other than
fashionable subjective emotion, no train of logic that can be followed
in Artspeak theorizing. There are no universally held aesthetic
conclusions
>DeLi seems to infer that art (being a 'visual' language) ought to be
>understood by any layman. In truth this is not really the case (as we
>are all well aware)
Anyone who likes a painting is not necessarily aware of any truth
about it. We don’t know anything about a painting we like having seen
it for the first time. Most choose to learn detail about an artist or
an artwork if they like it.
>Neither, is art necessarily something associated with skill, even though
>previously the concept of art and craft were hardly to be separated.
Art is not something anyone can do. Skill is the ability to do
something others want and something others can’t do. Skill is also
something many wish they had.
Artwork which lacks skill is of interest only as long as it is in
fashion.
>But one can't deny that artistic styles and concepts of the 20 th
>centuary have had a baring on the "outside" - The famous dictum of the
>architect Miles van der Rohe, "Less is more", enjoys unquestioned
>authority.
"Less is more," to those who strive to achieve practically nothing.
>Art is something that is created in "context" to prevailing external
>'elements' (for want of a better term),
>- didn't the industrial
>revolution have any baring on art when craft was replaced by technology?
>Should we refute the concept of "idea art?" (a concept based on the view
>that the material used, is merely a 'servant' of some abstract notion
>which can be detached from it and examined on it's own.)
All art is idea Art. So What.
>Perhaps he thinks that we ought to revert to creating art like Michael
>Angelo or Leonardo Da Vinci? -But somehow I doubt that this is to be!
The modern Artzy fartzy imagines than anyone who rejects the merit of
Modern Academic Art has no other intention than to turn back to the
art of the past. There is more fine art being produced today than ever
before. However it is not the crap generally accepted as art by Modern
Museums.
"The one thing an artist can’t avoid is being modern." S. Dali
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art
mdeli
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:20:40 -0800, Marliyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>To:
>> Mani Deli
>> ...no skill no art
>
>
>A newspaper columnist offered this suggestion for artist population
>control:
>
>"It might be quite simply arranged to stage an armed
>conflict between the Abstractionists and the Realists,
>another inter-mural struggle between the Non-Objectives
>and the Surrealists; and even a suicide pact amont the
>Old-Timers, leaving the field uninterruptedly open
>to the young Avant Garde." 'Galleries vs Artists,' ca.1951
>
This is the sort of fantasy the average dufus reporter comes up with
in order to fill in his required space. Speaking in a similar context
I suggest that if he is still around he might try suicide since his
population control theory failed by about forty years .
There are millions of young incompetent Avant Garde-ist failures who,
when they are not complaining about their poverty, walk aimlessly
around the streets trying to think of a new put-on in order to strike
it rich. A few "old-timer" successful failures teach courses in
"failure for beginners" to the future avant garde .
>The more things change, the more...
>
>Is mdeli a Realist?
>
There are two kinds of realistic subject matter in painting. One is
the representation of seen reality the other is real form in an
unrealistic context (surreal). Both are as old as art. I prefer the
surreal. From the point of view of the postmodernists I'm a realist in
all respects.
RSDC / White Crow
On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 02:42:57 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
<snip>
>The only really valid things one can say about art are historical and
>technical.
1. What aspect of history is valid? Others on this newsgroup have
claimed that a historical content is imbedded in a work by the artist
that is unchanging through the ages. The example given, I believe by
B. Attah, was Botticelli's Venus. What aspects, if any, of a person's
interpretation of history are valid in viewing a work of art? It is
my contention that my viewing of the Venus is entirely different that
a contemporary of Botticelli's because of the different histories we
accept. For example, I do not view women as property, while many of
Botticelli's contemporaries did. How does this affect the way we view
the work?
2. What aspect of technique is valid? In a previous post, you
trashed my description of the composition of a Vermeer painting as
"artspeak". Is not composition a technique? If not, why not? If so,
then what is the proper language to use in discussing it?
>Most all else no matter how expressed is really subjective.
So what's wrong with that? My immediate reaction upon reading the
sentence above was to reframe it suggest: all that matters is
subjective.
