skill
Mani Deli
>>....... After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
>> foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create what
is
>> regarded by others as artwork. This results in an ability to create
something
>> people want and sometimes to creating something a great number of people
>> treasure for a long time (great art.)
>William DeRaymond/Artist
>I think this is the essence of Bullshit. As an artist you must not pander,
Pander? Do you create artwork which people DON"T want? If you do I will
remind you that this is a rare occurrence.
>but you must express yourself and hope that people are smart enough to
>recognize your vision,
No. It is the artist who has be smart and skilled enough to get smart and even
dumb people interested in his product. If your "vision" (artwork) is crap even
smart people will deservedly ignore you.
>but obviously if you follow the above you'll end up a
>neo-classical fool instead of an artist.
You seem obsessed by neo-classical boogy men. There is no connection to the
neo-classical or any other style in my statement. Skill is the foundation of
any artwork in any style and all artwork is done in order to be seen . If you
find that incorrect tell us why.
> To attempt to create what others
>regard as art is to give up your self. This kind of thinking makes me want
>to puke. - Sincerely, William
>--
Well if you produce art work which no one ever likes you might puke but it
won’t help much.
You and lots of others consider art "expressing yourself."
Why don’t you state exactly what the term "expressing yourself "means. I
suspect that you will end up with lots of platitudes.
I don’t think expressing yourself is a fundamental necessity in art. Exactly
what it is that most art expresses is more often than not a matter of hazy
conjecture.
Did a Dutch 17th century still life painter express himself? Vermeer,
Canaletto, Norman Rockwell, Rothko, Matisse? If so how and where?
Art often expresses something but rarely oneself. Take religious art or
portraiture, still life, landscape, pure abstraction or Egyptian funereal art
and cubism. Rarely does any of this express anything much about the artist.
Mani DeLi
If people judged painting in terms of quality rather than by its signature the
whole history of modern art would be quite different.
William DeRaymond
>
> I wrote
> >>....... After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
> >> foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create what
> is
> >> regarded by others as artwork.
This is where your thinking is faulty as far as I am concerned. To attempt
to create what is regarded as others as art is quite simply pandering. One
needs to be true to their own vision, regardless of whether others regard it
as art or not. Historically artists like Cezanne, Van Gogh, and Monet are
good examples of this.
>This results in an ability to create
> something
> >> people want and sometimes to creating something a great number of people
> >> treasure for a long time (great art.)
>
> >William DeRaymond/Artist
> >I think this is the essence of Bullshit. As an artist you must not pander,
>
> Pander? Do you create artwork which people DON"T want? If you do I will
> remind you that this is a rare occurrence.
We are talking about basic motives and in the producing of art the basic
motive needs to be The expression of yourself as the priority not as some
incidental event. Sure everyone who is sane wants to be appreciated, but to
try to please others as a primary motive is foolish and is pandering. When
others evolve to a certain point they recognize the Artist's need to remain
true to her or his own vision and that becomes a primary value in the
appreciation of a true artist's work.
> >but you must express yourself and hope that people are smart enough to
> >recognize your vision,
>
> No. It is the artist who has be smart and skilled enough to get smart and even
> dumb people interested in his product.This sounds like marketing not art, and if everybody loves what you do it's
got to be crap. This is an impossibility.
>If your "vision" (artwork) is crap even
> smart people will deservedly ignore you.
You say things that are totally obvious. I find your assumptions
questionable. We may not agree on who is dumb or smart.
>
> >but obviously if you follow the above you'll end up a
> >neo-classical fool instead of an artist.
>
> You seem obsessed by neo-classical boogy men. There is no connection to the
> neo-classical or any other style in my statement. Skill is the foundation of
> any artwork in any style and all artwork is done in order to be seen . If you
> find that incorrect tell us why. Of course I agree. It's obvious. What I find disconcerting is your
expressing a supposed authority in which I find half truths abounding and
it's very tiresome.
>
>
> Well if you produce art work which no one ever likes you might puke but it
> won’t help much.
You see. right here. Of course, no ones' motive is to produce art work no
one ever likes.
>
> You and lots of others consider art "expressing yourself."
> Why don’t you state exactly what the term "expressing yourself "means. I
> suspect that you will end up with lots of platitudes.
>
> I don’t think expressing yourself is a fundamental necessity in art.It is the fundamental neccessity!
The moment you touch your brush to the canvas you are expressing yourself.
