a simple question...how to learn to draw?
blank
i'm a 24 year old interested in learning the fundamentals of
art/drawing/painting (i'd have/should learn to draw first??)...what
books, history, websites, art, paintings, drawings, exercises,
materials do you recommend i use? or put another way, if you were me,
where should i begin to learn? is there a 'mindset' or perspective or
set of mental skills (memory, rate of converting one's environment
into a 'personal language', the ability to describe brief, abstract
concepts into a defined, ordered 'grammar', etc...) to learn before
actually drawing?
thanks in advance
blank
Lauri Levanto
before you start training. It does not help.
After a few trials and bruises, if you take a book,
you have an ability to understand the text.
Start drawing from real[1]. Persons, pets, simple objects
things you like. THEN you may take the Betty Edwards
Drawing with the left side of the brain. It is far from
perfect, you may skip over her theorethical ponderings.
They are illustrative not accurate. [2]
It is the *only* beginners book I know that does no harm.
[1] Drawing from imagination is mainly drawing from memory.
After some practise, you have memories how things look like.
Imagination is combinating of these.
[2] Heureka! This is the distinction of art and illustration.
good luck and patience
-lauri
Frida Wails
chrisc...@onebox.com says...
>
>hello,
>i'm a 24 year old interested in learning the fundamentals of
>art/drawing/painting (i'd have/should learn to draw first??)
Are you near a school that offers evening art classes?
Many colleges offer what are referred to as "Adult
Education" or "Continuing Education" classes that often
have no requirement other than the fee you pay.
Another good way to get started is to find a group
of people who meet to draw from the model. Usually
they pitch in a few dollars each to pay the model
for the session, but otherwise it's everyone for
themself as far as how they sketch or paint the model.
And lastly, simply go to the library and check out
those "how to" books and follow whatever lead you feel
applies to you - ie; captures your interest. I second
Lauri's recommendation of Betty Edward's book as a
good beginning point for Learning to Draw on the Right
Side of the Brain. Do the exercises, one after the other,
and by the end of the book you'll see how much you've
improved (or not!).
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
LHOTE Translated by:W.J.Stracham, Printed in English in 1950, my copy was
Printed by Lund Humphries The Country Press Brantford. The original was
printed in French in 1939.
In my opinion he is excellent on defining the action of drawing and
providing pointers. There is an old fashioned school of thought that states
that you need to know the mental and procedural process of drawing a line
before you begin to use lines to translate an object from the natural world
into the flat world of plane. This type of line and tone drawing
incorporates a yoga approach. I am preparing a series of articles for
tinmangallery e-zine on this approach to drawing. The first article on line
drawing should be available for the March issue and will contain some warm
up exercises.
He also wrote a second book on painting the nude which is excellent.
take care: keith
blank <chrisc...@onebox.com> wrote in message
news:26c7d6a5.02012...@posting.google.com...
Savante
anything not seeing your work but start out paying attention to
shapes, square, circle, oval, rectangle, triangle...learn to simplify
by seeing these shapes in what you are drawing...also, pay attention
to proportion and negative space and compare,compare,compare..if any
questions you can e-mail me: artis...@webtv.net
Craig Luce
Take a look at http://drawsketch.about.com/index.htm
anyone evaluated the teaching there?
C>
THEIR review
http://drawsketch.about.com/library/weekly/aa080497.htm
Peter H.M. Brooks
<ab...@hotmail.com (Chester Drawers)> wrote in message
> Learning to draw isn't really that difficult, it just takes practice
>
True, but that is some 'just'. If you don't practice long and hard it
won't come. If you don't have a real delight in what you are doing then
you won't practice long and hard.
--
'Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?"
The Latest Decalogue - Arthur Hugh Clough
David Sharpness
> <ab...@hotmail.com (Chester Drawers)> wrote in message
> > Learning to draw isn't really that difficult, it just takes practice
> >
thought tooit is a matter of learning and practice. But, to compare,
everyone can sing, but only a very few have the innate talents to get
up before people and really attractively sing on a professional level.
Which I think means everyone should sing/draw who wants to...and not
be troubled if their drawings dont look as good as Wateau's!
And you know, I think it has a lot to do with mapping. Asked to draw
their neihborhood, the streets, shops, roads, etc., one can lay it all
out. To draw and map a neighborhood one hasn't been to, one has to
pay it a visit.
And that's what I find is happening in my life drawing classes--I
think of it like visiting a city or town and leaning how it is layed
out so later I can draw a map from memory.
For a little bit (two nights) I had a newspaper car delivery route in
a rural hilly terrain...and to learn it there was something called a
left right map. Go this far, note this landmark, go left, go this
far, note this landmark go right--interspersed with the left right
turns were landmarks marking each home.
By the third day, I had it and go on my own, but the pay was so low, I
decided not to bother. In the morning though, when I pick up my
newspaper, I appreciate what the deliverers go through!
You know, imagine your in a little car like Stuart Little riding over
all the little hills and valleys!
David
Rainbow, CA
2.03.02
Jiri Borsky >
(snip)
re: drawing
> You know, imagine your in a little car like Stuart Little riding over
> all the little hills and valleys!
This is precisely the sensation I often get when drawing from the nude!
I compare it to skiing.
After all, some would say that (line) drawing has its roots in gesture:
hands gliding in the air doing an hour-glass gesture when describing a
shapely female torso, for instance.
And while we are on the subject of riding/skiing over the form: it pays
to have a look how the little hills and valleys continue "behind the
horizon", round the corner. Then draw/ride/ski with this knowledge in mind.
Jiri Borsky
http://www.borsky.dial.pipex.com
Val N. Tyne
dshar...@yahoo.com says...
>I appreciate what the deliverers go through!
Be thankful you weren't prepping for a taxi driver's
license in London then! Get someone to tell you
what that involves. Prepping to past the test, that is.
Ricardo Pontes
learing to draw.
Ricardo
http://www.pileofgarbage.com
chrisc...@onebox.com (blank) wrote in message news:<26c7d6a5.02012...@posting.google.com>...
Nik Maack
Ricardo Pontes wrote:
> Unless you are super fast. 24 years old is way over the hill to begin
> learing to draw.
I can't believe someone could actually say this with a straight face.
Are you serious? There is no age too old to learn to draw, or sing, or
dance, or LIVE. If you're alive, do it -- do whatever you'd like to do.
You went to art school and they surgically removed your soul.
chrisc...@onebox.com (blank):
> > i'm a 24 year old interested in learning the fundamentals of
> > art/drawing/painting (i'd have/should learn to draw first??)...what
> > books, history, websites, art, paintings, drawings, exercises,
> > materials do you recommend i use? or put another way, if you were me,
> > where should i begin to learn? is there a 'mindset' or perspective or
> > set of mental skills (memory, rate of converting one's environment
> > into a 'personal language', the ability to describe brief, abstract
> > concepts into a defined, ordered 'grammar', etc...) to learn before
> > actually drawing?
My advice to you is:
1) Get some paper, a pencil (or markers or crayons or whatever tickles
your fancy) and scratch on the former with the latter.
2) Assuming you want to draw and paint things in the world and not just
things in your head, I suggest you draw what you see, not what you think
you see. Example: most people THINK faces are symmetrical. They're
not. So try to see things for what they are, instead of seeing what you
think you're "supposed to" see.
3) Trust your voice. Do what YOU want to do. Only resort to books
when you want to learn a particular technique that helps you express
what you want to express. There's no real point in learning to draw the
way everyone else draws -- you are not everyone else.
4) Experiment like crazy. Buy paints, and mix them at random. Learn by
doing it. Mistakes aren't necessarily mistakes -- especially if they
make you happy.
5) Ignore any of the my advice if it doesn't suit your needs.
6) Don't listen to stupid assholes who say 24 is too old to learn to draw.
Nik
mdeli
>) Don't listen to stupid assholes who say 24 is too old to learn to draw.
>
Right! Check out Nik's work and he hasn't even started to learn how to
draw yet.
...no skill no art "The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are Body
Installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Right! Check out Nik's work and he hasn't even started to learn how to
> draw yet.
I checked out your work this evening. Some of it's quite good. Too bad
Dali painted it all before you got around to copying him.
Nik
el
To learn to draw play with the 6 elements of art:
Line Shape Value Texture Space and Colour
That's a start.
Val N. Tyne
>It *is* an idiotic statement. But they don't tell you that 24 is too old to
>learn to draw in art school. I doubt anyone who has taught drawing for any
>length of time is that stupid.
I guess I'm the great exception to Mani's rule since
I went back to school at 50 years of age and had
no problems at all obtaining two degrees in art.
On the other hand, Mani will insist I didn't learn
a thing since schools today don't teach students
anything about "how to draw." You can't win and
argument with Mani because he is omniscient.
mdeli
>I guess I'm the great exception to Mani's rule
and what rule is that?
>since
>I went back to school at 50 years of age and had
>no problems at all obtaining two degrees in art.
No one has problems getting a degree in art . You can fail at
ping-pong and still manage an art degree if you've got the money to
waste on tuition.
>On the other hand, Mani will insist I didn't learn
>a thing since schools today don't teach students
>anything about "how to draw." You can't win and
>argument with Mani because he is omniscient.
Get a degree in humor, I'm sure it will help the intent of your
paintings. Cockeyed faces aren't really funny when done without skill.
mdeli
Name three Dali Paintings I copied!
Nikolaus Maack
>>I checked out your work this evening. Some of it's quite good. Too bad
>>Dali painted it all before you got around to copying him.
>>
> Name three Dali Paintings I copied!
Don't be so literal. It's the style you've stolen. You've taken the
desert landscape, the faces and figures bluring and faded and ghostly.
Soft melting faces... It's all pure Dali, barely filtered through you.
For example, Mirage Blue Dog could easilly be mistaken for one of Dali's
lesser known works. That's both a compliment and an insult, by the way.
A well-executed knock-off is still a knock-off.
While it is technically well executed, it's so typical and ordinary that I
can barely bring myself to look at it. Do you know how many so-called
surrealists there are on the Internet who paint nothing but "Dali"
landscapes? Lots!
No skill, NO INSPIRATION, no art?
You've kind of missed the point of Dali's surrealism. An artist is meant to
express their own personal irrationality in an exhibitionist explosion.
Hence Dali's ants and his Freudian symbolism, etc. Your Dali rip-offs
don't have any personality, any coherence. They are clearly the works of
someone who likes Dali's style, but doesn't understand Dali's substance.
Middle Yeast Rising is a good example. Cluttered and messy and
incoherent, it apes the tricks of Dali -- the repetition of the car shape,
the tiny face in the window, the nude to the far left, the "trompe l'oeil"
of the shadow face, the big landscape background -- but does nothing with
them. There's no point to it. The only thing that has a sense of
"newness" and YOU to it is the crushed cherry. The rest of it is pure
rip-off.
I suspect this is all because you are letting the dead soul of Dali talk
through you, instead of speaking in your own voice. If you spoke the way
you want to speak, saying what you need to say, this clutter would begin
to make sense. The pieces would become unified by a sense of purpose.
So stop talking "Dali" and start talking your own language.