>All art theories which claim aesthetic universality have a half-life
>of about 20 years. All eventually become defunct
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I will not respond to what I
perceive as ad hominem quips. I ask the above questions and make the
above comments because I am interested in constructive thoughts,
whether I agree with them or not.
One final point. I don't necessarily disagree with you. The paradox
of visual art is that the real "talking" takes place in the world of
the visual, and all these words, if not taken with caution, can snuff
out the life of the visual. That also doesn't mean we can't talk
about the visual. I don't think that anyone on this group is trying
"to captivate the Artzy fartzy" or "to intimidate the non-Artspeaker".
You may disagree, but at least give us credit for caring about the
subject as much as you do.
amos
Brother Alphabet
I would like to pose the following questions to Mani Deli
specifically, and to anyone else who might have an opinion as well:
I would like to know your views on Surrealism (both on the specific
movement and in its eternal capacity).
In your opinion:
Who were/are the most significant artists, writers, etc
involved, and why - Also, outside the context of the specific movement,
who have been the most significant creators in the surrealistic vein?
Do you think that the ideas outlined in Breton's writings still apply
today when taking into consideration modern psychological/psychiatric
facts and discoveries?
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Brother Alphabet
On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, mdeli wrote:
Thanks for your answers to the Surrealism questions.
> >"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
> He definitely couldn't paint what he saw and much of what resulted
> from his thinking is no sight for sore eyes.
Oh geez, here this goes again. :)
I'm not in the mood to argue (yet) so I'll just mention his early work,
sketchbooks, and paintings prior to blue period works in which his mastery
of form and light were quite 'traditional' and outstanding, especially for
a kid aged 11-15 years. I do not universally praise EVERYTHING he ever
did, but the fact of his skill is really not questionable. I wonder, if
his more traditional work had gotten the fevered publicity instead of his
cubist and later work, would you still despise him as much as you seem to?
mdeli
>
>I would like to pose the following questions to Mani Deli
>specifically, and to anyone else who might have an opinion as well:
>
>I would like to know your views on Surrealism (both on the specific
>movement and in its eternal capacity).
>
Surrealism is in painting refers to an aspect of subject matter. It is
realistic imagery in an unrealistic context. ie. Tintoretto paints
people flying around and Bosch paints imaginary scenes, as does Dali.
It has nothing to do with the merit of a work.
As to 20th century surrealism, it occurs in fine painting, comic books
and advertising etc.
>In your opinion:
>
>Who were/are the most significant artists, writers, etc
>involved, and why - Also, outside the context of the specific movement,
>who have been the most significant creators in the surrealistic vein?
In my subjective opinion I'd say Dali, Joyce. They had their origins
in the best 19th century work.There are scores of other surrealists
who have great merit but are not as influential.
>
>Do you think that the ideas outlined in Breton's writings still apply
>today when taking into consideration modern psychological/psychiatric
>facts and discoveries?
I don't think Breton is of much interest to anyone besides historians.
I also think that Freudian theory and psychiatry etc. are
pseudoscientific bunk.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
>HUTTO+=-
mdeli
On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:37:12 GMT, satt...@us.net (RSDC / White Crow)
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 02:42:57 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>The only really valid things one can say about art are historical and
>>technical.
>
I'm curious as to your opinion here. Perhaps there is basically more
then these categories. Can you add another? I can't think of one.
>1. What aspect of history is valid?
I'm referring to ordinary history and the history of the painting.
Documented history. Also anedotal stuff counts as history.
> Others on this newsgroup have
>claimed that a historical content is imbedded in a work by the artist
>that is unchanging through the ages. The example given, I believe by
>B. Attah, was Botticelli's Venus. What aspects, if any, of a person's
>interpretation of history are valid in viewing a work of art?
I don't know what is valid or invalid in viewing an Artwork. In fact I
don't quite understand the question.
> It is
>my contention that my viewing of the Venus is entirely different that
>a contemporary of Botticelli's because of the different histories we
>accept. For example, I do not view women as property, while many of
>Botticelli's contemporaries did. How does this affect the way we view
>the work?
>
All this is subjective. Certainly ones environment influences ones
subjective opinion.
