Formal criteria - Part One
CROCUSDES
points in this effort. However, it's not convincing enough to apply
universally although from a specific stance, your terms may be useful for some.
You've done a good job so far. Here in the US we have an anachronistic term
that still applies to me and that is ..."I'm from Missouri". What that means
is that folks from that state are supposedly very skeptical and very hard to
impress or convince. Your "objectivity" continues to seem subjective to me my
friend and I'll see if I can respond to a couple of points you made in your
post.
>(very big snip) This "natural disbelief" is the healthy functioning of the
human >mind - it does not mean that when we look at a great work of art we are
>somehow malfunctioning; what it does imply is that the artist has used such
>realistic technique as he finds necessary to *convince us of the authenticity
of >the message* .....(snip and continued below)
That final portion is one tough cookie to swallow because realistic technique
alone is definitly not the only way to convey the authenticity of a message.
No, not by any means and the same ends can be achieved through an unlimited
range of visual metaphors. You're missing the point of the symbolic here Iian,
where one may substitute one image whether realistic or abstract for another to
convey idea. We're talking about a visual language now since reference is made
to imagery.
What you strictly apply to realistic rendering can be as easily transferred to
a happy face and the message of these little yellow buttons is unmistakably
clear. Thats one of the roles of symbolic representation, making an
abstraction of a concept and imbuing it with a meaning that can be understood
by either the many or the few depending on intent. Facial expression alone is
a universal language that is generally understood by all peoples with some
exceptions but in general it's true. Abstract the facial expression and it can
be as valid a form of communication as a realistic rendering when conveying
some ideas. Therefore your "objective" premise that representational work best
conveys authenticity to the message, isn't working for me.
>(snip...continued from above) - which is to say in more poetic language, he
>pulls us into his inner world, through means I see representationalism as
being >the best way of expressing artistic intent as human beings have a
"natural >disbelief". What this means is that we don't mistake sculptures for
real, >breathing people, nor do we believe that the events told in a story are
actually >happening to us right now, at this point in time and space. of real
objects, >whether they be paint, charcoal, clay, books and so forth. (snip)
Now this part is fine with me because in the beginning of the above you state
that "I see representationalism as being the best way of expressing...etc etc".
Now that I like better because you have qualified the statement to read as a
personal preference or viewpoint. Without having to accept your statement as
"objective" then I can agree that your point of view is valid because there is
a direct correlation between what you may be seeing and what you want to see in
a work of art. That's fair enough with me and there are works of art that can
satisfy this requirement for you. Just as there are other works that do it for
me. No one is disqualified through so called objectivity unless we state that
this means a persons ability to judge any work of art based on his particular
standards and sensibilities. Ojectivity is a relative term when applied to art
and the best I can make of it is that we judge works based on the standards
each of us develops and accepts.
>(snip)Now transpose this analogy over to the visual arts. If the painter has
some
>conception in his mind that he would like to see externalized, he first sits
>down and sketches out the rough idea - this is because the idea is at first
>relatively formless and exists on an intuitive/emotional level. The artist
then
>searches through the visual material available to him and selects those
>elements which enhance the expression of his idea; it follows, also, that he
>rejects those things which impede the transmission of his idea. This process
can continue indefinitely, and only ends when the artist feels that the idea
has at
>last reached its perfect form and cannot be improved upon. This process,
>incidentally, might never truly end for some artists, and this is why they are
>compelled to return to the idea in the future, in an attempt to see whether a
>more mature outlook might do it justice this time round. It is this pursuit of
>the idea, which can be equated with the Ideal, that drives - so far as I can
>tell - many artists ever onwards. They all hope to achieve perfect realization
>of the Ideal, and it is these "failures" that often constitute some of our
>greatest art works.
Okay, I'm in agreement with you here as you've stated your premise. Almost
without objection as a matter of fact. Now this shouldn't surprise you Iian
because I see nothing wrong with it as written. You weren't implying that when
an artist searches for visual material which then is selected and rejected for
the purpose of the work at hand, that the person was ONLY considering realistic
material. Now that shows real promise. On the other hand if you mean that
only representational material drawn from our visual world qualifies as
suitable material to work with then NO, I do not agree and you haven't proven
your point yet. What you say can be correctly applied to abstract work as well
as the representational. An abstractionist can draw upon the same range of
images as a realist can and it is the interpretation of those images that
differentiates one from the other. Both can make art or nonsense out of this
material.
> (snip)The difference between the above approach and the traditional one
>which places God as the Ideal is that a supernatural entity is not needed to
>explain the
>drive for perfect realization here. You can certainly say that God inspires
you,
>but you could just as well say that the workings of the subconscious explain
>your inspired Ideas. Either explanation leaves the source of the Idea somewhat
>mysterious and beyond the bounds of objective analysis; the artist, perhaps,
>has the best means of approaching the problem as his life is dedicated to
>***making the Ideal the Real***. The Real does not necessarily mean "realism"
>here - all it means is taking an Idea and giving it form in the real world, so
that it >has an actual existence outside your own mind.(continued below.....)
Exactly! How is it that we disagree so much when it turns out we agree just as
often? A mystery.
>(continued from above...) This is not to imply that the "spirit" of the
artist >somehow leaves him and
>enters into the object itself; after all, such "spirit" has no effect on
animals
>or inanimate matter - it is only human beings who are affected by art. To
>answer the question of whether the art is in the Idea or in the Real object,
all I >can say is that the Idea may be present in the artist's mind, but it
needs a Real
>object to make it manifest in the physical realm - otherwise the Idea remains
>locked in the artist's subjective universe. Without that realization in
matter,
>the Idea can never be communicated.
Uh oh, we're in trouble again Iian and just when I thought we were beginning to
get along too. You are absolutely wrong about Idea requiring a real object to
be manisfested in the physical realm (painting?). It's simply not true Iian,
any representation of an idea can be real if it's conveyed in a convincing
manner but that conviction does not have to be based on the representational.
It can be symbolic and shapes, color, line, movement, all these things put into
a work of art are symbols of idea. We represent idea through association Iian,
not necessarily through representation, the two do not mean the same thing.
Realistic representation in works of art can mean two things. One is that it's
an identifier, it describes something we can see and when modulated can be more
than representation but an expression as well. The exact same thing can be
said of abstract shapes or symbols which, when referring to strictly abstract
ideas or even emotion, out of necessity becomes something other than what it
is.
If one of the prime reasons for artmaking to begin with is to express idea or
emotion then there are absolutely no limits on how to go about doing this.
None whatsoever. The slant you are giving this idea is really from an
illustration point of view. I'm sorry but it can't be interpreted any other
way. One can illustrate an idea realistically, certainly, but that doesn't
necessarily make it a work of art although it can be. Illustration is heavily
dependent on the representational in most cases but even then it's not an
absolute, but let's not haggle over that point. You have in fact, made my
assertion very clear by finishing off the rest of the statement you made above
as follows......
>(snip...continued from above) Why is this so? Because we humans rely on
>our senses to perceive the world, and our emotions are determined by our
>intellect and sensual perceptions. To claim that art can exist WITHOUT a
>physical form is to state a contradiction; an Idea only becomes art when it is
>manifested in a physical object. Otherwise - short of telepathy! - we humans
>have no way of experiencing what the artist himself intended.
Of course I have to strip out the word ART and substitute ILLUSTRATION which
then makes more sense to me. (side note to Tracy- this is the cheating thing I
spoke of earlier this week) I might also question the claim that our emotions
are determined by our intellect and sensual perceptions but I don't think it's
important to do so here. I think you were trying to reinforce your point and I
accept the spirit in which it was written.
>Art is art. Representationalism and non-representationalism can both be used
>to suspend our disbelief, but if we are to haev any hope of making the Idea
the
>Real, we need to manifest it in such a way that it will make perceptual sense
to
>the human mind. The Idea is stunted when its expression is technically crude,
as the artist does not have complete control over its final realization - he is
at
>the mercy of his incompetence. This is why artists go through the process of
>life-drawing, writers through the process of research and character-sketching
>and so on. It is all need to build sufficient skill in the realm of making the
>Idea a reality.
Well, the phrase "The Idea is stunted when its expression is technically crude"
can be true in the literal sense but I suspect that this isn't how you meant
it. It's a hot button phrase and I'll let it pass but I'm not sure others
will. Skill can be an important component in artmaking and I personally am in
favor of it but I don't think it's an absolute.
Of course the Masters that many of us appreciate were all skillful, no one
would question that but not all works considered masterful are masterpieces
either. You may favor some of the works of the Romantics and I favor others
and the skills shown in the works we favor no doubt vary widely. They may be
fine works of art though, and I have no problem with that. Show me a painter
that has great imagination and inventiveness with his sense of imagery and I
will forgive the lack of skill if it's missing and value the work far more than
a skilled but mundane rendering of "reality".
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
bt
> Let us take colour as another example. If in your mind the colour red
expresses
> an Idea (say, of bullfighting), and if you paint just this colour on a
canvas, with
> no realistic form to contextualize the Idea, then you risk
misinterpretation. Some
> might take the streak of red to 'represent' (to evoke) tomata sauce, a car
> accident, the American flag, or Ginger from "Gilligan's Island". Without a
> realistic form your externalization of the Idea becomes unsuccessfull
and only has
> meaning to you alone. This is not a problem in itself, if this is what you are
> happy with and have no pretentions to offer the object up as a work art.