You express yourself in the choice of colors you use and your ability to
harmonize those tones, and what you actually say with regards to those
harmonies. You express yourself with regards to how you express the brush,
whether you understand the inherent psychological nuances of the brush. You
express yourself with regards to how you compose, your choice of motifs and
whether or not you are slavish with regards to copying or are concerned with
aessthetic issues that involve all of the above. I could go on, but I'm
stopping here. If you aren't clear on the enormous potential for self
expression in the above and the neccessity of the same you should find a
proper teacher and get to work.
Exactly
> what it is that most art expresses is more often than not a matter of hazy
> conjecture.
You are just expressing your lack of knowledge here and all the conceptual
hang ups of your training and background. This is typical and widespread.
YOU are full of hazy conjecture. In this statement you say 'I don't know
shit, and no one else does or can know anything either.' Oh yeah, except we
sure can rely on the fact that skill is neccessary, Duh.
>
> Did a Dutch 17th century still life painter express himself? Vermeer,
> Canaletto, Norman Rockwell, Rothko, Matisse? If so how and where?
> Yes they all did in every work they did. Each one reveals the consciousness
with which they work and their motivations. It is quite clear to me from
your comments all you see is some conceptual bullshit no matter what you look
at. Again this is a prevalent condition so you are not alone. You pigeon
hole everything into little intellectual cubby holes. Tear it all down and
begin to express your self directly. That is if you really are an artist/.
> Art often expresses something but rarely oneself. Take religious art or
> portraiture, still life, landscape, pure abstraction or Egyptian funereal art
> and cubism. Rarely does any of this express anything much about the artist.
These absolutely reveal the nature and psychology of the artist who did it.
It is impossible to hide who you are and what you know as an arist. You
either express your consciousness or lack thereof.
Quite simply, I consider your judgement to be as faulty as the moderns you
rail against.
> Mani DeLi
> If people judged painting in terms of quality rather than by its signature the
> whole history of modern art would be quite different.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
WorldLightProductions
http://www.worldlightproductions.com/~draymond/
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'- William
William DeRaymond
>
> In article <30F568...@worldlightproductions.com>, William DeRaymond
> <dray...@worldlightproductions.com> wrote:
>
> > The moment you touch your brush to the canvas you are expressing yourself...
>
> This idea that the essential thing about art is that it is self-expression
> is completely misguided. Artistic practice is no more especially
> expressive of the self (either of temporary states that we might call
> 'mood', or those more durable attributes that we label 'personality'),
> than anything else we choose to spend our time doing.
I think you are wrong. Of course, There are varying degrees of
sophistication when it comes to self expression. The arts are simply one of
the most sophisticated ways of expressing oneself.
>
> Ask a salesman: the car you buy expresses essential things about you, as
> do the clothes you wear. Ask a waiter: the food you eat, as well as where
> and how you choose to eat it say a great deal about you. Ask a
> sociobiologist: your feet, your hands, your spine, your tone of voice,
> your choice of seat on the train, the way you hold your head and the way
> you hold your newspaper are all very effective as self-expression. A
> banker can tell a great deal about you from your spending and borrowing
> patterns. A linguist can unravel secrets you didn't know you kept from
> your accent, vocabulary and conversational style...etc., etc., etc.
Yea, so what? Does that mean art is somehow about not expressing who you are.
Everything we do expresses who we are. I simply am of the opinion that art
and the arts are the most sophisticated ways of self expression going. I
actuaslly think that's why they are called arts.
> Pray, tell: If art is so expressive, how come it is not the sole, or even
> the primary method that psychologists use to observe personality or mental
> state?
Arts needn't be the foundation of psychology, while certainly the are
definitely psyco Logical
> Another thing: If art is self-expression, yet not uniquely expressive, why
> do we value it so? Why do we not rank a child's tantrum above the musical
> outpourings of Mozart?Why do you compare the self expression of a childs tantrum to the musical
outpouring of Mozart? Are you putting me on? You don't consider Mozart to
be expressing himself?