I think Portrait(unfinished) is one of your best works. It's here that
your own symbols start to work their way in. But even here you seem to be
using the Dali style. And the symbols are anything but personal -- Mickey
Mouse and the American flag and George Washington.
Are you, by any chance, afraid to be seen? That might explain why you
paint like Dali using symbols so impersonal. Where is *YOU* in all of
this?
Nik
mdeli
>>>I checked out your work this evening. Some of it's quite good. Too bad
>>>Dali painted it all before you got around to copying him.
>>>
>> Name three Dali Paintings I copied!
>
>Don't be so literal.
Cut the BS just name three Dali paintings.
> It's the style you've stolen.
Dali's style is beyond my abilities.
>You've taken the
>desert landscape, the faces and figures bluring and faded and ghostly.
>Soft melting faces... It's all pure Dali, barely filtered through you.
The surrealist format isn't exclusive to Dali. He didn't even invent
the modern version. Surrealism is realism in an unreal context. It is
a classical subject which many now associate exclusively with Dali
because they are unfamiliar of its history and origins.
>
>For example, Mirage Blue Dog could easilly be mistaken for one of Dali's
>lesser known works.
---by someone who hasn't seen many Dali's.
>That's both a compliment and an insult, by the way.
>A well-executed knock-off is still a knock-off.
As to "knock offs," Most all Modern Academic Art is a Dadaist knock
off. That is not what makes it bad however. Its the fact that it
contains a minimal of skill and a similar degree of utter
incompetence.
>While it is technically well executed, it's so typical and ordinary that I
>can barely bring myself to look at it. Do you know how many so-called
>surrealists there are on the Internet who paint nothing but "Dali"
>landscapes? Lots!
There are a few surrealist sites all the work is pretty technically
abomnible.
>
>No skill, NO INSPIRATION, no art?
No skill no nothing! You are an excellent example.
>You've kind of missed the point of Dali's surrealism.
I have my own point.
> An artist is meant to
>express their own personal irrationality in an exhibitionist explosion.
>Hence Dali's ants and his Freudian symbolism, etc.
In my opinion Freud was a charlatan.
> Your Dali rip-offs
>don't have any personality, any coherence. They are clearly the works of
>someone who likes Dali's style, but doesn't understand Dali's substance.
What's Dali's substance?
>Middle Yeast Rising is a good example. Cluttered and messy and
>incoherent, it apes the tricks of Dali -- the repetition of the car shape,
>the tiny face in the window, the nude to the far left, the "trompe l'oeil"
>of the shadow face, the big landscape background -- but does nothing with
>them.
Nothing?
> There's no point to it. The only thing that has a sense of
>"newness" and YOU to it is the crushed cherry. The rest of it is pure
>rip-off.
Dali painted crushed cherries.
>So stop talking "Dali" and start talking your own language.
Most of my work doesn't look at all like Dali. He was better in all
respects and this has nothing to do with subject matter. Most Dali's
don't even have the format you claim but are very complex and exhibit
the finest classical technique.
>
>I think Portrait(unfinished) is one of your best works. It's here that
>your own symbols start to work their way in. But even here you seem to be
>using the Dali style. And the symbols are anything but personal -- Mickey
>Mouse and the American flag and George Washington.
>
>Are you, by any chance, afraid to be seen? That might explain why you
>paint like Dali using symbols so impersonal. Where is *YOU* in all of
>this?
What you think is Washington is ME. I'm not interested in expressing
anything. I try to make an image using classical technique that is
interesting enough to attract the viewer.
However, the best work on my site is my portrait of Marilyn,
"Picassoholica." I know it isn't ME but did I get a good likeness, you
being a portrait expert?
"Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." S. Dali
Even you imitate the work of an average art school inmate. You try
your best while knowing practically nothing. Your work is definitely
"YOU." I know you aren't afraid of being seen, this is an even bigger
mistake than your artwork.
Also take a look at the work of our favorite successful charlatan here
Dan Pedegree Fox and tell us that he doesn't imitate anything.
mdeli
>It is silly to try to argue with Mani or any other kook, although I've done
>it more often than I'd like to think.
Next time don't bother!
>It is useful, however, to correct
>blatant misinformation such as the 'drawing and age' thing (great example:
>Mani once said there is no such thing as a 'real print'!),
I repeat, there is no such thing as a 'real print. Real print in the
respect in which you spoke of it.
>since students
>and others do actually come here looking for information and advice.
I advise all potential failure students here to heed Fox and take a
careful look at his artwork and take special notice of his magnificent
drawing abilities.
Fox is a first class university bumbling jerk.
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Dali's style is beyond my abilities.
You underestimate yourself and overestimate Dali. That was a
compliment, by the way.
> >For example, Mirage Blue Dog could easilly be mistaken for one of Dali's
> >lesser known works.
>
> ---by someone who hasn't seen many Dali's.
Are you genuinely oblivious to the GLARING similarities?
> As to "knock offs," Most all Modern Academic Art is a Dadaist knock
> off. That is not what makes it bad however. Its the fact that it
> contains a minimal of skill and a similar degree of utter
> incompetence.
That's nice -- what does that have to do with your art being a knock off
of Dali?
> >You've kind of missed the point of Dali's surrealism.
>
> I have my own point.
Which is? I can't see it. All I see is a Dali rip-off -- AGAIN.
Another damn Dali rip off. Another damn artist who can't get past
copying Dali. AGAIN. Why do so many artists get STUCK here?
> In my opinion Freud was a charlatan.
You're aware, of coure, that Dali ADORED Freud. So why are you
imitating Dali?
[The only non-dali bit of originality in this painting is the crushed cherry.]
> Dali painted crushed cherries.
Are you arguing with me or against me?
> Most of my work doesn't look at all like Dali.
Really. Is this work you haven't posted on your website?
> I'm not interested in expressing
> anything.
Then maybe you should stop painting. What's the point in making art if
you have nothing to say?
> "Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." S. Dali
So you are imitating Dali? Funny, I thought you said you weren't.
See, I'm having difficulty with your argument. You say your work looks
nothing like Dali. Then you tell me that the one thing in your painting
that I thought was original is ALSO an imitation of Dali. Then you
quote Dali saying imitation is unavoidable. Are you on my side here?
Are you agreeing with me?
> Your work is definitely
> "YOU." I know you aren't afraid of being seen, this is an even bigger
> mistake than your artwork.
Are you afraid of being seen? You're telling me I should be afraid of
being seen. I assume this means that you think "being seen" is bad. Do
you really look down on yourself that much? What are you hiding from?
I think that if an artist tries to not show their own personality in
their work, their work suffers. In your case, you've hidden yourself --
using someone you respect greatly. Dali. You could never hope to
achieve his genius? You can't help but imitate him? Sounds to me like
you have a MAJOR inferiority complex. I hate to get all Freudian on
you, but I just have to wonder -- what was your relationship with your
father like?
Nik
Nik Maack
Dan Fox wrote:
> COMMENTARY
> In my opinion, this work was executed by someone who hates women, has
> serious sexual problems, has anal/oral fetishes, and is utterly consumed
> by anger. Consistent themes are female dismemberment, excretion, and
> mutilated genitalia. Even the entrance to the Googenheim (on another page
> in Mani’s site) is a detailed drawing of an anus.
Part of the problem here is that Mani is imitating Dali, but hates
Freud. So he doesn't know what he's doing. Dali was all about Freudian
imagery. Mani is imitating Dali. So how can we tell where Dali's kinks
end and Mani's kinks begin?
Artistically speaking, there is nothing wrong with hating women, having
sexual problems, having anal and oral fetishes, being interested in
shit, dismemberment, mutilated genitals, etc. Dali himself LOVED that
kind of stuff, and filled his works with it. I, personally, write on
these subjects off and on. They are interesting places to explore, if
not to everyone's tastes.
Dali was a virgin late into his life. He was totally obsessed with his
wife. He drew paintings of asses and shit and breasts and dismembered
body parts. There is, in my opinion, absolutely nothing wrong with
doing that. Whatever turns your crank. Oneof my favorite Dali
paintings is (I might have the title wrong) "The Mystery of William
Tell". It's a picture of Stalin, who has an enormous, elongated
buttcheek supported by a crutch.
Funny how they never mass-produced THAT one.
> The remaining five commented that the artist may be demented, or
> 'this is a joke, right? or that he should be or is committed to a mental
> institution.
> It is my considered opinion that this art is the product of a diseased
> mind.
People said the same thing about Dali. This is simply ridiculous, and
has nothing to do with the art in question. Dali himself said, "The
only difference between me and a mad man is I am not mad!" I don't know
if Mani would say the same thing about himself -- personally, I suspect
he's too cowardly to say ANYTHING about himself -- but if he had any
sense, he would take your comments as a compliment.
But really, saying he has a diseased mind, based on a few paintings that
imitate an artist who ENCOURAGED having a "diseased mind" -- that's
simply ridiculous.
> Mani is a rigid personality.
That, I'll agree with. But I think the reason he is rigid is because of
the alternative -- he's protecting himself as best he can. If that
shield went down, lord knows what would happen to him.
> Rigid personalities cannot bend. So they break.
I don't think he's broken. I can't see enough of him to determine, with
any accuracy, what he is. The guy is in hiding. And I suspect he ain't
coming out anywhere around here. Which makes sense, really. We're not
the most WELCOMING bunch, are we?
I see him as someone who wants to sing, but is afraid to get on stage,
so he's studied ventriloquism. The result -- he paints like a cheap
knock-off of Dali, and spends the rest of his creative energies telling
everyone else they suck.
There's no telling who or what Mani is, given this state. All I can
say, with any certainty, is the guy is afraid.
> Mani’s conspiracy includes all of the people and institutions
> involved in creating, buying, selling, and displaying modern art. It
> explains why art which he considers invalid is pervasive in society.
Lots of completely sane people, think modern art is utter hocum. His
argument isn't new, or impressive, or even paranoid. He looks at an all
blue canvas and says, "What the fuck is this? This isn't art. What's
wrong with you people?"
And I can even agree with him. A lot of modern art strikes me,
personally, as drivel. I like some works by Picasso, but even there --
a lot of what Picasso did was lousy.
He points out that some modern masters paint like three year old kids,
and hate the work of three year old kids. He's right, but goes the
wrong way with his conclusions. This doesn't mean we should hate the
abstract painter -- we should heap more praise on three year old kids.
> I've wondered why Mani and other Usenet kooks fascinate many people,
> including myself.
I don't think Mani is a kook. Calling someone a kook is too easy. It's
like calling someone a "communist" during the cold war -- now they're
less than human, and we don't have to treat them with any respect.
>I think it is worth the occasional annoyance to get this view
> of distorted lives we would otherwise never see.
How painfully noble of you. The reason I like "kooks" is because they
are naked -- they expose themselves and their rawness for all to see.
The real paranoid schizophrenic talks about men with cameras trying to
catch him masturbating on film. Mani isn't a kook. He's not even close
to being naked.
I often have more respect for kooks than for the "normal" people around them.