> The above arguments are not - so far as I can determine - strong
enough yet to
> argue for the kind of consummate representationalism as practised by the Old
> Masters, but it does at least show the important role that realism plays in
> externalizing one's Idea.
I haven't followed this entire discussion, and I still don't have the
luxury of time to get re-involved in it--much as I'd love to--but I do
want to suggest that you (Iian and any other interested parties) take a
look at the first chapter (at least) of Arthur Danto's 1981 book "The
Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art" which uses a
remarkably similar example to discuss the ways that works of art "mean
something" for reasons that cannot be gleaned from visual appearance
alone.
CROCUSDES
>(snip) I find it difficult to believe that anyone could even for a moment
>forget that when looking upon one of those smiley badges they are in fact face
>to face with a rather crude rendition of human expression. The badge would
>serve as a symbol of an emotion, but would it necessarily evoke that emotion
or >draw the spectator into the "world of the artist"?
As exaggerated as the example I used is I would still have to say that yes,
even in the case of this little graphic, it can elicit an emotional response
and can also draw a viewer into the world of the artist. Now maybe not this
particular graphic but but an approach similar to it. I'm not declaring that
the depth nor the extended range of that image needs to be comparable to a full
scale painting, but within its limitations its performance, for what it is, can
equal what the other is.
What we are focusing on here is the ability of something other than a
representational image to elicit an emotional response. If we can just
separate that from the aesthetic experience (with all it's implications) for
the moment and simply consider the ability of an image to elicit an EMOTION.
Cartoons can do a similar thing and they can also bring you into the artist's
world in a similar manner as a painting. The difference may be the degree of
value or importance you or I may place on one form or the other but
nevertheless, it is the ability of one type of artist to express a concept with
a degree of success as the other.
If there is that possibility for a non representational or highly stylized work
to perform in a similar manner as a someone who works in a more realistic way
then there is also the potential for creating a greater work of art as well.
>I will agree that you can certainly communicate the human expression through
>extreme stylization (or abstraction, as you say above) - but if we compare the
>smiley badge to, say, a portrait by Ingres, which one is more likely to make
us
>forget the mundane fact (even for a moment) that the art-work is just a
>rectangle of canvas encrusted with paint?(snip)
Well, I'm certainly not going to argue in favor of the graphic in this case,
but why wouldn't a well done graphic, stylized or abstract work be capable of
doing what you claim is better done by Ingres? For me Picasso's "Guernica"
which you might consider highly stylized or even graphic, can transport many of
us into another realm whether we understand anything specifically about Franco
and the horrors of war or not? I accept that this particular work may not
touch you on any level but the work of Ingres only has a superficial effect on
me (but I won't deny that he was a great painter). I see both artists as great
artists and my favoritism for one over the other doesn't invalidate the efforts
of either.
>(snip) Smiley badges work as quick and effective communicators of an idea,
>but the lack of physiological representation makes it near impossible for them
>to affect us in the same way as a Rembrandt, Ingres, or Velasquez portrait
>might.
I wonder if the "Guernica" example holds any water for you. In this work I can
see the immediacy and impact of a graphic as well as the depth and far reaching
range of expression as in any of the works of the painters you mentioned. I
can be as affected by this large painting as a Rembrandt (Contemplation of the
bust of Plato(?)) who I would also rank as among my favorite painters,
realistic or otherwise. I and many others are quite capable of enjoying a
richness and depth of aesthetic experience from works other than the
representational. Your assertion that it's not objectively possible is wrong
Iian. Just ask anyone who is open to alternative kinds of work, don't take my
word for it.
>I understand that this refutation is not as strong as it could be, but I will
come
>back to the problem a little later on and see if I might shore it up somewhat.
I'm not trying to twist your arm to make you a believer, only trying to loosen
up the rigid and ultimately constipated approach you are pursuing regarding
aesthetics. You're limiting yourself to possiblilities in favor of upholding a
preconcieved premise. It's really okay to favor one type of approach over
another but you might be closing off the real avenues leading to what it is
specifically that appeals to you. If it's only the fact that an image is
representational that qualifies a work before further consideration then I
might suggest that you're missing the point altogether regarding these works.
Artists who choose to use a representational approach to their work may do so
because it best fits a particular interest, point of view or method of
expression. That's fine and who would argue against the merits of that?
However that doesn't necessarily mean that the artist isn't going to be obscure
with his image making. A realistic painting can be just as confusing as an
abstract one, have you considered that?
A Tiepolo painting portraying flying figures in and out of beautiful skyscapes
can baffle me although I can recognize that those figures represents angels but
I've never seen one in person. That's as abstract to me as an obscure shape
that I can understand but never have seen, in an abstract painting. So what if
an angel is painted to look like a human being, there's no way that I can
accept that such a creature exists. Yet I can suspend my belief in the
painting, just as I can a with a simple and dynamic shape in an abstraction
that that I interpret to have a specific meaning or intention.
>Would you agree that representationalism, at least, contextualizes the Idea in
a
>concrete form? What I am suggesting here is that one might sculpt or paint a
>raging turbulence of curvolinear motion to express the feeling of waves - but
it >is only when those lines - brushstokes and so forth - are contained within
the >vessel of realism that the spectator recognizes your specific intention;
in short, >realism contextualizes your idea, it makes it objectively accessible
to any >human being with a cognitive faculty.
That's an erroneous assumption on your part Iian because it's not necessary for
an idea to be represented in a "concrete" form. In fact it can just as often
happen that the very reason something is immediately recognizable that it loses
it's power to express the essential idea. We might be seeing turbulant waves
and not "turbulance" itself if an image leaves us with little, other than the
source of the image to consider. It's a matter of treatment, of course, and we
might both agree to that.
Now I see that the point you are trying to make however, is that because an
image is based on real world associations it is a genuine qualifier for a work
of art. That would then imply that Van Gogh's painting of "The Bedroom (or
whatever it's called) can be qualified as a legitimate approach to painting.
There is an exaggeration of perspective, scale and gravitational balance that
is totally unreal but still the painting can be recognized for what it is by
anyone. Are you going to try and tell me that pretty angels (humans with wings
attached) flitting about in the sky is any more real or convincing? I won't
take this any further than that for now.
>Without a realistic form your externalization of the Idea becomes
unsuccessfull >and only has meaning to you alone. This is not a problem in
itself, if this is what >you are happy with and have no pretentions to offer
the object up as a work >art.
You say an unrealistic work is unsuccessful Iian, but I don't. You may never
accept abstract images as acceptable. No one is going to have a problem with
that because this relates to your personal aesthetic and perhaps even a
limitation in seeing beyond the obvious. There are folks who require different
stimuli to excite the imagination or who lean more towards metaphor as the
doorway into the experience of art. We are all different and that's where I
have a big problem with defining art in an "objective" manner. Objective for
whom?
>That is correct. The artist has all the forms that matter can take at his
disposal
>- these forms include abstract notions of movement, form and so forth. It
would >be foolish to deny that most great representational art does not have
that >abstract element to it - this aspect is, in fact, built into it from the
start. We >perceive it wheneve we begin to talk about composition, chiaroscuro,
colour >harmonies and so forth.(snip)
>(snip) The words of mine to which you refer do not exclusively rule out the
use >of abstract elements in art.
I wanted to include the above, otherwise my response is too slanted and this
observation of yours seems appropriate to keep here for the sake of balance.
>(snip) "... All Ican say is that the Idea may be present in the artist's mind,
but it
>needs an existent object to make it manifest in the physical realm - otherwise
>the Idea remains locked in the artist's own mind."
Again there isn't any strength to the argument that an idea has to have a real
world reference to be expressed or understood. In general we do use visual
real world metaphors as a symbolic reference but just as often we may exchange
one real world image to mean another. Also we tend to have a vocabulary of
icons that accumulate within different cultures that are symbolic but not
necessarily realistic in a referencial sense.
We can use anything to express an idea and those ideas can be easily understood
by those who have the key to the understanding. Now the same can be true for
realistic paintings which may also require a key for understanding. We can't
assume that western paintings as we understand what that means, can be
comprehended or appreciated by people from all cultures. So where's the
universality in your sense of "objectivity"? The claim of objectivity must
apply universally, otherwise it's simply subjective objective. That's okay if
we accept the limited use that such an approach may have but it's not broadly
applicable to even the same nation of people for which the reasoning is
intended.
>Illustration is different from Fine Art in that although both often use
realistic
>means, the former is more concerned with conveying *information* as opposed
>to *aesthetic intention*.
I agree but I use the example because it is from this point of view of
conveying information that you have overly stressed in your assumptions. Not
the art of art but rather the means of conveying the essence of art. Your
objectivity is so far wholly based on what might be described as "symptoms" but
even there you are misdiagnosing the matter.
>(snip) No art can exist without a physical form of some kind - whether it is
an >abstracted form, or one of the highest realism.(snip)
I agree, so we are basically trying to determine what form qualifies, is that
correct? Or perhaps what specific limits on form are applicable for artmaking?
Well, you know my position on that point which is that there are no limits.
The limitation that matters are only the limits of the artist not the form
itself. Image making is one form that is used to convey an idea but when you
narrow the focus on just what is an image, well then it can be just about
anything, not only real world references. If an image does not provoke a
response then we might agree that it's not working but not necessarily because
we can't make a real world connection but rather that it fails to communicate.
Communication of an idea (art) does not depend on the configuration of the
details but rather relates to the whole which excites not the eye but the
imagination.