> To demonstrate the clear falsity of the expressionist theory of art, I
> will present a case study: Jacques Louis David's painting, the "Death of
> Marat". What am I able to deduce about David from this work? That he
> admired Marat? That he was on the side of the peasant against the
> bourgoisie? These would be quite reasonable interpretations of the
> picture. Yet, is the picture more expressive of these readings than the
> bald assertions "I admire Marat", and "Marat was on the side of the
> peasants, and I make common cause with him against the bourgoisie"? If it
> is not, then are the statements themselves great art, as the painting
> surely is? What's more, David's subsequent behaviour gave the lie--rather
> dramatically--to the sentiment his painting might seem to express. He
> went on to betray the peasants and serve the bourgoisie. His subsequent
> ruthless behaviour in his revolutionary capacity was (I am sure you will
> agree) more expressive of his true nature than the heroic painting of
> Marat dead in the bath ever was. The expressionist theory of art would
> lead us to the conclusion that his political activity was therefore
> greater art than the painting, a conclusion which is patently absurd,
> because that activity was neither admirable nor art.What I see about the expression of David regardless of his political message
was that he was totally subjugated by his neo-classical ideals. He had no
idea of the potential for painting that really opened up in the 19th C. Like
Cezanne said '....if you want to be a painter, you must avoid the literary
spirit.' That is really worth contemplating.
To close, yes it all is self expression and in my opinion, there is no
greater way to express oneself than with an artform.
William DeRaymond
post in this thread. It goes -
'...The artist must scorn all judgement that is not based on an
intelligent observation of character. He must beware of the literary
spirit which so often causes painting to deviate from its true path -
the concrete study of nature- to lose itself all too long in intangible
speculation.'- Cezanne
--
Bruce Attah
>
> I came across an accurate rendition of the qoute I used in the last
> post in this thread. It goes -
>
> '...The artist must scorn all judgement that is not based on an
> intelligent observation of character. He must beware of the literary
> spirit which so often causes painting to deviate from its true path -
> the concrete study of nature- to lose itself all too long in intangible
> speculation.'- Cezanne
> --
May I take it, then, that Cezanne would not be sympathetic to conceptualism?
A.J.Utterson
can anyone tell me a little bit about wolfli please?
ta...
- utty -
A.J.Utterson
ta...
- utty -
Guy Fiscus
interest in his work? THanks. Guy
William Smith
ta...
- utty -
He was crazy as a loon and IMHO one of the greatest artists ever!
william
gree...@designlink.com
--
Sent from Designlink, San Francisco. Design, Graphics, Photo, Portfolios Online.
Modem: (510) 933-9676; (510) 845-4187; (415) 241-9927. Voice: 930-6746
Internet Access: Via TCP/IP PORT: 3000; IP: designlink.com or 206.14.15.3
WEB: http://www.designlink.com
Mani Deli
>The artist must scorn all judgement that is not based on an
>intelligent observation of character.
>the concrete study of nature- to lose itself all too long in intangible
>speculation.'- Cezanne
Well lets dissect the statement.
The artist must scorn all judgment that is not based on an
intelligent observation of character.
What if an artist paints a still life. The statement is unclear.
>.He must beware of the literary
>spirit which so often causes painting to deviate from its true path.
What’s wrong with being literary.
Any subject matter can be art. Is he trying to tell me what kind of subject
matter I can paint? All great religious painting is literary. Still life is
not. So what.
I like the "true path" stuff. I’ve seen people led down the true path like
lemmings. There ain’t no true path. Cezanne was about as literate about nature
as the pope.
Before you get impressed by statements its wise to try to determine what they
mean.
Mani DeLi
.Sacred cows make the best hamburgers…....Mark Twain
Laura Stone
of his work curated by james demetrion. with catalog, also, i believe.
the work well represented him as having severe emotional problems,
criminal behavior, and then the outpouring creative obsession. there was
extensive information about the symbols in wolfli's drawings. this is as
much as i can remember. why are you intereted?
laura stone
William DeRaymond
>
> William DeRaymond/Artist quotes Cezanne
> >The artist must scorn all judgement that is not based on an
> >intelligent observation of character.
> >..He must beware of the literary
> >spirit which so often causes painting to deviate from its true path -
> >the concrete study of nature- to lose itself all too long in intangible
> >speculation.'- Cezanne
>
> Well lets dissect the statement.
>
> The artist must scorn all judgment that is not based on an
> intelligent observation of character.
>
> What if an artist paints a still life. The statement is unclear.
Your understanding is unclear. A still life by Cezanne is a statement
of his character. Don't ask me to explain why, you go look until you
understand why. Just be receptive, and I don't say that lightly.
Understanding any work of art takes this supreme act of receptivity that
will tend to short circuit the conceptual mind.
>
> >.He must beware of the literary
> >spirit which so often causes painting to deviate from its true path.
>
> What’s wrong with being literary.
Nothing is wrong with being literary, it is just that painting is a non
verbal experience, thus if one gets hung up in the literary spirit
the expression of the visual language, ie. the purpose of the painter,
gets lost or ignored.