Nik
Val N. Tyne
>Part of the problem here is that Mani is imitating Dali, but hates
>Freud. So he doesn't know what he's doing. Dali was all about Freudian
>imagery. Mani is imitating Dali. So how can we tell where Dali's kinks
>end and Mani's kinks begin?
I haven't looked at Mani's web site in a couple
of years and won't now but what I saw back then
suggested to me that he uses digital manipulations
to create his so-called paintings. Knowing a bit
about computer manipulation of images
you can create all sorts of interesting combinations
and claim them as your own. Who's to know as long
as the only place you show your work is on a web
site? Now, if Mani would just tell us where to go look in a
gallery for his work, maybe someone nearby could
verify that his works are real and not just digital
images.
Nikolaus Maack
> what I saw back then
> suggested to me that he uses digital manipulations
> to create his so-called paintings. Knowing a bit
> about computer manipulation of images
> you can create all sorts of interesting combinations
> and claim them as your own. Who's to know as long
> as the only place you show your work is on a web
> site?
I've looked at his paintings recently, up close and personal, if only
online. I see no reason to assume Mani's works are digitized. I'm
willing to accept that he painted them himself. I just took one of his
paintings, and zoomed in on the file as much as I could. I can't see
anything suggesting these images are digitized.
Not that I'm an expert or anything.
I think the feeling that they are digitized comes from the lack of
composition. His works are quite cluttered.
But if Mani did assemble these works using digital manipulation, he's a
master at it.
> Now, if Mani would just tell us where to go look in a
> gallery for his work, maybe someone nearby could
> verify that his works are real and not just digital
> images.
Or you could offer to BUY one of his works.
Nik
bob_d
> Dali was a virgin late into his life.
Really?
Nik Maack
bob_d wrote:
> > Dali was a virgin late into his life.
>
> Really?
Yes, if memory serves me correctly. I've read a biography by him, as
well as works about him. I recall that he was a virgin into his late
twenties. I think the only woman he ever had sex with was his wife --
who he stole away from another artist.
Er, I guess "late twenties" doesn't translate into "late into his life".
Whoops.
Nik
Nikolaus Maack
> I like Dali too; if you haven't read The Unspeakable Confessions of
> Salvador Dali, by Dali as told to Andre Parinaud, get it immediately. It is
> easily available on the used book sites.
I'm not sure if Iread that one or not. I'll keep an eye open for it.
> I think the key to a lot of this is your observation that Dali loved Freud
> and Mani hates him. This creates conflict, since Mani must employ Freudian
> imagery to imitate Dali.
I think this is why Mani is a poor imitation of Dali. He's going through
the motions, but doesn't understand what those motions mean. I don't
necessarily see this as a conflict. Maybe some of his psyche juices are
squirting out -- maybe he does hate women -- but I doubt it. It's more
likely that he saw Dali's painting where a giant boob is being squeezed
and thought, "Hey, I'll do that too!"
> In addition, my evaluation was also based on
> Mani's vicious attacks on modern art and its practitioners, as well as the
> rigidity and simplistic nature of his worldview. (I should have emphasized
> this in the review - hindsight!). Dali also had a sly sense of humor about
> himself and what he did, and understood the commercial value of being
> outrageous. Mani, like most kooks, has no sense of humor whatsoever.
Yeah, he has no sense of humour. Being passionately devoted to his own
little bias -- I think of it like this. Here's a guy in hiding. He
doesn't want to be seen in public. So what does he do? He defines
himself through the visions of another artist. And he defines himself by
what he's NOT -- one of those modern artists he hates so much.
Have you ever gotten into an argument with someone, and they take it
INTENSELY personally? This is because the belief has become surgically
attached to their identity. They feel they ARE their belief.
This is a mistake, I think. There's nothing wrong with being passionate
about yourself and your art and your voice. But when you associate your
identity with a belief, or with a car, or a jacket, or a particular brand
of beer -- you lose something.
So, picture Mani. Scared to be himself. But he has to have some sort of
compensation for that fear. Part of him WANTS to be seen. So he uses
Dali for his art, and an UNbelief for his personality.
On second thought, you might be right -- there is a conflict in Mani's
head. But I think that conflict is between wanting to be seen,
and wanting to hide.
I think every artist who puts their work in the world is, to a certain
extent, someone who wants ATTENTION. Look at me! Look at my art! Mani,
like all of us, wants to be seen and respected. But he doesn't trust who
he is, and is scared to put that UP there. So he has an unbelief and a
Dali vision.
I'm sort of refining an earlier point. Or maybe I'm just repeating myself.
> I agree that there is nothing wrong with it, and I love Dali's work. How
> Mani is qualitatively different from Dali, and a kook rather than a genius,
> we touched on above. I think we can sort it out below.
I think the key is that we have yet to see Mani. In his work or in his
words.
A big part of this is my personal bias, of course. I adore "the
personal", and I think that our culture is moving from a distant,
objective point of view to a personal, up-close perspective. I've spent a
lot of time in alt.surrealism over the years trying to convince people to
tell their stories about their everyday lives.
> Yes, the art is what counts. The fact here is that Dali is the original
> genius and Mani is the imitator of the elements of Dali's work that appeal
> to him. This reduces the referential elements of Dali (assholes, breasts,
> mutilation) from signs (in the semiotic sense) in paintings of high
> artistic merit to the mere elements themselves.
I think Dali might disagree with you here. He wasn't aiming for high art,
exactly. Dali is very strange, in that he is EXTREMELY personal. In one
of his books he describes having a crutch, and what it meant to him -- hoe
he could use it to reach out and push things. A phallus, sort of, but
also a hand. He desribes the horror of seeing ants devouring a
grasshopper.
All of Dali's imagery is OF him. He is laying himself bare in every
painting he does. These paintings of his are waking dreams, of a kind.
That they appeal to others indicates, maybe, that these symbols of his
have some universal resonance.
What I would like to see from Mani (and all artists, really) is his own
symbols, his own language, his own personality. By getting MORE personal,
more intimate, more "secretive" and yet more open at the same time, I
think art (ironically) gains a more universal appeal.
> By breaking, I mean that they become irrational in one or more areas.
> Paranoids may be successful businessmen, etc., and believe that the
> martians are monitoring their brains. It usually involves a conspiracy of
> some kind - in Mani's case the delusion that the art world conspires to
> sell lousy art to gullible collectors. (Note the similarity to Jake
> Haines's delusional system.)
I still have trouble with this -- because Mani's "conspiracy" does exist
in reality!
I once spoke to a young man with some mental problems who believed there
was a conspiracy out to get him. He posted material to the Internet and
people picked on him all the time. They called themselves "The Cabal".
I tried to convince him this group wasn't out to get him. It was funny,
but he convinced me that they really ARE out to get him. They're not
organized, they're not evil, they're not delusions -- every time he
posted, they mocked him. It was their IN group thing to do.
And yet, to hear this guy talk, "They're out to get me!" -- most people
would assume he's crazy.
> I agree with your observation that he is hiding. I don't think it is
> restricted to Usenet, either. Does anyone, anywhere, know what his name is?
The Internet is a place where most people feel SAFER exposing their
secrets and their self. So yes, I think you're right -- he's probably
even more hidden in the real world.
> They do, and of course his arguments are old, tired, and simplistic. But
> other people don't write a book about it, create an extensive website about
> it, paint paintings that satirize it, or post the exact same diatribes
> about it for years and years and years.....
>
Yeah, you might be on to something here. But I really think this is about
him trying to "passionately express himself" -- mistaking a belief for his
own identity.
Nik
bob_d
> Yes, if memory serves me correctly. I've read a biography by him, as
> well as works about him. I recall that he was a virgin into his late
> twenties. I think the only woman he ever had sex with was his wife --
> who he stole away from another artist.
I thought big artists had sex with all their art groupies. Guess not.
What about John Singer Sargent?
Val N. Tyne
says...
>The Internet is a place where most people feel SAFER exposing their
>secrets and their self. So yes, I think you're right -- he's probably
>even more hidden in the real world.
My read of Mani is the kid in the schoolyard
who taunts with "yana yana yana" but when the
schoolyard bully gets on his case he can't run
and hide fast enough. As long as he can yell
his taunts and hide, he gets away with it. And
the more aggravated he can make those he taunts,
the more satisfaction he gets. I'd like to see
a photo of Mani in the flesh. I have my own
preconceived ideas of what his whimpy self would
look like. It's times like these I wish I had
Nik's magical way with words...
mdeli
>I think the key to a lot of this is your observation that Dali loved Freud
>and Mani hates him. This creates conflict, since Mani must employ Freudian
>imagery to imitate Dali.
Dan has to imagine that those who disagree with him HATE those he
likes. This is the signature of an ordinary jerk.
Freud's attraction was that he was a fantastic writer who touched on a
literary and psychological nerve during a time when intellectuals
became aware of their sexual frustration. His theories were passed off
as science. As literality interesting as his theories are they are
pseudo science. The same goes for Jung who couldn't write or reason
nearly as well.
>in Mani's case the delusion that the art world conspires to
>sell lousy art to gullible collectors. (Note the similarity to Jake
>Haines's delusional system.)
Check out Fox's crap as an example. It has nothing to do with a
"conspiracy." Fox has to imagine its a conspiracy when someone calls
his bluff and that of others.
>> > I've wondered why Mani and other Usenet kooks fascinate many people,
>> > including myself.
It touches your nerve because deep down even you know you are full of
crap. This is simply because you can't reconcile your like for fine
work along with the discontinium of the Modern Academic Art idiocy
which your utter lack of ability forces you to practice.
>I'm very selective about labeling people kooks.
--Namely just those who disagree with you.
>
>I do think Mani's art conspiracy
>theory is on a par with the paranoid schiz you mention above; just more
>socially acceptable. I have found that many extreme kooks that we tend to
>revere as being naked, exposing their rawness, etc, are just tormented -
>and in terrible pain. But that is a topic for another post.
>
The usual psychobabble by a rather ordinary pseudo-intellectual jerk!
Nikolaus Maack
> Check out Fox's crap as an example. It has nothing to do with a
> "conspiracy." Fox has to imagine its a conspiracy when someone calls
> his bluff and that of others.
That you're taking time out of your busy life to tell Mr. Fox what you
think of his opinions, but not taking the time to tell me I'm wrong...
Does this mean you agree with my stance on your soul?
> The usual psychobabble by a rather ordinary pseudo-intellectual jerk!
What about me? Did I get anything right about you? Are you in "hiding"?
Where do you live? Can I meet you in person? Can I buy you a beer?
Nik
mdeli
>mdeli (n...@mail.com) writes:
>> Check out Fox's crap as an example. It has nothing to do with a
>> "conspiracy." Fox has to imagine its a conspiracy when someone calls
>> his bluff and that of others.
>
>That you're taking time out of your busy life to tell Mr. Fox what you
>think of his opinions, but not taking the time to tell me I'm wrong...
>Does this mean you agree with my stance on your soul?
Consult your priest.
>
>> The usual psychobabble by a rather ordinary pseudo-intellectual jerk!
>
>What about me? Did I get anything right about you? Are you in "hiding"?
Yes I sleep under the covers every night.
>
>Where do you live? Can I meet you in person? Can I buy you a beer?