>Skill is necessary in so far as it allows the successful externalization of
the
>Ideal into the Real. Whether or not the skills involved are exclusively
confined to
>representationalism is a contentious view - as you have noted - but a case can
>certainly be made that realism gives the expression of the Idea immense
>clarity.
I don't for a moment say that realism isn't capable of doing what you say it
does, of course it can. It's just that this approach isn't any guarantee of
being the best method nor the worse either. It's simply one valid approach but
is no more than that. Art is not about realism, it's more about expression and
this is something that I think one can not be "objective" about. I keep
feeling that the issue raised is really more about intelligibility of a
finished work but keep in mind that each artist has a very distinctive visual
dialect.
It's not unlike living in a multi-lingual country where one may not understand
the language of another or even in this country where a New Englander may have
difficulty understanding one from the deep South. Both speak a similar
language yet are unable to communicate effectively with each other. The
meaning of words are similar though, it's just the pronounciation that's
unique. This difference doesn't invalidate the authenticity of the dialect of
either party, nor the intent of expression. One simply needs the key to
understand the other and often enough it is simply a matter of time to become
familiar with the peculiarities of dialect. Same is true for art.
setai
setai
Iian Neill
> human >mind - it does not mean that when we look at a great work of art we are
> >somehow malfunctioning; what it does imply is that the artist has used such
> >realistic technique as he finds necessary to *convince us of the authenticity
> of >the message* .....(snip and continued below)
>
> That final portion is one tough cookie to swallow because realistic technique
> alone is definitly not the only way to convey the authenticity of a message.
> No, not by any means and the same ends can be achieved through an unlimited
> range of visual metaphors. You're missing the point of the symbolic here Iian,
> where one may substitute one image whether realistic or abstract for another to
> convey idea. We're talking about a visual language now since reference is made
> to imagery.
I am not sure that I disagree with the spirit of your response in this part - so I
will move on to the next section.
> What you strictly apply to realistic rendering can be as easily transferred to
> a happy face and the message of these little yellow buttons is unmistakably
> clear.
While a 'smiley face' may indicate to someone that the intention is to evoke
humour, joy and so forth, can we actually say that the work suspends our natural
disbelief? I find it difficult to believe that anyone could even for a moment
forget that when looking upon one of those smiley badges they are in fact face to
face with a rather crude rendition of human expression. The badge would serve as a
symbol of an emotion, but would it necessarily evoke that emotion or draw the
spectator into the "world of the artist"?
> Thats one of the roles of symbolic representation, making an
> abstraction of a concept and imbuing it with a meaning that can be understood
> by either the many or the few depending on intent. Facial expression alone is
> a universal language that is generally understood by all peoples with some
> exceptions but in general it's true. Abstract the facial expression and it can
> be as valid a form of communication as a realistic rendering when conveying
> some ideas. Therefore your "objective" premise that representational work best
> conveys authenticity to the message, isn't working for me.
I will agree that you can certainly communicate the human expression through
extreme stylization (or abstraction, as you say above) - but if we compare the
smiley badge to, say, a portrait by Ingres, which one is more likely to make us
forget the mundane fact (even for a moment) that the art-work is just a rectangle
of canvas encrusted with paint? Smiley badges work as quick and effective
communicators of an idea, but the lack of physiological representation makes it
near impossible for them to affect us in the same way as a Rembrandt, Ingres, or
Velasquez portrait might.
I understand that this refutation is not as strong as it could be, but I will come
back to the problem a little later on and see if I might shore it up somewhat.
> >(snip...continued from above) - which is to say in more poetic language, he
> >pulls us into his inner world, through means I see representationalism as
> being >the best way of expressing artistic intent as human beings have a
> "natural >disbelief". What this means is that we don't mistake sculptures for
> real, >breathing people, nor do we believe that the events told in a story are
> actually >happening to us right now, at this point in time and space. of real
> objects, >whether they be paint, charcoal, clay, books and so forth. (snip)
>
> Now this part is fine with me because in the beginning of the above you state
> that "I see representationalism as being the best way of expressing...etc etc".
> Now that I like better because you have qualified the statement to read as a
> personal preference or viewpoint.
Would you agree that representationalism, at least, contextualizes the Idea in a
concrete form? What I am suggesting here is that one might sculpt or paint a raging
turbulence of curvolinear motion to express the feeling of waves - but it is only
when those lines - brushstokes and so forth - are contained within the vessel of
realism that the spectator recognizes your specific intention; in short, realism
contextualizes your idea, it makes it objectively accessible to any human being
with a cognitive faculty.
Let us take colour as another example. If in your mind the colour red expresses
an Idea (say, of bullfighting), and if you paint just this colour on a canvas, with
no realistic form to contextualize the Idea, then you risk misinterpretation. Some
might take the streak of red to 'represent' (to evoke) tomata sauce, a car
accident, the American flag, or Ginger from "Gilligan's Island". Without a
realistic form your externalization of the Idea becomes unsuccessfull and only has
meaning to you alone. This is not a problem in itself, if this is what you are
happy with and have no pretentions to offer the object up as a work art.
The above arguments are not - so far as I can determine - strong enough yet to
argue for the kind of consummate representationalism as practised by the Old
Masters, but it does at least show the important role that realism plays in
externalizing one's Idea.
> >This process,
> >incidentally, might never truly end for some artists, and this is why they are
> >compelled to return to the idea in the future, in an attempt to see whether a
> >more mature outlook might do it justice this time round. It is this pursuit of
> >the idea, which can be equated with the Ideal, that drives - so far as I can
> >tell - many artists ever onwards. They all hope to achieve perfect realization
> >of the Ideal, and it is these "failures" that often constitute some of our
> >greatest art works.
>
> Okay, I'm in agreement with you here as you've stated your premise. Almost
> without objection as a matter of fact. Now this shouldn't surprise you Iian
> because I see nothing wrong with it as written. You weren't implying that when
> an artist searches for visual material which then is selected and rejected for
> the purpose of the work at hand, that the person was ONLY considering realistic
> material.
That is correct. The artist has all the forms that matter can take at his disposal
- these forms include abstract notions of movement, form and so forth. It would be
foolish to deny that most great representational art does not have that abstract
element to it - this aspect is, in fact, built into it from the start. We perceive
it wheneve we begin to talk about composition, chiaroscuro, colour harmonies and so
forth.
> Now that shows real promise. On the other hand if you mean that
> only representational material drawn from our visual world qualifies as
> suitable material to work with then NO, I do not agree and you haven't proven
> your point yet. What you say can be correctly applied to abstract work as well
> as the representational.
The words of mine to which you refer do not exclusively rule out the use of
abstract elements in art.
> An abstractionist can draw upon the same range of
> images as a realist can and it is the interpretation of those images that
> differentiates one from the other. Both can make art or nonsense out of this
> material.
Agreed.
> >(continued from above...) This is not to imply that the "spirit" of the
> artist >somehow leaves him and
> >enters into the object itself; after all, such "spirit" has no effect on
> animals
> >or inanimate matter - it is only human beings who are affected by art. To
> >answer the question of whether the art is in the Idea or in the Real object,
> all I >can say is that the Idea may be present in the artist's mind, but it
> needs a Real
> >object to make it manifest in the physical realm - otherwise the Idea remains
> >locked in the artist's subjective universe. Without that realization in
> matter,
> >the Idea can never be communicated.
>
> Uh oh, we're in trouble again Iian and just when I thought we were beginning to
> get along too. You are absolutely wrong about Idea requiring a real object to
> be manisfested in the physical realm (painting?).
The phrase "a Real object" merely denotes an existing object, as opposed to
psychical one. In other words, the word "Real" is not here synonymous with
"realistic" as we usually understand it to be. To clarify this point, I will
re-write the line, taking into account this elucidation of my argument:
"... All Ican say is that the Idea may be present in the artist's mind, but it
needs an existent object to make it manifest in the physical realm - otherwise the
Idea remains locked in the artist's own mind."
> It's simply not true Iian,
> any representation of an idea can be real if it's conveyed in a convincing
> manner but that conviction does not have to be based on the representational.
> It can be symbolic and shapes, color, line, movement, all these things put into
> a work of art are symbols of idea. We represent idea through association Iian,
> not necessarily through representation, the two do not mean the same thing.
I am still very much of the mind that representationalism is a vital component of
great art, but the fact is that my above statements were not intended (at that
point in the argument) to promote realism. I understood the limitations of that
particular approach, and have other ones which are more suited to arguing the case
for representational art.
> If one of the prime reasons for artmaking to begin with is to express idea or
> emotion then there are absolutely no limits on how to go about doing this.
> None whatsoever. The slant you are giving this idea is really from an
> illustration point of view. I'm sorry but it can't be interpreted any other
> way. One can illustrate an idea realistically, certainly, but that doesn't
> necessarily make it a work of art although it can be. Illustration is heavily
> dependent on the representational in most cases but even then it's not an
> absolute, but let's not haggle over that point. You have in fact, made my
> assertion very clear by finishing off the rest of the statement you made above
> as follows......
Illustration is different from Fine Art in that although both often use realistic
means, the former is more concerned with conveying *information* as opposed to
*aesthetic intention*. This is by no means always the case for *all* works of art,
nor for all illustrations - there are some illustrations which are more artistic
than others; but this is only so when aesthetic principles are placed ahead of the
intention to promote the communication of information at all costs. For example, a
poster or book-cover often sacrifices aesthetic affect to illustrative purposes.
Those illustrators who satisfy the demands of both aesthetics and visual
communication are hardest to classify by the critics - such names as Gustave Dore
and Normal Rockwell come to mind.