>2. What aspect of technique is valid?
What does this mean? Technique is materials and method. All artwork is
created with some technique.
> In a previous post, you
>trashed my description of the composition of a Vermeer painting as
>"artspeak". Is not composition a technique? If not, why not? If so,
>then what is the proper language to use in discussing it?
I claimed certain terms were Artspeak. There is indeed technique
involved in composition. However the terms you used like
'"Triangulation" have no meaning in terms of judgment of merit; which
is the context you used them in. I pointed out that little can be said
about composition that has rational validity, especially when it comes
to speaking about the merits of composition. Whatever suggestions
there are for creating pleasing composition, are very simple if they
have any practical use,. Most anything said beyond this is usually a
convoluted mass of doubletalk. Much Artspeak refers to composition.
Among artists, lengthily talk about composition is often a coverup for
obvious incompetence.
>
>>Most all else no matter how expressed is really subjective.
>
>So what's wrong with that? My immediate reaction upon reading the
>sentence above was to reframe it suggest: all that matters is
>subjective.
There is nothing wrong with that. Did I claim there was? However lots
more matters than my or your subjective opinion.
>>All art theories which claim aesthetic universality have a half-life
>>of about 20 years. All eventually become defunct
>>
>>Mani DeLi
>>...no skill no art
>
>I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I will not respond to what I
>perceive as ad hominem quips. I ask the above questions and make the
>above comments because I am interested in constructive thoughts,
>whether I agree with them or not.
>
>One final point. I don't necessarily disagree with you. The paradox
>of visual art is that the real "talking" takes place in the world of
>the visual, and all these words, if not taken with caution, can snuff
>out the life of the visual.
How?
> That also doesn't mean we can't talk
>about the visual.
That is mostly all we do here isn't it?
>You may disagree, but at least give us credit for caring about the
>subject as much as you do.
I'm sure all here care about what they write otherwise they wouldn't
write here.
barrett john erickson
19mar97a
"Surrealism" (as the term is commonly abused) is no more than a falsification,
a marketplace utility.
The "surrealist movement" today may often _appear_ no more than a
post-guillotine death spasm. But rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated
and, in fact, it sleeps uncomfortably around the world in a state of
semi-readiness (or semi-coma depending on your perspective and the country you
observe).
The surrealist project, however, remains vital. The search for that "certain
point of mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
future, the communicable and the uncommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as contradictions" (breton) continues among living surrealists,
grouped or not.
Furthermore, evidence suggests (from scientific to social to anecdotal) that a
general convergence on that project is in process (which has nothing to do
with labels).
Sadly, it also has nothing to do with art (so far).
Because although art is at the very center of human life, and requires the
most intensive attention, art today has been rendered sterile by exposure to
the same marketplace falsifications that have separated "surrealism" from
surrealists.
~~barrett
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
barrett: <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/>
ARTlab: <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/ARTlab/>
Aesthetic Automatism: <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/aarc/>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
James Thomas
barrett john erickson <bar...@skypoint.com> wrote in article
<5gpib2$5gf$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
> 19mar97a
>
> Because although art is at the very center of human life, and requires
the
> most intensive attention, art today has been rendered sterile by exposure
to
> the same marketplace falsifications that have separated "surrealism" from
> surrealists.
>
>
> ~~barrett
Could you please explain what you mean by the above - "art today has been
rendered sterile by exposure to
the same marketplace falsifications that have separated "surrealism" from
surrealists."
mdeli
"ARTSPEAK," unlike other languages aims at incomprehensibility. It is
designed to seem fraught with a deep meaning which most always
evaporates under scrutiny.
Artspeak is unclear even to those who regularly use it. It is the
The only really valid things one can say about art are historical and
technical. Most all else no matter how expressed is really subjective.
RoyGBivart
Dear Mani:
You're right.
Sincerely,
Roy
RoyGBivart
Dear Mani:
You're right.
Also, when I try to E-mail you answers to some of your letters, they are
always returned, not being deliverable. You obviously have a problem with
the way you post your address.
Sincerely,
Roy
mdeli
If you have anything to say to me, say it here for all to see.
Mani DeLi