>
Send me a nude centerfold Photo of yourself or preferably your girl
friend, if you have one and I'll decide whether I'm up for it. Include
a short biography and your mother's maiden name.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Consult your priest.
My priest and I are no longer on speaking terms, ever since I started
speaking backwards in Latin as a party game. He seems to think it's
Satanic for some reason. That and the glowing green eyes and the my
brimstone cologne. Oh well.
> >Where do you live? Can I meet you in person? Can I buy you a beer?
>
> Send me a nude centerfold Photo of yourself or preferably your girl
> friend, if you have one and I'll decide whether I'm up for it. Include
> a short biography and your mother's maiden name.
I have a girlfriend, although I prefer to call her my "lover". It's
more artsy, somehow, to have a lover instead of having a girlfriend.
Girlfriend makes her sound like my Gal Friday who helps me solve
Hardy-Boy-like mysteries. Lover makes her sound like my passionate fuck machine.
Do you really live in Toronto? I live in Ottawa. Do you ever come
through this neck of the woods?
Nik
Alison A Raimes
art that is giving you the thrill though. I occasionally drop in on
your site to see what you are up to (ever hopeful that you might find
your own style and stop mimiking others). Unfortunately your site has
had the same work on it for almost a year (at an estimate). I was
thinking about setting up a site and putting your work alongside the
artists originals that you ripped off, but decided that it would spoil
the mystery. Is there any cjhance that one day you might paint
something that comes from your heart and not for your wallet? Alison
Nikolaus Maack
> 62 Wellesley West #1505
> Toronto, Ontario
> CANADA
> M5S 2X3
>
Do you think he'd appreciate it if I sent him some art in the mail? *grin*
Nik
Nikolaus Maack
looked at his art.
I suppose the polite thing to say would be, "I don't get it." But I'm not
entirely sure there's anything there to get. I've never been a big fan of
minimalism.
I was particularly baffled by "Christ Confronts Peter".
http://www.danfoxart.com/New_Work_Part_II/Christ_Confronts_Peter/christ_confronts_peter.html
I am obsessed by colour. Second for me comes line and pattern and harsh
black jagged lines that define the coloured areas.
So when I look at a smeary white canvas with three lines on it... I'm
left a little... cold.
So I'm a little startled when I hear Alison say:
Alison A Raimes (alison...@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
> I was
> thinking about setting up a site and putting your work alongside the
> artists originals that you ripped off, but decided that it would spoil
> the mystery.
You mean to tell me that someone else painted this stuff before Dan did?
Um... Why?
> Is there any chance that one day you might paint
> something that comes from your heart and not for your wallet?
People buy this stuff? And you guys think Mani is "conspiracy" minded?
Oh boy.
I suppose I now have to go and look at Alison's art. That'll probably be
a little disturbing too.
Nik
mdeli
>mdeli wrote:
>> Dali's style is beyond my abilities.
>
>You underestimate yourself and overestimate Dali. That was a
>compliment, by the way.
They told me that while I was attending a Bauhaus Academy when I
painted abstractions and said it was bullshit. They liked my abstract
bullshit.
>> >For example, Mirage Blue Dog could easilly be mistaken for one of Dali's
>> >lesser known works.
>>
>> ---by someone who hasn't seen many Dali's.
>
>Are you genuinely oblivious to the GLARING similarities?
Similarities yes, mistaken, not for anyone who has seen original
Dali's. You wrote MISTAKEN.
>
>> As to "knock offs," Most all Modern Academic Art is a Dadaist knock
>> off. That is not what makes it bad however. Its the fact that it
>> contains a minimal of skill and a similar degree of utter
>> incompetence.
>
>That's nice -- what does that have to do with your art being a knock off
>of Dali?
It implies that there is nothing wrong with imitation in art and it
shouldn't be criticized on solely that basis. Most great artists
imitated one another as do a lot of crappy ones. What counts is the
quality of each individual artwork.
>> >You've kind of missed the point of Dali's surrealism.
>>
>> I have my own point.
>
>Which is? I can't see it. All I see is a Dali rip-off -- AGAIN.
>Another damn Dali rip off. Another damn artist who can't get past
>copying Dali. AGAIN. Why do so many artists get STUCK here?
Fine. No objection.
>
>> In my opinion Freud was a charlatan.
>
>You're aware, of coure, that Dali ADORED Freud. So why are you
>imitating Dali?
Perhaps Raphael liked little boys does that mean all artists
influenced by him must do the same?
>[The only non-dali bit of originality in this painting is the crushed cherry.]
>> Dali painted crushed cherries.
>
>Are you arguing with me or against me?
I'm making a point. Its not an argument. You paint schmiery faces is
that wrong because you aren't original?
>> I'm not interested in expressing
>> anything.
>
>Then maybe you should stop painting. What's the point in making art if
>you have nothing to say?
You don't have anything to say in your painting does that mean you
should stop?
>> "Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." S. Dali
>
>So you are imitating Dali? Funny, I thought you said you weren't.
Glad it amuses you. I imitate lots of artists.
>See, I'm having difficulty with your argument. You say your work looks
>nothing like Dali.
Again, name three Dali's my work looks like.
> Then you tell me that the one thing in your painting
>that I thought was original is ALSO an imitation of Dali.
Its not an imitation, its similar subject matter. Still life inhabits
art work from almost the beginning.
>I think that if an artist tries to not show their own personality in
>their work, their work suffers.
I don't! Your work is a good example. It shows little more than
incompetence it tells me nothing about your personality. However Dan
Psychobabble Fox claims I'm a kook who hates women so I guess he
thinks I show a lot of personality.
>In your case, you've hidden yourself --
>using someone you respect greatly. Dali. You could never hope to
>achieve his genius? You can't help but imitate him? Sounds to me like
>you have a MAJOR inferiority complex. I hate to get all Freudian on
>you, but I just have to wonder -- what was your relationship with your
>father like?
>
Glad to hear you joined Fox in the psychobabble parade. Take a look at
the other side of the spectrum. Fox is 1950's hack imitation. No one
says the work is bad for that reason. The reason that its
run-of-the-mill crap is because what he imitates is incompetent crap.
Do tell us what you think of his work.
Ingres imitated Raphael, a whole school of great painters imitated
Caravaggio and Michelangelo etc. All artists work from imitation to
creation.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
mdeli
>I haven't looked at Mani's web site in a couple
>of years and won't now but what I saw back then
>suggested to me that he uses digital manipulations
>to create his so-called paintings.
I'll sell you anyone you want if you give me an acceptable offer.
Indeed my goofs on Matisse and Picasso etc. are digital. They aren't
claimed as my paintings.
I'm no longer a professional artist and haven't exhibited in many
years even though I sell occasionaly. I now do artwork mainly because
it amuses me.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> >You underestimate yourself and overestimate Dali. That was a
> >compliment, by the way.
>
> They told me that while I was attending a Bauhaus Academy when I
> painted abstractions and said it was bullshit. They liked my abstract
> bullshit.
Not having seen any of your "abstract bullshit", I cannot express an opinion.
> It implies that there is nothing wrong with imitation in art and it
> shouldn't be criticized on solely that basis. Most great artists
> imitated one another as do a lot of crappy ones. What counts is the
> quality of each individual artwork.
Sure, many artists imitate in order to learn from others. But the work
that distinguishes them from others is their original work. You seem to
admit that yes, the work on your site imitates stylistic elements of
Dali. Okay, so -- when can we some work from you that goes beyond imitation?
> >You're aware, of coure, that Dali ADORED Freud. So why are you
> >imitating Dali?
>
> Perhaps Raphael liked little boys does that mean all artists
> influenced by him must do the same?
That's a valid point. Except I always found that Dali's dream-like
style held together better because of the Freudian framework. It gave
the whole a sort of unified meaning. With your work, you copy the
style, but have discarded the frame. This results in a sort of
cluttered meaninglessness.
> I'm making a point. Its not an argument.
Sorry, I've been on the Internet too long. I assume everyone is
constantly in "debate" mode. Most Internet folk are always in that mode.
> You paint schmiery faces is
> that wrong because you aren't original?
Am I not original? I have a lot of difficulty finding people who do
what I do -- distorted portraits. Most of the stuff I see out there is
highly realistic portraiture, or cartoon charicature. If you know of
websites where I can see art like mine, by all means, tell me.
> You don't have anything to say in your painting does that mean you
> should stop?
I do have something to say. Dozens and dozens of faces staring out at
you says something. What it says is kind of complicated. It's not
political and it's not spiritual. It is personal. It could be
psychological. I don't know.
You probably sneer at such stuff -- if you have to explain your art,
then something is wrong with the art. I tend to agree. I saw an
exhibit of photographs draped with semi-transparent white cloth. What
the hell is this, I wondered? There was a LENGTHY explanation taped to
the wall, to assist baffled museum goers. I felt that, if you're work
really does require an essay to explain it, you've failed.
But I feel like my art is chasing after the "perfect" face. Hunting
through the personal. Trying to find the line between the way I see and
what is really out there.
> Again, name three Dali's my work looks like.
*sigh* You admit you borrow stylistics. That's the point I was driving at.
> I don't! Your work is a good example. It shows little more than
> incompetence it tells me nothing about your personality.
Then you're a little literal minded. Here are these explosive,
colourful, jarring images of face after face, staring out at you. These
works say nothing about my personality? Really?
> Glad to hear you joined Fox in the psychobabble parade.
But you do hide, Mani. The more I talk to you, the more defensive you
seem. Your real name isn't posted on your site, your art is
(stylistically) borrowed from Dali. Your comments here and on your site
are all extremely impersonal.
This isn't psychobabble on my part -- this is pure observation.
Prove me wrong. Provide some personal details about yourself. Do you
have a job? Do you have friends? Where do you like to to unwind? A
favorite coffee shop? The library? Are you in a relationship with
someone? Do you get along with your parents?
> Do tell us what you think of his work.
I did, in a recent post, but I'll recap for you: I don't like his stuff
very much. I find it sterile, bland, and not very expressive. I'm sure
others love his stuff to bits. Personally, his work leaves me cold and
bored. There's not enough there for my eyes to catch on.
> All artists work from imitation to
> creation.
Sort of. I think they imitate and then try to take it one step further.
Push it to a new place. If you really like Dali's stuff, I would
suggest you find a new theoretical framework -- what are you doing with
these symbols and blurrings? -- and then push it all ten feet further
than Dali.
I'm gaga for Lucien Freud. I took another book of his work out of the
library. It puts me in awe. And yet I feel something is wrong with his
works -- I don't want to imitate him, but I feel his stuff can teach me
a lot. I might attempt to imitate his style -- walk in his shoes -- for
a bit, to see if I can get something out of it.
A writing professor I had once suggested we sit down with a book we
like, and just type out the sentences. Read it, type it. Copy it word
for word. This way you can get a feel for the writing from the inside
-- not just as a reader, but as a creator.
I get the feeling that you're saying something similar when you talk
about imitating other painters. Am I right?
Nik
Ricardo Pontes
Dont you think there are artists who had similar techniques in the
Renaissance and in the past?? I see similarities Between Andrea Del
Sarto, Michaelangelo and the rest of the ninja turtles.