> >(snip...continued from above) Why is this so? Because we humans rely on
> >our senses to perceive the world, and our emotions are determined by our
> >intellect and sensual perceptions. To claim that art can exist WITHOUT a
> >physical form is to state a contradiction; an Idea only becomes art when it is
> >manifested in a physical object. Otherwise - short of telepathy! - we humans
> >have no way of experiencing what the artist himself intended.
>
> Of course I have to strip out the word ART and substitute ILLUSTRATION which
> then makes more sense to me. (side note to Tracy- this is the cheating thing I
> spoke of earlier this week)
No art can exist without a physical form of some kind - whether it is an abstracted
form, or one of the highest realism. Jackson Pollock's paintings could not have
existed without paint, I am sure you will agree - and even those who proclaim that
art need have no "physical form" would still have to agree that it does have form
in sound waves, or the words of paper that are used to discuss it.
> >Art is art. Representationalism and non-representationalism can both be used
> >to suspend our disbelief, but if we are to haev any hope of making the Idea
> the
> >Real, we need to manifest it in such a way that it will make perceptual sense
> to
> >the human mind. The Idea is stunted when its expression is technically crude,
> as the artist does not have complete control over its final realization - he is
> at
> >the mercy of his incompetence. This is why artists go through the process of
> >life-drawing, writers through the process of research and character-sketching
> >and so on. It is all need to build sufficient skill in the realm of making the
> >Idea a reality.
>
> Well, the phrase "The Idea is stunted when its expression is technically crude"
> can be true in the literal sense but I suspect that this isn't how you meant
> it. It's a hot button phrase and I'll let it pass but I'm not sure others
> will. Skill can be an important component in artmaking and I personally am in
> favor of it but I don't think it's an absolute.
Skill is necessary in so far as it allows the successful externalization of the
Ideal into the Real. Whether or not the skills involved are exclusively confined to
representationalism is a contentious view - as you have noted - but a case can
certainly be made that realism gives the expression of the Idea immense clarity.
> Of course the Masters that many of us appreciate were all skillful, no one
> would question that but not all works considered masterful are masterpieces
> either.
Indeed.
> You may favor some of the works of the Romantics and I favor others
> and the skills shown in the works we favor no doubt vary widely. They may be
> fine works of art though, and I have no problem with that. Show me a painter
> that has great imagination and inventiveness with his sense of imagery and I
> will forgive the lack of skill if it's missing and value the work far more than
> a skilled but mundane rendering of "reality".
I would tend to agree, and have myself on many occassions overlooked technical
deficiencies in favour of the quality of the Idea that the work was attempting to
express. In this sense, I would always prefer a good Idea to "mundane" rendering -
which is not to imply that I am disparaging realism at all; merely a form of
realism that that does not have an Idea at its root.
Regards,
Iian
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my student art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
Iian Neill
> luxury of time to get re-involved in it--much as I'd love to--
I think I can speak for all concerned when I say that any contributions you might
make would certainly be welcome, whenever you have the time to make them.
> but I do
> want to suggest that you (Iian and any other interested parties) take a
> look at the first chapter (at least) of Arthur Danto's 1981 book "The
> Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art" which uses a
> remarkably similar example to discuss the ways that works of art "mean
> something" for reasons that cannot be gleaned from visual appearance
> alone.
Thank you, BT. I will be sure to investigate this book.
Best regards,
Iian
--
r...@sensiview.com
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> > I haven't followed this entire discussion, and I still don't have the
Nor I, nevertheless, in terms of Form and Substance,
as discussed at http://www.formal.com/, the explanation
is quite straight forward.
> > Transfiguration of the Commonplace: A Philosophy of Art" which uses a
> > remarkably similar example to discuss the ways that works of art "mean
> > something" for reasons that cannot be gleaned from visual appearance
> > alone.
Whereas our consciousness preceives objects as form and substance,
and art is the expression of the rendering artist, the literal and
visual form of art is limited by physical considerations, e.g., range
of preceived color, color-blindness translations, etc., the substance
of an object, although measurable in the physical sense, can not
necessarily be limited to the physically observable plane of reality.
Thus, it is clearly possible for the substantive spirit of the
artist to be conveyed as a meaningful perception of consciousness.
Formally yours,
Robert Tufty
> --
> ________________________________________________________________________
> If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
> in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
>
> http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
>
> My personal home-page (with my student art work) can be found here:
> http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
CROCUSDES
responding to because we keep going round and round in a very circular manner
saying the same things over and over in different ways.
Let's either fish or cut bait. I mean, without going into all these endless
details that state in a meaningless fashion what we are really talking about.
In this last post and from your last response to Lauri I have to draw this one
simple conclusion about your criteria. Art is an illustration, first and
foremost, there isn't any other way I can interpret the various ways you try to
skirt around this issue. This is exactly what you are saying regarding the
"suspension of belief" and adherence to representational references and the
clarity of the "story" that an artist has to tell. It is a story that you are
describing in terms of what art means. Only illustration itself can satisfy
the visual requirement to translate.
I don't think you really have any understanding yet what it means to use
metaphor as an expressive device whether it's a visual reference or an internal
one. Clarity of intent has to be extracted from that expression from the
viewer and that is a variable requiring some effort. Art appreciation is a
subjective experience no matter how much you want to leave it to the critics to
define so deliberately.
The best you are ever going to get from so called "objective analysis" of art
is how well something is working visually. In terms of its worth as works of
"genuine art" the factor that is important is one that cannot be fingerprinted
so easily. It is the artist's vision and the manner in which it is stated that
differentiates the worth of one work from another, not how well it is made in
terms of intelligibility. The internal experience we each derive from contact
with various works of art relate to the psyche more than the eye although the
visual avenue is important. I've never dismissed that. I would never make the
claim that we can anaylze our individual experience of the aesthetic in an
objective manner and I wouldn't make it in terms of the visual either. The
heightened experience each of us derives from a work is what makes a work "art"
or not so it is as individual as the viewer. The common denominator you are
trying to define has to take this into consideration, not just the pictorial.
From your "objective" stance you have completely missed the intent and value of
works from India where you claim it falls short because of anatomical
weakeness. You fail to understand the meaning of the elephant trunk metaphor
(used for the arms) that has been part of the visual tools that are important
when sculpting figures in that culture. It's not because the artists couldn't
understand anatomy, it's simply that they have chosen to ignore it in lieu of
some other device. You have no concept Iian of the importance of distortion
and metaphor when creating works of art. I'm sorry that you don't because your
narrow view has limited your appreciation to only taking an illustrators
approach to viewing works.
Your description to Lauri on how you see the Bougereau is a case in point. You
have summed up your whole approach in this short description and state that
this work you've described, to be a "work of art". To me it's a very pretty
illustration that is overwrought with saccharin sentimentality intended to
please the bourgoise and caters to their concept of what standard values of
classical beauty and the ideal is or should be. It's a sickening example of
the worse case of pandering to public taste that I can think of. Now this is
my subjective evaluation of the work and is as valid and "objective" as any
approach you have taken so far.
Content in a work of art doesn't have to be noble or grand, it can consist of
subtle and modest ideas as well as the dramatic. It can even be trite for that
matter but it is an artist who has the ability show through his particular
vision something in a way we have not seen before. That is the value of
creativity and this is what is uppermost in the works that we cherish.
Creativity. Imagination. A unique point of view. Connection with the
"spirit" as well as the corporeal. Intuitive enlightenment. Personality of
the image. Presence. Evocative rendering. And much, much more.
In the final analysis, it is the worth and strength of a response each of us
derives from a work of art that gives it meaning and value. "Objective
criteria" is little more than a simple guideline that ought to serve as a
starting point but not necessarily a signpost pointing to a specific
destination. The end result of any work of art is not a predetermined
experience but is arrived at through an individual journey. It is a different
experience for each and every one of us.
Iian Neill
> >forget that when looking upon one of those smiley badges they are in fact face
> >to face with a rather crude rendition of human expression. The badge would
> >serve as a symbol of an emotion, but would it necessarily evoke that emotion
> or >draw the spectator into the "world of the artist"?
>
> As exaggerated as the example I used is I would still have to say that yes,
> even in the case of this little graphic, it can elicit an emotional response
> and can also draw a viewer into the world of the artist.
Perhaps it is so that even this little graphic will elicit some kind of emotional
response, some connection between artist and audience - but it will scarcely
suspend disbelief to the degree that a Rembrandt or Velasquez portrait will. Still,
I think that this probably isn't the issue here, so I'll move on into the letter.
> Now maybe not this
> particular graphic but but an approach similar to it. I'm not declaring that
> the depth nor the extended range of that image needs to be comparable to a full
> scale painting, but within its limitations its performance, for what it is, can
> equal what the other is.
Hey, it may be that the graphic conveys some abstracted notion of happiness but
without it concretized in some more representational form it is unlikely ever to
stir any strong feelings up in us - except, perhaps, for a grunt of recognition
that it is a face, no matter how crudely drawn it is. Besides, even that smiley
face is still a form of representationalism, even if it is the lowest form - this
is to say, it could not be abstracted any further without losing that ability to be
recognized as the human face.
> What we are focusing on here is the ability of something other than a
> representational image to elicit an emotional response.
Leaving aside the fact that even the little graphic is a form of
representationalism, I will go on to your next comments.
> If we can just
> separate that from the aesthetic experience (with all it's implications) for
> the moment and simply consider the ability of an image to elicit an EMOTION.