> Any subject matter can be art. Is he trying to tell me what kind of subject
> matter I can paint? All great religious painting is literary. Still life is
> not. So what.The point is not the subject matter primarily. The point is the
consciousness of the artist expressing the subject matter. A 100,000
artist's can paint a still life. How many of them will achieve the
mastery expressed in the still life as a Cezanne or a Van Gogh, or a
Monet. If it was just fruit on a table top why bother with a painting,
just enjoy the fruit on the table top! It always and forever comes down
to a question of style. Who can paint a still life and have it at the
same time remain an expression of their character, that person is a true
artist.
> I like the "true path" stuff. I’ve seen people led down the true path like
> lemmings. There ain’t no true path. Cezanne was about as literate about nature
> as the pope.
>
> Before you get impressed by statements its wise to try to determine what they
> mean.
I know exactly what he means. In your arrogance and supposed great
understanding You spout off like you know he was a fool. You just tell
everyone who has any real knowledge what you don't know. Sorry about
that.
> Mani DeLi
>
> .Sacred cows make the best hamburgers…....Mark Twain
To be brief RH. You are assuming I don't know what Cezanne meant. You
are also assuming he didn't know what he was talking about. You have
made yourself very clear to me.
Mani Deli
>> >The artist must scorn all judgement that is not based on an
>> >intelligent observation of character.
>> >..He must beware of the literary
>> >spirit which so often causes painting to deviate from its true path -
>> >the concrete study of nature- to lose itself all too long in intangible
>> >speculation.'- Cezanne
>>
>> Well lets dissect the statement.
>>
>> The artist must scorn all judgment that is not based on an
>> intelligent observation of character.
>>
>> What if an artist paints a still life. The statement is unclear.
>
>Your understanding is unclear. A still life by Cezanne is a statement
>of his character. Don't ask me to explain why, you go look until you
>understand why. Just be receptive, and I don't say that lightly.
>Understanding any work of art takes this supreme act of receptivity that
>will tend to short circuit the conceptual mind.
>>
space?
>> >He must beware of the literary
>> >spirit which so often causes painting to deviate from its true path.
>>
>> What’s wrong with being literary.
>
>Nothing is wrong with being literary, it is just that painting is a non
>verbal experience, thus if one gets hung up in the literary spirit
>the expression of the visual language, ie. the purpose of the painter,
>gets lost or ignored.
The visual language, is that Artspeak?
>> Any subject matter can be art. Is he trying to tell me what kind of subject
>> matter I can paint? All great religious painting is literary. Still life
is
>> not. So what.
>The point is not the subject matter primarily. The point is the
>consciousness of the artist expressing the subject matter.
The point is the painting. The rest is usually Artspeak.
> A 100,000
>artist's can paint a still life. How many of them will achieve the
>mastery expressed in the still life as a Cezanne or a Van Gogh, or a
>Monet. If it was just fruit on a table top why bother with a painting,
>just enjoy the fruit on the table top!
The point is the picture I never said it was the subject.
>It always and forever comes down
>to a question of style. Who can paint a still life and have it at the
>same time remain an expression of their character, that person is a true
>artist.
No one can. Art is not an expression of character. I can't deduce that Renoir
had arthritis, or that Matisse suffered from hemorrhoids or know whether they
were honest by looking at their work and I suspect that you can't either.
>
>> I like the "true path" stuff. I’ve seen people led down the true path like
>> lemmings. There ain’t no true path. Cezanne was about as literate about
nature
>> as the pope.
>>
>> Before you get impressed by statements its wise to try to determine what
they
>> mean.
>>
> I know exactly what he means. In your arrogance and supposed great
>understanding You spout off like you know he was a fool.
It seems you are the one who understands.
>To be brief RH. You are assuming I don't know what Cezanne meant.
no
>You are also assuming he didn't know what he was talking about.
Yes
You have
>made yourself very clear to me.
Well at least I write clearly.
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art
William DeRaymond
>
> >> William DeRaymond/Artist quotes Cezanne
> >> >The artist must scorn all judgement that is not based on an
> >> >intelligent observation of character.
> >> >..He must beware of the literary
> >> >spirit which so often causes painting to deviate from its true path -
> >> >the concrete study of nature- to lose itself all too long in intangible
it. Cezanne's work is a good place to start to understand how a work of art
is imbued with character. It can only be understood by receptivity. You can
bet he didn't do his work to coordinate with anyones livingroom decor.
The fact that you can call the phrase 'visual language' artspeak is amazing
to me.
As far as receptivity goes, until one gives up the conceptual load given to
one by the culture, one only sees anything through those conceptual filters.