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
> mdeli wrote:
> > Right! Check out Nik's work and he hasn't even started to learn how to
> > draw yet.
>
> I checked out your work this evening. Some of it's quite good. Too bad
> Dali painted it all before you got around to copying him.
>
> Nik
Ricardo Pontes
started in learning to draw.. There is a reason why parents start some
of their children playing the piano when they are toddlers.. Its the
same reason younger people learn languages faster and easier than old
farts. You cant teach an old dog new tricks :).
I do think thou, that if the poster is serious at all. This little
conversation will make him strive to be great. Who knows what he is
capable.. One thing if for sure, if he never learns how to draw, he
can still be a garbage man or a modern artist.
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
mdeli
>mdeli wrote:
>> Consult your priest.
>
>My priest and I are no longer on speaking terms, ever since I started
>speaking backwards in Latin as a party game. He seems to think it's
>Satanic for some reason. That and the glowing green eyes and the my
>brimstone cologne. Oh well.
Nice to see that you have a sense of humor about these things.
To tell the truth I can't tell you about my soul. A short time after I
became a born again atheist I had my soul amputated. I now keep it in
a large glass flask the ethereal emptiness of which makes an excellent
still life prop. I contemplating selling it to the devil. However he
hasn't come around or even sent me an offer. No regrets, I don't need
the money.
>I have a girlfriend, although I prefer to call her my "lover". It's
>more artsy, somehow, to have a lover instead of having a girlfriend.
>Girlfriend makes her sound like my Gal Friday who helps me solve
>Hardy-Boy-like mysteries. Lover makes her sound like my passionate fuck machine.
Careful! Fox might find this as women hater evidence or even put you
on his Hitler lover list.
>
>Do you really live in Toronto? I live in Ottawa. Do you ever come
>through this neck of the woods?
>
Not really.
Erik A. Mattila
Well, I've taught drawing for a few years, and my experience is that age
is not a factor in determining if someone learns to draw, and draw well.
In fact, drawing is one of the few curriculums in the plastic arts
that lends itself to the teacher's craft, as it is basically
non-ambiguous, content-laden, and concrete.
I would never have student draw from plaster casts, though. They are
dead things. If you want to simply teach descriptive drawing, a piece
of broken glass, a hunk of wood and a stone are superior subjects.
Plaster Casts have a history, by the way. They became popular in art
schools simply because there were a lot of the stuff around - throw
aways from the studios of monumental sculptors etc. It just became art
school habit, part of curriculum development strategies. There's
nothing intrinsically superior to a cast over any object from nature.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't teach it tricks.
EAM
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Nice to see that you have a sense of humor about these things.
My motto is, if you can't laugh at it, hit it with an axe until the
blood splatters all over the walls of your home. Then laugh at it.
> To tell the truth I can't tell you about my soul. A short time after I
> became a born again atheist I had my soul amputated. I now keep it in
> a large glass flask the ethereal emptiness of which makes an excellent
> still life prop. I contemplating selling it to the devil. However he
> hasn't come around or even sent me an offer. No regrets, I don't need
> the money.
William S. Burroughs has a routine about selling your soul to the devil.
He mentions that the devil doesn't buy just any soul, so if he
approaches you, take it as a compliment. I'm sorry the devil hasn't
approached you. Have you considered auctioning your soul off on Ebay?
It's probably been done. Forget I mentioned it.
> Careful! Fox might find this as women hater evidence or even put you
> on his Hitler lover list.
I don't hate women. I only hate ugly women, who fail to starve
themselves in order to live up to society's impossible standards.
> >Do you really live in Toronto? I live in Ottawa. Do you ever come
> >through this neck of the woods?
> >
> Not really.
I rarely pass through Toronto. Oh well.
You recently mentioned that you don't paint as much as you used to. You
only do it now, you said, to amuse yourself. Why did you paint before?
I've always painted only to amuse myself. Of course I'll sell a work if
it amuses someone else.
Nik
Chillie Benes
ricard...@yahoo.com says...
>
>I think the original poster at 24 years old is very old just to be
>started in learning to draw.. There is a reason why parents start some
>of their children playing the piano when they are toddlers.
Having once been a child among children, and having raised five
of my own,etc. I have some experience. MOST children learn to
play with finger paints and crayons and are encouraged to
by their parents as a way of keeping them quiet and occupied.
That doesn't mean the child will choose to continue experimenting
as they grow older. Children who have a natural interest for
and talent in drawing may well go on to pursue careers in
art. But MOST children drift off to other areas of interest.
That's my observation of the world of child education.
Adults who return to "learning to draw" later in life begin
wherever they left off as children - they draw as a child
would. But being an adult thinker, they progress far more
rapidly than a child does because of having fully developed
coordination. Children draw as they do because they
lack experience - of observation, coordination and critical
thought.
Chillie Benes
>I would never have student draw from plaster casts, though.
Beats paying model fees! And you don't have to worry
about the pose changing while you're trying to capture it.
>If you want to simply teach descriptive drawing, a piece
>of broken glass, a hunk of wood and a stone are superior subjects.
I like old leather shoes, cracked and wrinkled.
>Plaster Casts have a history, by the way. They became popular in art
>schools simply because there were a lot of the stuff around - throw
>aways from the studios of monumental sculptors etc.
Plaster casts of classical sculptures were manufactured
FOR art school use in the 19th century to overcome
Victorian mores that prevented most schools from
teaching with live nudes. There is a wonderful collection
of old studio plasters of monumental classical statuary
called the Battle Cast Collection, preserved on the
campus of UT Austin, where I did my undergrad studies. And
yes, I drew several of those figures in my spare time.
They were on permanent display in the Harry Ransom Center.
My favorite, and I wrote a paper on him, is the Greek
"Charioteer" copied from the bronze original. The plaster
has been gilded to look like the weathered bronze of
the original. Cool!
Alison A Raimes
>
> http://www.danfoxart.com/New_Work_Part_II/Christ_Confronts_Peter/christ_confronts_peter.html
>
> Um... Why?
Nik
Why does anyone make art? I guess when the Italian artist who
originally did this work he was following a strong tradition in
Italian painting and the Modernist version of the religious links in
their art - hence the religious titles to an abstract work. I think
there is something fascinating in that. I wish I could remember the
name of the artist - I remember copying his work (and adding colour)
in my second year as an undergraduate. In fact, I have a series that
is almost identical to Dan's. As a student, still searching for the
*right* art, it's not unusual to find bodies of work that mimic other
artists. It gets a bit disturbing when 30 years after completing an
MA the artist is still mimiking .. but hey, how postmodern, eh? On
his site, Dan has his version of Tapies, Kline, Rothko, Twombly and
who the hell was it that did those horizontal stripes that he has in
his *sneak preview* ....... oh it will come to me ;-)
Cheers
Alison
http://raimes.com
Ricardo Pontes
Care to show us some of your "drawing"?
and my experience is that age
> is not a factor in determining if someone learns to draw, and draw well.
What is the average age in your classes? Where do you teach by the
way?
> In fact, drawing is one of the few curriculums in the plastic arts
> that lends itself to the teacher's craft, as it is basically
> non-ambiguous, content-laden, and concrete.
>
> I would never have student draw from plaster casts, though. They are
> dead things.
So what?
If you want to simply teach descriptive drawing, a piece
> of broken glass, a hunk of wood and a stone are superior subjects.
Those are not superior objects to use for drawing. Drawing say a
plaster cast of a face lets the student also go for a likeness, which
im sure you know hads complexity. Not only in a white plaster cast you
will be able to see the relation ship of values better and then use
that knowledge for whatever, which always translates very well to
figurative work. BS teachers use eggs to teach a student how to draw,
as if thats a very difficult thing to do. After they are convinced
they can draw eggs well, they have learned it all.. The best subject
is the figure above all. Plaster casts are a close second..
Id like to see your drawings please.
>
> Plaster Casts have a history, by the way. They became popular in art
> schools simply because there were a lot of the stuff around
Are you sure. Where did you get this information? Why do you think
there are schools trying to purchase plaster casts for students these
days? Because there is alot of that stuff around?
- throw
> aways from the studios of monumental sculptors etc. It just became art
> school habit, part of curriculum development strategies.
The reason they used plaster casts, is because IT WORKED. Look at the
student examples of the worst artists of the 19th century and compare
it to your own. I rest my case.
There's
> nothing intrinsically superior to a cast over any object from nature.
Can we see your students drawing please?
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't teach it tricks.
Ill take your word for it.
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
Ricardo Pontes
at least3 diplomas in an art school.
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
> I guess I'm the great exception to Mani's rule since
> I went back to school at 50 years of age and had
> no problems at all obtaining two degrees in art.
> On the other hand, Mani will insist I didn't learn
> a thing since schools today don't teach students
> anything about "how to draw." You can't win and
> argument with Mani because he is omniscient.
mdeli
>While I have enjoyed talking to Dan in this newsgroup, I just went and
>looked at his art.
>
>http://www.danfoxart.com
>
>I suppose the polite thing to say would be, "I don't get it." But I'm not
>entirely sure there's anything there to get. I've never been a big fan of
>minimalism.
>
>I was particularly baffled by "Christ Confronts Peter".
>
>http://www.danfoxart.com/New_Work_Part_II/Christ_Confronts_Peter/christ_confronts_peter.html
>
>I am obsessed by colour. Second for me comes line and pattern and harsh
>black jagged lines that define the coloured areas.
>
>So when I look at a smeary white canvas with three lines on it... I'm
>left a little... cold.
Very polite Nick. There's a reason I take the opposite tack.
Attending a Bauhaus type Art Academy has taught me to say exactly what
I think in undisguised language. At a point while attending this ding
dong school inhabited by little Foxes running around politely
complimenting each other's abominations I decided to take an
unfashionable tack. Anyone can read the amusing details in my book.
This has always helped me look at artwork carefully. Ever since that
time I judged artwork in terms of what I actually see rather than what
some artzy fartzy claims I'm supposed see.
Nik Maack
mdeli wrote:
> Very polite Nick. There's a reason I take the opposite tack.
I've had many seminar classes in creative writing. What I learned there
is, say what you think, but try to be polite about it. If you come
across as a total asshole, your criticism goes unheard. The artist (or
writer) can simply say:
"That guy is an asshole! Why should I listen to him?"
Thus you have wasted your energy communicating your criticism.
And in my opinion, the whole point of criticism is to help a person do
better at what they want to do. You have to critique a romance novel a
lot differently than you do a horror novel. Don't tell the romance
writer, "It isn't scary enough!" And don't tell the horror writer,
"There needs to be more intimate and sexy moments!"
If you hate romance novels, you'll have a tough time providing useful
critique to a romance novelist.
Dan is doing minimalist paintings with religious titles. His work does
nothing for me. I don't get it. I feel nothing, looking at it. That's
pretty much all I can tell him.
Because really, criticism is saying, "This is what I experience when I
experience your work."
> This has always helped me look at artwork carefully. Ever since that
> time I judged artwork in terms of what I actually see rather than what
> some artzy fartzy claims I'm supposed see.