> Cartoons can do a similar thing and they can also bring you into the artist's
> world in a similar manner as a painting.
Cartoons also represent reality in some manner, albeit in an extremely stylized,
simplified, abstracted form. I mean, we recognize Bugs Bunny the rabbit, Homer
Simpson the blue-collar worker, and so on. There are recognizable objects in these
works - they are still representational. So, to say that a cartoon can bring us
into the artist's world by no means contradicts what I have said above. Primitive
realism can "draw us in" - but this immersion is in proportion to how vividly real
the image is. If we are looking at a picture of Homer's mug, we are hardly likely
to suspend our disbelief enough to believe that he is somehow part of our reality -
cartoons often play on this aspect and have their characters doing impossible
things, and this is acceptable to us because we know that they aren't real - they
are so abstracted from reality that to defy the laws of gravity - etc. - does not
seem so surprising. When a figure in a super-realistic painting *does* defy
gravity, it has an altogether different impact than a cartoon does - or,
conversely, if we see some incredible special effect in a film, we are struck by
how real this impossible event seems to be. We forget for a time that what is shown
*is* impossible, and we partake of the reality presented to us. The nature of the
cartoon medium is such that is very hard for us to ignore that we *are* looking at
cartoons. This is probably the motivation for the advances in rendering that Disney
use for their blockbuster films - ie., the computer animated scenes in "Aladdin",
"Mulan", etc. By using more sophisticated technology, Disney are hoping to draw us
more into this fictional world. So it is with any writer who immerses himself in
the culture he is writing about, gets to know his characters and so on - he does
that so he can present a stylized re-creation of reality, one created in his own
particular image - his artistic intention. He researches what details are necessary
so that our disbelief is suspended and that our minds are free to be caught up in
his actual artistic intentions, unhindered by that perfectly sane and healthy
barrier our mind erects between fiction and reality. If we couldn't tell fiction
from reality, then this is either a hint that something is wrong with our
perception, or a testament to the soveriegn powers of the artist in conquering our
natural disbelief.
> The difference may be the degree of
> value or importance you or I may place on one form or the other but
> nevertheless, it is the ability of one type of artist to express a concept with
> a degree of success as the other.
Cartoons have a different purpose from paintings or sculpture. Generally speaking,
cartoons are to be classed with movies, plays and books in that they follow story
lines. Cartoons are not meant to be appreciated for their static (ie., stationery)
images - we are seeing a flow of time, a progression of plot, events and so on,
characterization and all of that. The difference between a cartoon and a film is
that the cartoonist draws by hand all of the frames that will appear in the moving
pictures, whilst the cinematographer films these frames using cameras and
(nowadays) post-production special effects.
> If there is that possibility for a non representational or highly stylized work
> to perform in a similar manner as a someone who works in a more realistic way
> then there is also the potential for creating a greater work of art as well.
Representational work does not guarantee a great, noble idea - it does indicate
clear expression though. For a great idea to come across the artist himself must
have one, and be able to implement it. Genius needs technique as its basis - but
technique does not create genius alone. There must be that imaginative element
there also.
> >I will agree that you can certainly communicate the human expression through
> >extreme stylization (or abstraction, as you say above) - but if we compare the
> >smiley badge to, say, a portrait by Ingres, which one is more likely to make
> >us forget the mundane fact (even for a moment) that the art-work is just a
> >rectangle of canvas encrusted with paint?(snip)
>
> Well, I'm certainly not going to argue in favor of the graphic in this case,
> but why wouldn't a well done graphic, stylized or abstract work be capable of
> doing what you claim is better done by Ingres? For me Picasso's "Guernica"
> which you might consider highly stylized or even graphic,
I do.
> can transport many of
> us into another realm whether we understand anything specifically about Franco
> and the horrors of war or not? I accept that this particular work may not
> touch you on any level but the work of Ingres only has a superficial effect on
> me (but I won't deny that he was a great painter). I see both artists as great
> artists and my favoritism for one over the other doesn't invalidate the efforts
> of either.
Taking Picasso's "Guernica" as an example, one can say that there is the barest
minimum of representationalism here to be able to talk about some kind of purpose,
to begin to refer to recognizable objects. There is obviously a horse in distress,
a woman arching back, a bull, a room, a light-bulb, and a lot of confusion. Leaving
aside whatever (contrived) parallels one might draw between the profiled figures
and Ingres's work (I am not saying that you made this comparison, but others have),
one is not for a moment persuaded to suspend one's disbelief. The crude drawing,
inept anatomy, perspective and so forth can never let us enter into the scene in
the same way as, say, a Tintoretto, El Greco and so on. (I give these two as
examples because of the whirling spaces they often created, and both sometimes
employed a "loose technique".) The picture is obviously about some conflict or
trauma, as everything in there is in disarray, confusion, agony and chaos - this is
commenting on merely what one can observe, and not its effect on the audience.
Without knowing Picasso's eccentricities one might assume it to be a room of freaks
whose eyes are not positioned correctly (!), who are pasty-white and grossly
ill-proportioned - if Picasso wanted to evoke conceptual chaos then he has
certainly succeeded. If he intended to evoke a feeling of horror or rage at war -
then I cannot say that he has. If all that Picasso intended to do was transmit
conceptual chaos, then he has done his job - point one to Picasso. If that is all
he considered worthy of art, then one wonders whether his definition of art fits at
all with that of the Old Masters, the Greeks, the Romans, or even the Indians, the
Russians, the Chinese. Indian sculpture is far above this conceptual chaos, and its
only real flaw in an artistic sense is a certain naivety regarding anatomy - a
thing that could have been fixed with the right education in technique;
consequently, their stone carving skills would probably have improved as well, as
the late Greek works obviously improved in comparison to the Archaic Greek statues.
> >(snip) Smiley badges work as quick and effective communicators of an idea,
> >but the lack of physiological representation makes it near impossible for them
> >to affect us in the same way as a Rembrandt, Ingres, or Velasquez portrait
> >might.
>
> I wonder if the "Guernica" example holds any water for you.
'fraid not.
> In this work I can
> see the immediacy and impact of a graphic as well as the depth and far reaching
> range of expression as in any of the works of the painters you mentioned. I
> can be as affected by this large painting as a Rembrandt (Contemplation of the
> bust of Plato(?)) who I would also rank as among my favorite painters,
> realistic or otherwise. I and many others are quite capable of enjoying a
> richness and depth of aesthetic experience from works other than the
> representational.
I don't have a problem with you folks enjoying non-representational work. Heck, I
enjoy architectural ornamentation myself, and that isn't representational. There's
a difference between the enjoyment of it and the proclaiming of it as art, and
that's where I have to be careful.
> Your assertion that it's not objectively possible is wrong
> Iian. Just ask anyone who is open to alternative kinds of work, don't take my
> word for it.
I've never said that folks can't - or don't - enjoy abstract work. I am just
questioning whether it's art. Those are two different things - sometimes they
coincide, and other times they don't. I don't enjoy Cezanne, but I know that he is
an artist (according to rational criteria) - to me he is a very bad artist, but
still an artist. Can we say the same about Cubism, et al?
> >I understand that this refutation is not as strong as it could be, but I will
> >come back to the problem a little later on and see if I might shore it up
> somewhat.
>
> I'm not trying to twist your arm to make you a believer, only trying to loosen
> up the rigid and ultimately constipated approach you are pursuing regarding
> aesthetics. You're limiting yourself to possiblilities in favor of upholding a
> preconcieved premise. It's really okay to favor one type of approach over
> another but you might be closing off the real avenues leading to what it is
> specifically that appeals to you. If it's only the fact that an image is
> representational that qualifies a work before further consideration then I
> might suggest that you're missing the point altogether regarding these works.
I've never let the particular form of a painting influence my enjoyment of it. The
enjoyment is an automatic thing that I have no real control over, except in the
sense that I can try and influence it by exposing myself to cerrtain works over
time. But this enjoyment itself is still automatic - and I don't hold it to be a
rational criteria for judging art from non-art. It's not enought that I like
Bouguereau for him to be an artist - and not enough that I dislike Pollock for him
not to be an artist. Pleasure follows on another level, but that level becomes more
subective as we delve deeper into it. That subjective level isn't appropriate when
delineating art from non-art - it might come in handy later, though, when we give
our *personal responses* to a work, always keeping in mind that these might be very
different. The trick is to objectify as much as you can before you give up to
subjectivity.
> Artists who choose to use a representational approach to their work may do so
> because it best fits a particular interest, point of view or method of
> expression. That's fine and who would argue against the merits of that?
> However that doesn't necessarily mean that the artist isn't going to be obscure
> with his image making. A realistic painting can be just as confusing as an
> abstract one, have you considered that?
I can see what you are saying here - there are plenty of incompetent, incoherent
realistic paintings. And sometimes there are even super-realistic paintings that
are put together in an exceedinly bizarre and nonsensical way, like some of the
Surrealist work. A realistic painting can be confusing as to how precisely it
communicates the artist's Idea - but abstract cannot help but be confusing as there
are no representational elements that are common to all of us. We all recognize
apples, clouds, mountains, faces, bodies, and we all have certain reactions to
these, particular when put in an ensemble. A non-representational work can only
appeal to our sensual-perceptions and nothing deeper - there is nothing to
recognize, no connections for the rational (or even irrational) mind to make; no
associations, and hence, no emotional communication. Only the vague communication
of colours, lines and so on. The greatest error of modern aesthetics is the claim
that non-representational art is somehow MORE effective the representational art -
it is like saying that a blunt knife is more cutting than a sharpened one. Realism
allows the contextualization of the artist's Idea, and hence, makes its
manifestation that much more real and potent. If the Idea is manifested in images
we can recognize (which the artist selects insofar as they together they express
his intention), then our brain has more to work on than just vague feelings of
smeared paint or glued on cardboard. The intellectual-perceptual part of our brain
kicks in and begins to *interpret* the scene as if it were reality; it begins to
draw us into the world of the artist. We react to it as if we were really in that
world of his creating, and so in a sense he becomes a miniature god, a creator. The
intellectual-perceptual part of our brain (which allows us to function as human
beings) can only interpret things it recognizes from reality. This isn't to say
that the artist can't create unreal things - the Old Masters did that all the time.
Angels don't exist - but through imagination coupled to realism they brought them
into existence in paint. An abstract religious concept gained all the force and
potency of *reality* and so helped Christians become closer to the supernatural
aspects of their religion. If the Christian painters had represented angels as
smears, blobs and splatters, he would leave his audience no better off than they
were before, when angels were just abstract, unreal concepts with no force of
reality, no conviction, no intellectual-perceptual presence. The same applies to
Ideas in general (angels are certainly Ideas) - these Ideas only gain the
conviction and force of reality when they are presented *as* reality. Otherwise
they remain as vague, ill-defined and incomprehensible except as smears of
sub-animalistic sense-perception.
> A Tiepolo painting portraying flying figures in and out of beautiful skyscapes
> can baffle me although I can recognize that those figures represents angels but
> I've never seen one in person. That's as abstract to me as an obscure shape
> that I can understand but never have seen, in an abstract painting. So what if
> an angel is painted to look like a human being, there's no way that I can
> accept that such a creature exists. Yet I can suspend my belief in the
> painting, just as I can a with a simple and dynamic shape in an abstraction
> that that I interpret to have a specific meaning or intention.
Refer to the angel examples above.
> >realism contextualizes your idea, it makes it objectively accessible
> >to any human being with a cognitive faculty.
>
> That's an erroneous assumption on your part Iian because it's not necessary for
> an idea to be represented in a "concrete" form. In fact it can just as often
> happen that the very reason something is immediately recognizable that it loses
> it's power to express the essential idea. We might be seeing turbulant waves
> and not "turbulance" itself if an image leaves us with little, other than the
> source of the image to consider. It's a matter of treatment, of course, and we
> might both agree to that.
Sure.
> Now I see that the point you are trying to make however, is that because an
> image is based on real world associations it is a genuine qualifier for a work
> of art. That would then imply that Van Gogh's painting of "The Bedroom (or
> whatever it's called) can be qualified as a legitimate approach to painting.
It's an approach to painting, certainly, and it can be called art. Whether or not
we call it great art depends on how well the artist's Idea is communicated. The
critic's job is to judge how well this communication is presented. If it is crude,
inept, incoherent and so on, then the work suffers.
> There is an exaggeration of perspective, scale and gravitational balance that
> is totally unreal but still the painting can be recognized for what it is by
> anyone.
Certainly.
> Are you going to try and tell me that pretty angels (humans with wings
> attached) flitting about in the sky is any more real or convincing? I won't
> take this any further than that for now.
An angel "represented" as blobs or splatters of paint has no force for anyone - we
wouldn't even know that those blobs are meant to *be* angels - there would be no
intellectual-perceptual communication and hence, no artistic communication. Okay,
so we don't believe in angels in our scientific age, but when looking at the
painting we can't deny that we are seeing a humanoid being with wings "flitting
about in the sky" - we can recognize that creature as an angel, but whether it has
religious meaning to us depends on our own beliefs.
> >Without a realistic form your externalization of the Idea becomes
> unsuccessfull >and only has meaning to you alone. This is not a problem in
> itself, if this is what >you are happy with and have no pretentions to offer
> the object up as a work >art.
>
> You say an unrealistic work is unsuccessful Iian, but I don't. You may never
> accept abstract images as acceptable. No one is going to have a problem with
> that because this relates to your personal aesthetic and perhaps even a
> limitation in seeing beyond the obvious. There are folks who require different
> stimuli to excite the imagination or who lean more towards metaphor as the
> doorway into the experience of art. We are all different and that's where I
> have a big problem with defining art in an "objective" manner. Objective for
> whom?
Objective for the rational observer.
> >(snip) "... All Ican say is that the Idea may be present in the artist's mind,
> >but it needs an existent object to make it manifest in the physical realm -
> otherwise
> >the Idea remains locked in the artist's own mind."
>
> Again there isn't any strength to the argument that an idea has to have a real
> world reference to be expressed or understood. In general we do use visual
> real world metaphors as a symbolic reference but just as often we may exchange
> one real world image to mean another. Also we tend to have a vocabulary of
> icons that accumulate within different cultures that are symbolic but not
> necessarily realistic in a referencial sense.
Interesting points all.
> We can use anything to express an idea and those ideas can be easily understood
> by those who have the key to the understanding.
You've hit upon an important point here ... I will go into it a bit later.
> Now the same can be true for
> realistic paintings which may also require a key for understanding. We can't
> assume that western paintings as we understand what that means, can be
> comprehended or appreciated by people from all cultures. So where's the
> universality in your sense of "objectivity"?
On the visual level. I understand that there will be cultural aspects to any art
work that may be hard for other cultures to grasp immediately - but the same
applies to us when we read a book written for Chinese citizens - in there will be
certain concepts that men and women there take for granted, and which we will find
strange. This 'strangeness' spawned a whole genre of exoticism which hasn't ended
even to this very day where one finds people turning to imaginary fantasy worlds
(in fairy tales) to summon the atmosphere of the bizarre and the unusual. In any
case, to return to your question, the objectivity is in the visual reality itself.
It will be understood that there will be cultural markers present in art-work, but
this does not follow that these cultural symbols (codes, if you will) will
necessarily interfere with the universality of art. A good story from South
America, Russia or Tibet can affect us as much as one from our own lands; and it
affects us the more it approaches those aspects of human nature which transcend
cultural boundaries; and so you will find that those stories which are simple and
profound at heart have the most currency across the world as they speak about
concepts that all cultures can relate to in some way.
Realism is not a cultural concept - it is the medium through which concepts are
expressed.
> >Illustration is different from Fine Art in that although both often use
> >realistic means, the former is more concerned with conveying *information* as
> opposed
> >to *aesthetic intention*.
>
> I agree but I use the example because it is from this point of view of
> conveying information that you have overly stressed in your assumptions. Not
> the art of art but rather the means of conveying the essence of art. Your
> objectivity is so far wholly based on what might be described as "symptoms" but
> even there you are misdiagnosing the matter.
I am genuinely curious to hear about other ways of approaching the problem that
have as their goal the delineation of art from non-art, and, eventually, the
separation of good art from bad art.
> >(snip) No art can exist without a physical form of some kind - whether it is
> >an abstracted form, or one of the highest realism.(snip)
>
> I agree, so we are basically trying to determine what form qualifies, is that
> correct? Or perhaps what specific limits on form are applicable for artmaking?
That's it.
> Well, you know my position on that point which is that there are no limits.
> The limitation that matters are only the limits of the artist not the form
> itself. Image making is one form that is used to convey an idea but when you
> narrow the focus on just what is an image, well then it can be just about
> anything, not only real world references. If an image does not provoke a
> response then we might agree that it's not working but not necessarily because
> we can't make a real world connection but rather that it fails to communicate.
Do you see there to be a definable difference between art and non-art? Or is it all
intuitive?
> Communication of an idea (art) does not depend on the configuration of the
> details but rather relates to the whole which excites not the eye but the
> imagination.
I won't disagree with that. Exciting the imagination is certainly important.
> >Skill is necessary in so far as it allows the successful externalization of
> >the Ideal into the Real. Whether or not the skills involved are exclusively
> >confined to representationalism is a contentious view - as you have noted - but
> a case can
> >certainly be made that realism gives the expression of the Idea immense
> >clarity.
>
> I don't for a moment say that realism isn't capable of doing what you say it
> does, of course it can. It's just that this approach isn't any guarantee of
> being the best method nor the worse either. It's simply one valid approach but
> is no more than that. Art is not about realism, it's more about expression and
> this is something that I think one can not be "objective" about. I keep
> feeling that the issue raised is really more about intelligibility of a
> finished work but keep in mind that each artist has a very distinctive visual
> dialect.
I agree that the purpose of art is expression. The problem for the critic is the
question of whether what is "expressed" on the canvas is actually what the artist
intends us to feel.
> It's not unlike living in a multi-lingual country where one may not understand
> the language of another or even in this country where a New Englander may have
> difficulty understanding one from the deep South. Both speak a similar
> language yet are unable to communicate effectively with each other. The
> meaning of words are similar though, it's just the pronounciation that's
> unique. This difference doesn't invalidate the authenticity of the dialect of
> either party, nor the intent of expression. One simply needs the key to
> understand the other and often enough it is simply a matter of time to become
> familiar with the peculiarities of dialect. Same is true for art.
The visual arts transcend the limitations of verbal languages - one doesn't need to
know Russian to know what an apple looks like. One progresses from this basic
intellectual-perceptual recognition to more complex structures where the apple is
only part of an ensemble, contributing to the whole. The visual arts recognize no
national boundaries - a statue from ancient Greece can be as powerful today as it
was 2500 years ago. This is because it employs the medium of sight and realistic
forms, stylized in a certain way.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Andrew Werby
<s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> I've never said that folks can't - or don't - enjoy abstract work. I am just
> questioning whether it's art...