This is actually a good approach -- I think it's the most honest way of
commenting on a piece of art. For example, if you read a piece of my
writing, and you say, "I don't get it," I can try to explain the
"theory" behind it. But if I have to explain the theory, then the
writing has failed. You should "get it" without a history lesson.
On the other hand, your not getting it doesn't mean it's a bad piece of writing.
Nik
Chillie Benes
>at least3 diplomas in an art school.
>
>
>Ricardo
>www.pileofgarbage.com
Well, that would be an interesting venture.
A pig teaching dirty apes! Your URL says it all,
doesn't it. I don't have to look to know what
I'll see there. Maybe you'd be better off
calling it a pigsty instead.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3C6CE812...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
>>I would never have student draw from plaster casts, though.
>>
>
> Beats paying model fees! And you don't have to worry
> about the pose changing while you're trying to capture it.
That's just it, Beanie. Look, let's back-up just a bit for clarity.
The proposition is that "classical" acomplishment can be achieved by
duplicating the methods of the "classicists" -- and drawing from plaster
casts is thought of as a "classical" discipline. But the objective of
the neo-classicists (a bit different than the actual classic artist,
btw) is verisimilitude via an ostentatious display of technique. So if
you achieve artistic sartori by copying plaster, you'll end up with the
ability to descriptively render...plaster.
Personally, I think drawing is something much more than that. Insofar as
verisimilitute goes, our actual visual encounter with the world is in
movement, for example. This was the basis of a very interesting 18th
century French Critique of Italian linear perspective that I read once,
which claimed that the Italians were't "realistic" at all because of the
way the device "froze" the world.
>>If you want to simply teach descriptive drawing, a piece
>>of broken glass, a hunk of wood and a stone are superior subjects.
>>
>
> I like old leather shoes, cracked and wrinkled.
Why not. I think Otis Institute, which still stresses ostentatious
drawing mastery, has it's students drawing walnut shells over plaster.
>>Plaster Casts have a history, by the way. They became popular in art
>>schools simply because there were a lot of the stuff around - throw
>>aways from the studios of monumental sculptors etc.
>>
>
> Plaster casts of classical sculptures were manufactured
> FOR art school use in the 19th century to overcome
> Victorian mores that prevented most schools from
> teaching with live nudes. There is a wonderful collection
> of old studio plasters of monumental classical statuary
> called the Battle Cast Collection, preserved on the
> campus of UT Austin, where I did my undergrad studies. And
> yes, I drew several of those figures in my spare time.
> They were on permanent display in the Harry Ransom Center.
> My favorite, and I wrote a paper on him, is the Greek
> "Charioteer" copied from the bronze original. The plaster
> has been gilded to look like the weathered bronze of
> the original. Cool!
Yes, but plaster of paris casting is much older than art schools. As an
industry, what preceded art school products was replication of 'classic'
sculpture during the early Renaissance and beyond. The famous plaster
cast collections that still exist today come from this practice,
although some of these did end up in art schools.
It's not difficult to see how art schools picked-up on plaster, insofar
as the casts 'stood for' the classical ideal that was being foisted on
society during the early modern era.
The Ransom Center piece sounds wonderful. By the time art museums
prolifereated in the mid 19th century, there were thousands of these
reproductions around. My argument is that parts of these laying around
the sculptur studios floors found their way into the newly invented art
schools.
Did you ever see the film "Camille Claudel" (Bruno Nuytten, 1988)? It's
excellent, and shows the 'plaster discourse' that existed in Rodin's
studio at the time.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
>>Well, I've taught drawing for a few years,
>>
>
> Care to show us some of your "drawing"?
Nope.
>
>
> and my experience is that age
>
>>is not a factor in determining if someone learns to draw, and draw well.
>>
>
> What is the average age in your classes? Where do you teach by the
> way?
My guess would be about 22. I don't teach anymore, but when I did it
was at a JC in Northern California (Sacramento area).
>> In fact, drawing is one of the few curriculums in the plastic arts
>>that lends itself to the teacher's craft, as it is basically
>>non-ambiguous, content-laden, and concrete.
>>
>>I would never have student draw from plaster casts, though. They are
>>dead things.
>>
>
> So what?
"What" is that it misses about 75% of what drawing is about, that's "what".
>
> If you want to simply teach descriptive drawing, a piece
>
>>of broken glass, a hunk of wood and a stone are superior subjects.
>>
>
> Those are not superior objects to use for drawing. Drawing say a
> plaster cast of a face lets the student also go for a likeness, which
> im sure you know hads complexity. Not only in a white plaster cast you
> will be able to see the relation ship of values better and then use
> that knowledge for whatever, which always translates very well to
> figurative work. BS teachers use eggs to teach a student how to draw,
> as if thats a very difficult thing to do. After they are convinced
> they can draw eggs well, they have learned it all.. The best subject
> is the figure above all. Plaster casts are a close second..
>
> Id like to see your drawings please.
You may suffer at will. Not interested.
>>Plaster Casts have a history, by the way. They became popular in art
>>schools simply because there were a lot of the stuff around
>>
>
> Are you sure. Where did you get this information? Why do you think
> there are schools trying to purchase plaster casts for students these
> days? Because there is alot of that stuff around?
It's common knowledge in art history, Ricardo. Look up "history of
plaster" on google if you are interested. In answer to your question,
there's not a lot of casts being made today, since museum style has
changed towards 'authenticity' in displays.
>
> - throw
>
>>aways from the studios of monumental sculptors etc. It just became art
>>school habit, part of curriculum development strategies.
>>
>
> The reason they used plaster casts, is because IT WORKED. Look at the
> student examples of the worst artists of the 19th century and compare
> it to your own. I rest my case.
In the best case, the master student who draws a plaster cast perfectly
has rendered a representation of a plaster cast. The best students I
ever taught were registered paranoid schizophrenics, as a matter of
fact. Husband and wife, and especially the woman's drawings were
incredible. But that's another story.
>
> There's
>
>>nothing intrinsically superior to a cast over any object from nature.
>>
>
> Can we see your students drawing please?
Nope.
EAM
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> This was the basis of a very interesting 18th
> century French Critique of Italian linear perspective that I read once,
> which claimed that the Italians were't "realistic" at all because of the
> way the device "froze" the world.
Am I the only one who sincerely doubts that this "18th century French
critique of Italian linear perspective" is interesting?
The scary thing here is, I suspect you're trying to say that art should
be about life, movement, and energy. Only you're saying it in prose so
stilted and dead that I almost get the feeling you're arguing that we
draw sketches that look suspiciously like suicide notes before we gargle
with hemlock and lie very still.
I'm sorry -- I'm being all bitchy. Insofar as this conversation is
concerned, pretend I said nothing.
Nik
Erik A. Mattila
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>>This was the basis of a very interesting 18th
>>century French Critique of Italian linear perspective that I read once,
>>which claimed that the Italians were't "realistic" at all because of the
>>way the device "froze" the world.
>>
>
> Am I the only one who sincerely doubts that this "18th century French
> critique of Italian linear perspective" is interesting?
This seems to be the overlaying problem with the passive voice in
literature, Nik. But surely we can count the evidence in my favor and
you will lose the argument.
Obviously, the authors of La vision perspective (1435-1740) : l'art et
la science du regard, de la Renaissance à l'âge classique /, textes
choisis et présentés par Philippe Hamou. Paris : Payot & Rivages, c1995
found it interesting. And I find it interesting - so that's two or
more, so you can't say it "isn't interesting" in the passive voice.
But even so, I can't see how you find it uninteresting, unless you read
the book and found it boring.
And finally, you've pulled an example out of context (your usual ploy).
The context was, by implication, that perspective 'stood for' reality,
when, in fact, it is quite unnatural. Now, you may not be interested in
art history, but for those who are, the philosophy of French Naturalism
had a direct impact on the development of Impressionism and other art
movements, simply because the scientific inquirey spurned on by the
Enlightenment brought to questions many assumptions about truth in art.
The fuzziness of Pissaro, for example, has succinct seat in the
optician's understanding of the mechanics of the human eye.
But there's no real reason to find that interesting, unless one just
happens to be interested is such things.
>
> The scary thing here is, I suspect you're trying to say that art should
> be about life, movement, and energy. Only you're saying it in prose so
> stilted and dead that I almost get the feeling you're arguing that we
> draw sketches that look suspiciously like suicide notes before we gargle
> with hemlock and lie very still.
No, I've always claimed that art is 'about' what it is about, which I
think varies dramatically even within a historical period or a
neighborhood. Following that thought, learning to draw from plaster
casts will instruct the neophyte on the drawing of plaster casts. I
would just like to recognize, and perhaps emphasize, that many artists
had and have different views on drawing, and it is difficult to hold one
above the other without becoming an art autocrat, which emphatically
narrows our vision of art itself.
>
> I'm sorry -- I'm being all bitchy. Insofar as this conversation is
> concerned, pretend I said nothing.
>
> Nik
Why do you always back-out like this. If you have a position, say it --
stand by it -- defend it -- shout it from the treetops etc. Are you
some sort of an art-wimp?
Erik
>
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> Obviously, the authors of La vision perspective (1435-1740) : l'art et
> la science du regard, de la Renaissance à l'âge classique /, textes
> choisis et présentés par Philippe Hamou. Paris : Payot & Rivages, c1995
> found it interesting. And I find it interesting - so that's two or
> more, so you can't say it "isn't interesting" in the passive voice.
I can say anything. It's one of my fondest abilities. Please don't try
to take it away from me.
> The context was, by implication, that perspective 'stood for' reality,
> when, in fact, it is quite unnatural. Now, you may not be interested in
> art history, but for those who are, the philosophy of French Naturalism
> had a direct impact on the development of Impressionism and other art
> movements, simply because the scientific inquirey spurned on by the
> Enlightenment brought to questions many assumptions about truth in art.
You and I are going to have difficulty communicating with each other,
and yet I seem to feel a need to talk with you.
I am an intuitive communicator, relying mostly on wit, metaphor, and
abstraction. You are -- try not to take this as an insult or a
compliment -- you are an intellectual communicator. You rely on
rationality, logic, and hard analysis. (That's my take on you so far.
I reserve the right to change my opinion without notice.)
I get the impression that you have no idea what I am saying when I speak
to you. You're probably not even sure WHY it is I'm speaking to you.
Frankly, neither am I. There's just something about your style of
writing that hits me like a bamboo shoot under the fingernail, and I
feel this insane need to dance around you, hooting and waving some sort
of scepter. Let's, at least, hope it's a scepter and not its Freudian source.
Here's what I think is going on, in my head. To me, you represent the
guy who ruins the movie by dissecting it. Yes, we can achieve a greater
understanding of the film if we analyze it from start to finish, going
through scene by scene, drawing graphs and examining frame layouts,
looking at each pixel under a microscope. But this form of analysis can
easily destroy the work -- it often loses sight of what the film was
aiming for: INTUITIVE, ABSTRACT, EMOTIONAL BEAUTY! Something that goes
BEYOND rational analysis.