[It seems strange that on the one hand Iian says things like this, but on the
other hand he states that a photograph can't be art, because the artist didn't
manufacture everything in the scene. Control over form is all, according to this
part of his thinking, and a photographer can't take credit for the objects she
merely reproduces mechanically. But if this mechanical reproduction is
done with
oils and a paintbrush, somehow this all changes.
It would seem to follow from Iian's dictum of art being more valid according to
the degree of control exerted by the artist- shall we call this
"Intentionalism"?
-that the artist who invents his own forms, instead of reproducing preexistant
ones, is much more of an artist than the representationalist, who simply copies
them. He should be placed as high above the representational painter as
the latter
is above the photographer in this hierarchy, if this were a strictly logical
system. But later in this rather long dissertation he states:]
> abstract (paintings) cannot help but be confusing as there
> are no representational elements that are common to all of us. We all
recognize
> apples, clouds, mountains, faces, bodies, and we all have certain reactions to
> these, particular when put in an ensemble. A non-representational work
can only
> appeal to our sensual-perceptions and nothing deeper - there is nothing to
> recognize, no connections for the rational (or even irrational) mind to
make; no
> associations, and hence, no emotional communication. Only the vague
communication
> of colours, lines and so on. The greatest error of modern aesthetics is
the claim
> that non-representational art is somehow MORE effective the
representational art -
> it is like saying that a blunt knife is more cutting than a sharpened one.
[So here another set of Iian's preconceptions collides with the first. Now
art is
supposed to be a vehicle for "emotional commmunication", which sounds to
me like
the old "every picture tells a story" school of art- shall we call it
"Illustrationism"?- which, if it is to be effective, shouldn't rule out
the use of
anything- even photography- which helps to communicate these emotions by the
manipulation of ones associations. In fact, if this is declared to be the
goal of
art, then its highest achievement would be the motion picture, which excells in
the communication of emotion. It is certainly more effective at this than any
painting could hope to be.]
Realism
> allows the contextualization of the artist's Idea, and hence, makes its
> manifestation that much more real and potent. If the Idea is manifested
in images
> we can recognize (which the artist selects insofar as they together they
express
> his intention), then our brain has more to work on than just vague feelings of
> smeared paint or glued on cardboard. The intellectual-perceptual part of
our brain
> kicks in and begins to *interpret* the scene as if it were reality; it
begins to
> draw us into the world of the artist.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill
[And now, in case he didn't have enough disparate elements to reconcile in
search of
this overarching theory which will include as "art" all the stuff he likes
and exclude
the rest; he must go off on a third tangent. Now it isn't the amount of
control the
artist exerts (Intentionalism) nor the emotions she ruffles
(Illustrationism) but the
Idea in her mind which is paramount, and the intellectual perception of it
in her
viewership which is vital. It is the Idea, manifested in recognizable
images, that
qualifies a work as Art- should we call it "Idealism"? This sort of
definition traces
back to Plato, who held that the physical world was a corrupted place,
filled with
imperfect renditions of perfect ideas. But artists are in the forefront of
those who
have always implicitly rejected this life-denying philosophy, and have
celebrated the
beauty of things as they are. Ironically, it is the Minimalists and Geometric
Abstractionists who have come the closest to the Platonic Ideal in their
work, and
should be most celebrated by those who subscribe to the Idealist canon.
Although none of their artistic ideas, expressed as ideas or theories,
have been exactly
compelling to more than a few, individual artists have certainly made
visual statements
that succeed on their own self-defined terms. The freedom to do this, and
to promulgate a
unique "idea", is one of the best things about the modern era in art, but
it is the era,
and the freedom, on which Iian has resolutely turned his back, denying the
validity of all
art that refuses to conform to the strictures of the 19th century.
A theory of art that is internally consistant could be drawn up according
to each of these
sets of axioms; the Intentionalist, the Illustrationist, and the Idealist.
But I question
whether any theory can logically accomodate all three.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
Iian Neill
> > I've never said that folks can't - or don't - enjoy abstract work. I am just
> > questioning whether it's art...
>
> [It seems strange that on the one hand Iian says things like this, but on the
> other hand he states that a photograph can't be art, because the artist didn't
> manufacture everything in the scene. Control over form is all, according to this
> part of his thinking, and a photographer can't take credit for the objects she
> merely reproduces mechanically. But if this mechanical reproduction is
> done with oils and a paintbrush, somehow this all changes.
What I was referring to at that point in the argument was what I nominate as
"intellectual property rights". I am not saying that the field of photography is not
art - so long as the artist can honestly take credit for the image he has created.
If he has merely walked along the beach and snapped off a quick roll of film with no
care taken to composition, lighting, setting, post-production [sic] and so forth,
then how can he *claim the right* to own the aesthetic content of the photo?
It would be just as honest as walking into a shop, buying a copy of "Madame Bovary"
and claiming that because you owned it, you therefore made it. But the imagery,
characterization and so forth contained within were not of your own creation.
Someone else made them. In the case of photography, it may happen to be that
someTHING else made the objects in the work.
The photographer cannot take credit for the mountains in his photo - he did not make
them. But he can take credit for composition, lighting, artificial scenery,
post-production, etc., because these are things that he has control over. The
question is whether those things are enough to qualify the image as a work of art.
Some folks will automatically say "yes" - all I am asking for here is us to stand
back a little and ask ourselves how much work the photographer has actually put into
it. If the amount of work is minimal, then can we credit them with having made a
work of art? Can we say that anyone who buys "Madame Bovary" *wrote* the book,
merely because they happened to choose that work from the shelves and paid for it?
> It would seem to follow from Iian's dictum of art being more valid according to
> the degree of control exerted by the artist- shall we call this
> "Intentionalism"?
It is a matter intellectual property rights. Can you claim something to be yours if
you didn't make it?
I am not saying the photographer can't take credit for composition and so on - I am
just posing the question of whether that is enough in itself to be art.
> -that the artist who invents his own forms, instead of reproducing preexistant
> ones, is much more of an artist than the representationalist, who simply copies
> them. He should be placed as high above the representational painter as
> the latter is above the photographer in this hierarchy, if this were a strictly
> logical
> system. But later in this rather long dissertation he states:]
The use of realistic forms is of the highest practical value to the artist - not to
mention for the photographer, as well.
When I claimed that a painter is generally more artistic than the photographer, my
issue here was not with the realistic images made by either medium - obviously the
photographer will win out in many cases if we go just by the verisimiltudinousness
(sp.?) of the image itself. I think that photography can be art - but it's a special
kind of photography, one that demands great labour and consideration. I think the
same - generally - of painting as well. But when I proposed the painter to be more
of an artist, I was again referring to this issue of intellectual property rights.
By the very fact alone that the painter has put every stroke on the canvas there
himself, he has SOME claim at least to have made the work - the work is more or less
art depending on how intentional the strokes that were placed there actually were
intentional. If the artist just slopped around paint and splashed it on, he is
pretty much in the same boat as the amateur photographer who snaps off some pictures
of his holiday in Fiji. The results may be pleasing to the eye (or not!) but are
they art?
Leaving aside the question of what art should or should not represent or evoke, I
think it reasonable enough for all to agree that a thing is intellectually yours
depending upon how much work you put into it. If you picked it off the street,
copied it out of a text-book, or snapped a photo of it out in the garden, then it
you have less intellectual right to it than if you had composed it, written in, or
painted (or photographed) it in a more intentional way.
> > abstract (paintings) cannot help but be confusing as there
> > are no representational elements that are common to all of us. We all
> > recognize apples, clouds, mountains, faces, bodies, and we all have certain
> reactions to
> > these, particular when put in an ensemble. A non-representational work
> > can only appeal to our sensual-perceptions and nothing deeper - there is nothing
> to
> > recognize, no connections for the rational (or even irrational) mind to
> > make; no associations, and hence, no emotional communication. Only the vague
> > communication of colours, lines and so on. The greatest error of modern
> aesthetics is
> > the claim that non-representational art is somehow MORE effective the
> > representational art - it is like saying that a blunt knife is more cutting than
> a sharpened one.
>
> [So here another set of Iian's preconceptions collides with the first. Now
> art is supposed to be a vehicle for "emotional commmunication", which sounds to
> me like the old "every picture tells a story" school of art- shall we call it
> "Illustrationism"?-
No - we shall not. Illustration is more concerned with the communication of
*information* - advertisements are the perfect example. They are designed along the
lines of communicating to their audience as much information in as coherent a manner
as possible - the value of the work is judged by how effectively it accomplishes
this task. Art is not a didactic exercise - it's purpose is not to communicate that
kind of information; one does not paint a scene to communicate in precise detail
your philosophica system. The painting may represent your system in pictures (that
is to say, the system enacted through art), but the medium and intention would be
ill-suited for the purpose of mere didactic communication.
This isn't to say that illustrations can't be artistic - but they are only so when
they find a perfect blend between the needs of communication and the needs of
aesthetics. This applies to Architecture as well - the greatest buildings are those
which satisfy the requirements of physical function, as well as the needs of
aesthetics.
(Why does Architecture need to be aesthetic? Because buildings serve a spiritual
purpose as well as a physical one - human beings live in these buildings for a
greater part of their lives, and a building that is poorly or malevolently designed
will have a deliterious effect on our general well-being. This is why good
architects strive to make buildings that fulfil the requirements of structure as
well as the human element.)