I have this friend -- he recently fled the country -- who, after a
movie, would immediately start breaking it into pieces and try to
explain it. There I am, savoring the mood, floating along on a tiny
pink cloud of splendor, and he'd drag me back to earth, yank me out of
the ether, and insist I engage him in a nuts and bolts talk about the
use of lighting and sound.
It's a downer. Sure, I'm willing to have that conversation. But must
we have it right now, after the film has just ended? And must we ALWAYS
talk in this manner -- chopping the film into pieces and examining its
innards? Instead, can't we talk about the emotion of it, the beauty,
the WHOLE, how the film danced across the movie screen like a gazelle
through an ancient woods?
I said:
> > I'm sorry -- I'm being all bitchy. Insofar as this conversation is
> > concerned, pretend I said nothing.
By the way, I used the word "insofar" because you used it, and it looked
so damn ugly. I wanted to feel what it was like to use it. It was an
interesting experience. I felt like a pompous university professor for
just an instant. It was an ugly feeling, although getting tenure was
kind of nice.
> Why do you always back-out like this. If you have a position, say it --
> stand by it -- defend it -- shout it from the treetops etc. Are you
> some sort of an art-wimp?
No, I figure you just don't get what I'm saying, so I always give you a
little door to duck through. I think of it as an extremely thoughtful
and polite gesture on my part.
By the by, I agree that we should shout our beliefs from the treetops.
But I have learned, after many years, that defending them isn't
necessarily a good thing. You can spend the rest of your life defending
your beliefs, and forget to ever act on them.
In fact, most of the highly rational, logical, debate-oriented people I
have met do exactly that. They talk and they analyse and they dissect
until bedtime. Then they get up the next day and start all over again
-- talking, analyzing, dissecting.
Taking an ACTION seems to require something more. An intuitive leap --
jumping off the cliff not because it makes sense, but because...
(There is no explanation that can be expressed in words.)
Nik
Chillie Benes
>That's just it, Beanie. Look, let's back-up just a bit for clarity.
>The proposition is that "classical" acomplishment can be achieved by
>duplicating the methods of the "classicists" -- and drawing from plaster
>casts is thought of as a "classical" discipline.
Well, be that as it may, I never ever heard one
of my professors claim that we were learning
"classical discipline." Drawing was simply that,
and to learn to draw one had to do it, be it from
plaster, flesh or tree bark. Since I am one of
those who "learned to draw" in m-u-c-h later life,
I did what I was told I was supposed to do - draw!
I'll leave the intellectual arguments to you and
others more astute than I when it comes to whether
or not this or that leads to classical skills.
Not that it's won me any medals (one or two), but
I am *not* one who believes you need to draw like
Watteau before learning to paint. I began painting
y-e-a-r-s before I had an opportunity to return
to art school and draw. I know - I'm rambling and
will now shut up since I haven't a clue where I'm
taking this...
Chillie Benes
>By the by, I agree that we should shout our beliefs from the treetops.
>But I have learned, after many years, that defending them isn't
>necessarily a good thing. You can spend the rest of your life defending
>your beliefs, and forget to ever act on them.
I love the image this invokes. Wondering if the
treetops afford the best place from which to
be defensive. Makes me think of the old saw -
about sawing off the limb your sitting on, etc.
I must have had one cuppa too many this a.m....sorry.
Erik A. Mattila
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>>Obviously, the authors of La vision perspective (1435-1740) : l'art et
>>la science du regard, de la Renaissance à l'âge classique /, textes
>>choisis et présentés par Philippe Hamou. Paris : Payot & Rivages, c1995
>>found it interesting. And I find it interesting - so that's two or
>>more, so you can't say it "isn't interesting" in the passive voice.
>>
>
> I can say anything. It's one of my fondest abilities. Please don't try
> to take it away from me.
Of course there's no way I can take it away, but....well...when I wrote
that I was remembering Geronimo's famous surrender speech, which he used
five or six times: "General Crook says that I am a bad man. I don't
understand this. My mother doesn't think I'm a bad man. My Uncle
doesn't thing I'm a bad man."
See the connectionf?
>> The context was, by implication, that perspective 'stood for' reality,
>>when, in fact, it is quite unnatural. Now, you may not be interested in
>>art history, but for those who are, the philosophy of French Naturalism
>>had a direct impact on the development of Impressionism and other art
>>movements, simply because the scientific inquirey spurned on by the
>>Enlightenment brought to questions many assumptions about truth in art.
>>
>
> You and I are going to have difficulty communicating with each other,
> and yet I seem to feel a need to talk with you.
I don't see any difficulty. You just seem to have difficulty with the
way I choose to communicate. Notice I never did say once that you
should or shouldn't say something -- rather I accepted what you said and
responded. The ball is in your court.
> I am an intuitive communicator, relying mostly on wit, metaphor, and
> abstraction.
I would think you would rely on ESP or something like that.
>You are -- try not to take this as an insult or a
> compliment -- you are an intellectual communicator. You rely on
> rationality, logic, and hard analysis. (That's my take on you so far.
> I reserve the right to change my opinion without notice.)
No, Nik - I'm writing threads in an art discussion group. You jumped in
at one point, I responded, and it's gone on from there. I don't think
you should try to pidgeon hole me. Sure, I like discussions, and I like
to be informed on what I discuss. But does that mean I can't grok artd?
I don't think so.
> I get the impression that you have no idea what I am saying when I speak
> to you. You're probably not even sure WHY it is I'm speaking to you.
> Frankly, neither am I. There's just something about your style of
> writing that hits me like a bamboo shoot under the fingernail, and I
> feel this insane need to dance around you, hooting and waving some sort
> of scepter. Let's, at least, hope it's a scepter and not its Freudian source.
Very imaginative.
>
> Here's what I think is going on, in my head. To me, you represent the
> guy who ruins the movie by dissecting it. Yes, we can achieve a greater
> understanding of the film if we analyze it from start to finish, going
> through scene by scene, drawing graphs and examining frame layouts,
> looking at each pixel under a microscope. But this form of analysis can
> easily destroy the work -- it often loses sight of what the film was
> aiming for: INTUITIVE, ABSTRACT, EMOTIONAL BEAUTY! Something that goes
> BEYOND rational analysis.
Wrong again. I seldom analyze movies, or even literature -- unless I'm
DOING that. I mean I don't spontaneously do it. I'm trained to do this
sort of analysis anyway. You know, from graduate school. I enjoy it,
but it's not habitual.
>
> I have this friend -- he recently fled the country -- who, after a
> movie, would immediately start breaking it into pieces and try to
> explain it. There I am, savoring the mood, floating along on a tiny
> pink cloud of splendor, and he'd drag me back to earth, yank me out of
> the ether, and insist I engage him in a nuts and bolts talk about the
> use of lighting and sound.
Well, I just watched "Hearts in Atlantis" with my wife, who is also into
analyzing flicks. I said "Did that make you cry?" and she said "Yeah,
did it you" and I said "yea...(choke, sputter)...that was a powerful
movie!" Now I wanted to add...I forgot. Anyway, that's about the size
of it. We might get around to talking about it sometime in the future.
> It's a downer. Sure, I'm willing to have that conversation. But must
> we have it right now, after the film has just ended? And must we ALWAYS
> talk in this manner -- chopping the film into pieces and examining its
> innards? Instead, can't we talk about the emotion of it, the beauty,
> the WHOLE, how the film danced across the movie screen like a gazelle
> through an ancient woods?
>
> I said:
>
>>>I'm sorry -- I'm being all bitchy. Insofar as this conversation is
>>>concerned, pretend I said nothing.
>>>
>
> By the way, I used the word "insofar" because you used it, and it looked
> so damn ugly. I wanted to feel what it was like to use it. It was an
> interesting experience. I felt like a pompous university professor for
> just an instant. It was an ugly feeling, although getting tenure was
> kind of nice.
That's too bad, Nik, it's a fine word. But your comment reminds me of
an experience -- a very strange experience -- I had years ago in
Vietnam. My Major asked me a question, and my answer was "not
particularly." The Top Sargeant looked at the Major and said, pointing
his finger at his head while he nodded at me "See, Major, what did I
tell you....heavy."
Now think about it. We live in a society where one may be shunned for
having a decent vocabulary. That's hilarious.
>>Why do you always back-out like this. If you have a position, say it --
>>stand by it -- defend it -- shout it from the treetops etc. Are you
>>some sort of an art-wimp?
>>
>
> No, I figure you just don't get what I'm saying, so I always give you a
> little door to duck through. I think of it as an extremely thoughtful
> and polite gesture on my part.
>
> By the by, I agree that we should shout our beliefs from the treetops.
> But I have learned, after many years, that defending them isn't
> necessarily a good thing. You can spend the rest of your life defending
> your beliefs, and forget to ever act on them.
Yes, but again, this is a discussion forum, and debate is really a fine
thing, and shouldn't become the cause misanthropy (like that line? I
get carried away.) We both live in deomocratic states that are probably
only possible because argumentation and debate can happen without
homicide following. It's a positive human value, in my opinion.
> In fact, most of the highly rational, logical, debate-oriented people I
> have met do exactly that. They talk and they analyse and they dissect
> until bedtime. Then they get up the next day and start all over again
> -- talking, analyzing, dissecting.
Well, you seem to be on the verge on iterating the tired, hackneyed
rational/emotional polarity argument that festers like a hungry maggot
in art discourse. Go ahead, have at it. Personally, I think it is
mighty mountains of bull caca, but it's always a fun argument.
> Taking an ACTION seems to require something more. An intuitive leap --
> jumping off the cliff not because it makes sense, but because...
Yes, but you see, it's only imaginary that talking about something
precludes acting. It's an alibi, a lie, an untruth. History if full of
exacerbated verboids of high-energy action-jackson.
> (There is no explanation that can be expressed in words.)
>
> Nik
Yet all explanations R words.
Erik
Discussion
Perhaps the state of being "schmie", or "schmier"?
Yiddische? German?
Can't follow anything if it's written in two languages.
Or maybe this is a new word sprung from this very
newsgroup?
N.H
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c6c32bb...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> Nik Maack wrote:
> >mdeli wrote:
> >> Dali's style is beyond my abilities.
<snipped>
> I'm making a point. Its not an argument. You paint schmiery faces is
> that wrong because you aren't original?
>
> >> I'm not interested in expressing
> >> anything.
> >
<snipped>
Erik A. Mattila
Mine is just brewing - give me a chance to catch-up.
I think it's supposed to be "shout it from the mountain tops" but I got
confused with "I talk to the trees, but they don't listen to me."
Erik A. Mattila
> Well, be that as it may, I never ever heard one
> of my professors claim that we were learning
> "classical discipline." Drawing was simply that,
> and to learn to draw one had to do it, be it from
> plaster, flesh or tree bark. Since I am one of
> those who "learned to draw" in m-u-c-h later life,
> I did what I was told I was supposed to do - draw!
>
> I'll leave the intellectual arguments to you and
> others more astute than I when it comes to whether
> or not this or that leads to classical skills.
>
> Not that it's won me any medals (one or two), but
> I am *not* one who believes you need to draw like
> Watteau before learning to paint. I began painting
> y-e-a-r-s before I had an opportunity to return
> to art school and draw. I know - I'm rambling and
> will now shut up since I haven't a clue where I'm
> taking this...
I agree with you - I think drawing is only important if you love to
draw, which I certainly do.
But I'm not arguing that drawing is 'classical' in and of itself. What
I'm addressing is the idea that classical art can even exist, and that
how you learn to draw determines if you are a good or bad artist.
My approach to painting critique is to try to determine by the virtues
of the painting itself what it is trying to be, and determining if it
has reached its goals. Not a very exacting science, of course, and
certainly the observer's role in the critical process is very big.
But the alternative is to recite a catachism of stock phrases about
"authority" in art, that a painting has to be this or that yadda yadda
yadda. It just doesn't fly. And the only situation that autocracy in
art judgement would fly is in a social context resembling totalitarianism.
Which reminds me...John Ascroft spent someting like 21K$ of taxpayers
money having a curtain put around that gratuiously nude statue of
Justice in the Justice Department. That ought to give all the art-cops
out there a big thrill.
Erik
Chillie Benes
>But I'm not arguing that drawing is 'classical' in and of itself.
I think I got it - finally. And it's nothing more than
what I was saying - I think. So we agree - I guess.
>My approach to painting critique is to try to determine by the virtues
>of the painting itself
Admirable. But what do you do when it's all about
story-telling (NOT illustration please) - allegorical
is what I'm thinking - I guess?? Do you dwell on the
ability to make the paint work in context, or???
>Which reminds me...John Ascroft spent
Oh dear! Did you miss the couple of threads on that
subject? We had quite a discussion about American
prudishness, etc.
Speaking of which, I was emailed a puzzling
photo the other day that you might enjoy analyzing.
I need answers to "what, where, why" since there
are no banners or signs apparent it hardly appears
to be a protest march. The person who sent it to
me said it's "All the Enron employees leaving
Houston with all their earthly possessions."
http://coke.rotten.com/naked-people/
Enjoy - unless you're a prudish American...
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>
> Which reminds me...John Ascroft spent someting like 21K$ of taxpayers
> money having a curtain put around that gratuiously nude statue of
> Justice in the Justice Department. That ought to give all the
art-cops
> out there a big thrill.
>
Justice is, by convention, shown as blind, I would have thought that
nakedness would add to that symbolism showing that justice should be
open for all to see.
--
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again; and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open, and show riches
Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked
I cried to dream again.
- Caliban, The Tempest.
Erik A. Mattila
> Oh dear! Did you miss the couple of threads on that
> subject? We had quite a discussion about American
> prudishness, etc.
Missed that one.
>
> Speaking of which, I was emailed a puzzling
> photo the other day that you might enjoy analyzing.
> I need answers to "what, where, why" since there
> are no banners or signs apparent it hardly appears
> to be a protest march. The person who sent it to
> me said it's "All the Enron employees leaving
> Houston with all their earthly possessions."
>
> http://coke.rotten.com/naked-people/
>
> Enjoy - unless you're a prudish American...
Well, there are some clues. The street lights are on, and there's no
shadows. Looks like early morning to me.
Why would all those people disrobe at 6 am?
Another clue - the green street sign (left turn OK?). I'm not familiar
with that sort of sign, but I don't think it's Europe because the
traffic lights have an American nuance. Canada?
Got to be a big city -- and what you see of the architecture is pretty
unique. You can't really read the street signs, but one looks
suspiciously like "Sainte Catherine" which is French, so Montreal gets a
big hit. The Montreal Museum of Contemporary Art is on Rue Sainte
Cathernie and sports the architecture shown in the photo.
http://www.macm.org/informations/
Sooo.....whose an artist who likes a lot of nudes (besides the Brit film
maker Peter Greenaway)? How about New York's Spencer Turnick? It turns
out that May 26, 2001 at the wee hours of the morning Turnick did his
thing at the Art museum with all those nudes.
http://www.cs.concordia.ca/~faculty/grogono/tunick.html
rotten.com is wrong, there were only 2,500 nudes.
Hey, that was fun. But I didn't quite discover it that way. What I did
was search google with "crowd of nude people" and the first hit was
"Montrealers out early to get nude"
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSWeirdNews0105/26_mont-cp.html
That was easy, but it was as hard as hell to find a photo of the art
museum so I could verify it.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>
>>Which reminds me...John Ascroft spent someting like 21K$ of taxpayers
>>money having a curtain put around that gratuiously nude statue of
>>Justice in the Justice Department. That ought to give all the
>>
> art-cops
>
>>out there a big thrill.
>>
>>
> Indeed a waste. But, why do you consider the nakedness gratuitous?
> Justice is, by convention, shown as blind, I would have thought that
> nakedness would add to that symbolism showing that justice should be
> open for all to see.
That was just tongue-in-cheek, Pete. I don't really. Erik
Ricardo Pontes
>
>
> It's common knowledge in art history, Ricardo. Look up "history of
> plaster" on google if you are interested. In answer to your question,
> there's not a lot of casts being made today, since museum style has
> changed towards 'authenticity' in displays.
Authenticity?
I wasnt speaking of museums thou, just art schools. Erik visit
www.guistgallery.com, www.statues.com , www.statue.com ,
www.sculpturehouse.com, compleatsculptor.com.
Do you show drawings anywhere? It would be interesting to see what you
are teaching the next generation.
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
Ricardo Pontes
> That's just it, Beanie. Look, let's back-up just a bit for clarity.
> The proposition is that "classical" acomplishment can be achieved by
> duplicating the methods of the "classicists" -- and drawing from plaster
> casts is thought of as a "classical" discipline. But the objective of
> the neo-classicists (a bit different than the actual classic artist,
> btw) is verisimilitude via an ostentatious display of technique. So if
> you achieve artistic sartori by copying plaster, you'll end up with the
> ability to descriptively render...plaster.
So you think that because students learn to draw from plaster casts
all they learn to capture is the look of plaster?
>
> Personally, I think drawing is something much more than that. Insofar as
> verisimilitute goes, our actual visual encounter with the world is in
> movement, for example. This was the basis of a very interesting 18th
> century French Critique of Italian linear perspective that I read once,
> which claimed that the Italians were't "realistic" at all because of the
> way the device "froze" the world.
>
>
Hey, i got a great IDEA. Lets see your drawings??
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
Chillie Benes
>That was easy, but it was as hard as hell to find a photo of the art
>museum so I could verify it.
No problem. You are now crowned honorable
detective of RAF. Snoopy snoop dog couldn't
have put on a finer performance.
Continuing most urgently in quest of
freedom from prudity in America,
here is something from our friends across
the waters (illustrated no less),
who, in offering up the milk of
kindness have venerated every male who ever
cracked the cover of a Playboy, Hustler, etc:
http://www.amibritishornot.com/features/eyeful.asp
Long Live Dolly et al!
Next study to be published will undoubtedly be
what the opposite sex can do get even - gain
equal longevity...
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> I don't see any difficulty.
Of course not.
> No, Nik - I'm writing threads in an art discussion group. You jumped in
> at one point, I responded, and it's gone on from there. I don't think
> you should try to pidgeon hole me. Sure, I like discussions, and I like
> to be informed on what I discuss. But does that mean I can't grok artd?
I never said you don't grok art. What I said was, your style of
communicating makes me hurt.
> That's too bad, Nik, it's a fine word. But your comment reminds me of
> an experience -- a very strange experience -- I had years ago in
> Vietnam. My Major asked me a question, and my answer was "not
> particularly." The Top Sargeant looked at the Major and said, pointing
> his finger at his head while he nodded at me "See, Major, what did I
> tell you....heavy."
A coworker read a story of mine -- he complimented me for using
straightforward English, but pointed out that every now and then I rely
on a "heavy" word. His example? The word "ambiguous".
This made me very sad.
> Now think about it. We live in a society where one may be shunned for
> having a decent vocabulary. That's hilarious.
And yet, herr professor, you know that many a feeble mind has hidden
itself behind jargon and polysyllabics. While doing my degree in
psychology, I was constantly confronted with papers written in
ridiculous lingo that could have been written clearly. As someone with
a creative writing degree -- my god -- I've often seen people spew
convoluted gibberish, thinking the intricate sprawl of their sentence
somehow raises the value of their ideas.
My attitude is all Kurt Vonnegut's fault, by the way. That and zen
buddhism and taoism and haiku and... Well, you get the picture.
> Yes, but again, this is a discussion forum, and debate is really a fine
> thing
It can be a fine thing. I'm just starting to get the feeling I live in
a world where people think it's the only thing.
> Well, you seem to be on the verge on iterating the tired, hackneyed
> rational/emotional polarity argument that festers like a hungry maggot
> in art discourse. Go ahead, have at it. Personally, I think it is
> mighty mountains of bull caca, but it's always a fun argument.
Ever done the Myers-Briggs personality test? I'm an INFP. As an
intuitive person, I find that I have difficulty dealing with the
majority of people I meet. The way I seem to work is, I pour all sorts
of things into my head -- books and movies and paintings and what have
you -- and some new mix POPS out, seemingly without my wanting it to happen.
Learning to cope with my intuitive nature has been a bit of a struggle.
Almost every model of thought rejects intuition, or sees it as
rationality's useful but slow-witted sidekick.
Of course intuition had to be tempered with rationality, and vice-versa.
> Yet all explanations R words.
How about this hypothesis: There is no "explanation". There is only
rationalization after the fact.
Nik
Marilyn
> Chillie Benes wrote:
>
>
> > Oh dear! Did you miss the couple of threads on that
> > subject? We had quite a discussion about American
> > prudishness, etc.
>
> Missed that one.
According to Senator Clinton, it cost $8,000. for the drapes
which she referred to as a "burqa."
Here's a photo of the museum:
http://www.macm.org/collections/index.cfm?ssmenu=4
(Funny thing about that web site for the Museum of Contemporary Art,
clicking on "English" just brings you back to the French version.)
MW
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> >
> >>Which reminds me...John Ascroft spent someting like 21K$ of
taxpayers
> >>money having a curtain put around that gratuiously nude statue of
> >>Justice in the Justice Department. That ought to give all the
> >>
> > art-cops
> >
> >>out there a big thrill.
> >>
> >>
> > Indeed a waste. But, why do you consider the nakedness gratuitous?
> > Justice is, by convention, shown as blind, I would have thought that
> > nakedness would add to that symbolism showing that justice should be
> > open for all to see.
>
>
> That was just tongue-in-cheek, Pete. I don't really. Erik
>
female judge I came across was not one I would have liked to see naked.
NightMist
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>> >>
>> > Indeed a waste. But, why do you consider the nakedness gratuitous?
>> > Justice is, by convention, shown as blind, I would have thought that
>> > nakedness would add to that symbolism showing that justice should be
>> > open for all to see.
>>
>>
>> That was just tongue-in-cheek, Pete. I don't really. Erik
>>
>Great. I thought it might be. I quite like the idea, though the only
>female judge I came across was not one I would have liked to see naked.
>
Ok, now you have put utterly unholy images of "Judge Judy" into my
head. Ew ew ew ew ew ew
I so did not need that!
Barbara