Art becomes illustration when it is only concerned when the communication of
information becomes more important than the aesthetic idea. Such is the case with
certain religious icons more interested in conveying to their audience the details
of the Ressurection (etc.) than they are in uplifting, and so forth.
Art is not didactic by nature. That's what we have teachers for.
> which, if it is to be effective, shouldn't rule out
> the use of anything- even photography- which helps to communicate these emotions
> by the
> manipulation of ones associations. In fact, if this is declared to be the
> goal of art, then its highest achievement would be the motion picture, which
> excells in
> the communication of emotion. It is certainly more effective at this than any
> painting could hope to be.]
Motion pictures have a very strong claim to being a high art-form. If they don't
always achieve this aim, it is more to do with commercial concerns than with the
inherent limitations of the medium, which are constantly being overcome.
> > Realism
> > allows the contextualization of the artist's Idea, and hence, makes its
> > manifestation that much more real and potent. If the Idea is manifested
> > in images we can recognize (which the artist selects insofar as they together
> they
> > express his intention), then our brain has more to work on than just vague
> feelings of
> > smeared paint or glued on cardboard. The intellectual-perceptual part of
> > our brain kicks in and begins to *interpret* the scene as if it were reality; it
>
> > begins to draw us into the world of the artist.
>
> [And now, in case he didn't have enough disparate elements to reconcile in
> search of this overarching theory which will include as "art" all the stuff he
> likes
> and exclude the rest; he must go off on a third tangent. Now it isn't the amount
> of
> control the artist exerts (Intentionalism) nor the emotions she ruffles
> (Illustrationism) but the Idea in her mind which is paramount, and the
> intellectual perception of it
> in her viewership which is vital. It is the Idea, manifested in recognizable
> images, that qualifies a work as Art- should we call it "Idealism"? This sort of
> definition traces back to Plato, who held that the physical world was a corrupted
> place,
> filled with imperfect renditions of perfect ideas. But artists are in the
> forefront of
> those who have always implicitly rejected this life-denying philosophy, and have
> celebrated the beauty of things as they are. Ironically, it is the Minimalists and
> Geometric
> Abstractionists who have come the closest to the Platonic Ideal in their
> work, and should be most celebrated by those who subscribe to the Idealist canon.
My use of the word "Idea" does not have to be read in the Platonic sense of the
physical world as being a shadow of some mysterious spiritual one. I am an atheist
and place no credence in such mystical concepts. My use of the word "Idea" was meant
to hint at something of what Plato expresses, but it is not a defense of his theory.
I would use the term to refer more to a psychological state of being rather than one
of supernatural import. Thus the "Idea" exists in the brain, the subconscious, or in
whatever our most advanced psychologists and neuroscientists hypothesize it exists.
The "Idea" in this context is a metaphor for the abstraction of human thought and
creativity; when I say that an artist has an "Idea", it refers to that sometimes
vague, sometimes clear conception he has in his mind before he actually makes the
art-work. The making of the work often shapes this "Idea" in a reciprocal fashion,
which certainly distinguishes it from the Platonic use of the term - the Idea is
there an absolute, unshifting and permanent. The artist's "Idea" is something he
strives after, chips away it, and tries to understand fully through sketches,
painting, sculpting and so on. Sometimes he never realizes the "Idea" to his own
satisfaction - such was often the case with ambitious artists like Bernini or
Leonardo da Vinci. All true artists feel this dissatisfaction to varying degrees -
it is what drives them on to make more art. It might be said that the greater the
artist one is, the more demanding you are of yourself and, consequently, the more
difficult the "Idea" becomes to actualize through the media of paint, clay, or
words.
The "Idea" is what guides the artist, it's what lures him on, it is what he is
striving to manifest in the real world of sight and sound.
> Although none of their artistic ideas, expressed as ideas or theories,
> have been exactly compelling to more than a few, individual artists have certainly
> made
> visual statements that succeed on their own self-defined terms. The freedom to do
> this, and
> to promulgate a unique "idea", is one of the best things about the modern era in
> art, but
> it is the era, and the freedom, on which Iian has resolutely turned his back,
> denying the
> validity of all art that refuses to conform to the strictures of the 19th century.
Self-referential art risks becoming self-gratifying. And we all know about the story
of Narcissus...
> A theory of art that is internally consistant could be drawn up according
> to each of these sets of axioms; the Intentionalist, the Illustrationist, and the
> Idealist.
> But I question whether any theory can logically accomodate all three.]
The "Intentionalist" approach addresses the idea of what the artist can claim is
his. It is more concerned with property than artistic creation or its criticism -
but it does, obviously, have bearing on these issues as well.
The "Illustrationist" approach is, to begin with, a misnomer and mis-communicates my
intentions. The artist expresses himself through the means necessary to communicate
the "Idea". If he has only a vague, weak and flabby idea, then he will communicate
it in vague, obscure, terms. If his idea is clear, fresh and vigorous, and if his
technical skills are up to par, then has *a chance* (note) of actualizing it.
Whether or not he does depends on a large number of factors too complex to go into
here - such things to be considered are his technical skills, his emotional
development, his philosophical outlook, his aesthetic sensibilities ... and so on.
The "Illustrationist" approach exists to allow the "Idealist" one successful means
of communication. Note that we are not talking about the communication of
information here. If I want to know when the First World War began, I can turn to my
textbooks - but if I want to know how it FELT to some people (or at least the
artist), then I turn to art.
Regards,
Iian Neill
--
Sue Wood
lengthy debate, but ...
In reference to whether photographs are art
> Someone else made them
(IE the objects depicted).
> In the case of photography, it may happen to be that
> someTHING else made the objects in the work.
>
> The photographer cannot take credit for the mountains in his photo - he did not make
> them.
Am I right that you are particularly impressed by Pre-Raphaelite
painters? Didn't they advocate painting from nature and recording every
meticulous detail?
Didn't someone or something make the originals they were copying in
meticulous detail?
Is so, then how can they take the credit for the images in their work?
> No - we shall not. Illustration is more concerned with the communication of *information* - advertisements are the perfect example. They are designed along the lines of communicating to their audience as much information in as coherent a manner as possible - the value of the work is judged by how effectively it accomplishes this task.
Most advertisements aren't designed to convey information - they are
designed to convey an idea, appeal to an emotion. (A bit like paintings,
really) Anything to get the consumer to want to buy the product.
SW
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
>
> http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
>
> My personal home-page (with my student art work) can be found here:
I find the words wonderful to read but why is it Iian that you feel that you
have to defend your style of painting. Really all art is abstract so why
reject it? An American who was in Paris viewing Picasso's paintings
approached Picasso and told him he didn't understand his work because it
wasn't real. As they talked Picasso asked if he could see some photos of this
fellows girlfriend, glancing at the photo Picasso remarked is she really that
small!!!
>
--
bash
mdeli
>Art becomes illustration when it is only concerned when the communication of
>information becomes more important than the aesthetic idea. Such is the case with
>certain religious icons more interested in conveying to their audience the details
>of the Ressurection (etc.) than they are in uplifting, and so forth.
I think you have it backwards. Illustration like any artwork becomes
art if a concensus thinks so for a long time.
> The "Idea" is what guides the artist, it's what lures him on, it is what he is
>striving to manifest in the real world of sight and sound.
Much art has no idea at all. Unless you concider an exhibition of
technical ability alone an idea. Does every landscape or still- life
constitute an idea? Does a Holbein portrait express an idea?
Does a de Kooning or a Twombley express any idea? I doubt it. If they
did most would agree on what that is.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Darko
both production and criticizam. I have seen Your art an I am not
surprized.
Dont expect any critics. Its just too simple and emotionless
From a short class of art you could learn what is actualy purpose of art
which in your csse is completly neglected.
Have a nice day
adko
mdeli
century:
I took into consideration critical hype, historical importance and
excessive psudo-philosophical gas in making these choices. Indeed all
of these paintings exhibit monumental incompetence which critics
constantly try to excuse with long winded Modern Academic Excuse
Theory.
There is of course a greater mass of idiotic painting produced than
ever before. However, few of these works also have the above mentioned
characteristic
Cezanne- Great Bathers (The gateway to no-skill-realism and the
perfect foil for Modern Academic Artspeak.)
Matisse- The Dance (total idiocy in every respect)
Picasso-Guernica (cartooning at its worst)
Picasso- Damioselles (The first fusion of total ugliness with
monumental incompetence and lack of craftsmanship)
Mondrian- Broadway - Boogy Woogy (practically nothing praised as the
essence of everything)
Jurriaan
There's a lot of blablabla going on in the art world.
I'll give you that. But your own work isn't quite a gallery of masterpieces
either. Personally I find it a bit easy mocking the %2522great artists%2522
the way you do. Put your genius at work and show the world the way it should
be.
-**** Posted from Supernews, Discussions Start Here(tm) ****-
http://www.supernews.com/ - Host to the the World's Discussions & Usenet
DFRussell
>I'll give you that. But your own work isn't quite a gallery of masterpieces
>either.
I can't recall him ever saying it was.
> Personally I find it a bit easy mocking the %2522great artists%2522
>the way you do.
You mean like you're comments about Mani's work? :-)
> Put your genius at work and show the world the way it should
>be.
I believe the point was that they *weren't* "great artsits". Put your
genius to work and point out how he is wrong instead of simply
offering unpleasant comments about his work (while begrudging him
doing it to someone else).