In order to see directly one must in fact surrender all that one has been
taught to see in order to see beauty with one's own eyes. In that
receptivity, true judgement and appreciation can ARISE.
Oh, and with regards to your statement that it is not up to the artist to
decide if what she or he does is art,but up to those who view it. The person
who does not know if they are doing art when doing art, is not doing art. Is
that artspeak?
Bruce Attah
<wil...@worldlightproductions.com> wrote:
> ...until one gives up the conceptual load given to one by the culture,
(impossible for anyone -- one's culture is part of one's physical being,
as inseparable from the self as the brain)
> one only sees anything through those conceptual filters.
(not true for anyone -- everyone has some direct experience of life, or
there would be nothing to hook culture on to)
> In order to see directly one must in fact surrender all that one has been
> taught to see in order to see beauty with one's own eyes. In that
> receptivity, true judgement and appreciation can ARISE.
One little question: who taught you that?
>
> Oh, and with regards to your statement that it is not up to the artist to
> decide if what she or he does is art,but up to those who view it. The person
> who does not know if they are doing art when doing art, is not doing art.
All artists *intend* to do art, but that does not mean they all *know*
whether or not they are doing art. They may think their efforts deserve
their label, only to discover later that they have been artless.
Sometimes they may think they have failed, only to revise their judgement
later.
Cezanne did not break away from all cultural convention, as you suggest.
If he thought he did, he was wrong. It is very easy to see how his work
(including the ghastly late bathers) relates closely to the art of his
immediate and remote predecessors and to the theories about art that were
current in his time.
Andrew Werby
>that artspeak?
>--
>William DeRaymond/Artist
[Is that correct? (I'm not referring to the grammar, or lack thereof.)
Many people came from cultures that had no conception of "art", or if
they did, it was very different from what we think of when we say the
word. Nevertheless, from ancient Egypt to modern Bali, they produced
works which we appreciate as art. Some people are not as self-confident
as you seem to require them to be in order to make what you consider to
be art- are they to be ruled out en masse? And there are many
individuals whose thought processes do not run in the orderly manner
that would allow them to assert themselves as artists and their products
as art- those now hailed as "outsider" artists for instance- I suppose
you wouldn't count them either. Then there are the folk and naive
artists, from the anonymous builders of cathedrals to the makers of
early American weather vanes- who don't really consider their works to
be art, but just get involved in making an object in the most beautiful
way they can- we have to throw all them out too.
So who is left? After chucking out the ancients, ethnics and naives,
the self-doubters and outsiders, we end up with a bunch of egotistical
modern Westerners who know they are making art, but wonder why nobody
else seems to care.]
Andrew Werby - United Artworks
William DeRaymond
>
> In article <310DDB...@worldlightproductions.com>, William DeRaymond
> <wil...@worldlightproductions.com> wrote:
>
>
> > ...until one gives up the conceptual load given to one by the culture,
>
> as inseparable from the self as the brain)
>
> > one only sees anything through those conceptual filters.
>
> there would be nothing to hook culture on to)
william - you just said no one can free themselves from the conceptual load
inherited from the culture and then you say everyone does indeed do that very
thing at least some of the time. As artist's I believe we create culture or
we should try to do this, not merely reflect ( the cultural morass).
> > In order to see directly one must in fact surrender all that one has been
> > taught to see in order to see beauty with one's own eyes. In that
> > receptivity, true judgement and appreciation can ARISE.
>
>Bruce- One little question: who taught you that?
William - I was fortunate to have studied under a Master who did in fact
guide me into the above realization. I did in fact have to unlearn all that
I was taught by the culture( by default). He showed me the beauty that was
there all around me. He didn't stress technique as much as he watched me
find my own way, and gently guided me into expressing my own voice. He urged
me to see a tree, a child, the world with my own eyes and paint the same
directly as I would, in the context of what I would call 'The aesthetics of
spontaneity'. He taught me the difference between that which is style and
that which is stylized. This all took a number of years, and since we were
in non verbal realms, I didn't always know I was being taught. I imagine it
was much like a baby learning its native tongue. Mind to mind the master
said.
> >
> > Oh, and with regards to your statement that it is not up to the artist to
> > decide if what she or he does is art,but up to those who view it. The person
> > who does not know if they are doing art when doing art, is not doing art.
>
>Bruce- All artists *intend* to do art, but that does not mean they all *know*
> whether or not they are doing art. They may think their efforts deserve
> their label, only to discover later that they have been artless.
> Sometimes they may think they have failed, only to revise their judgement
> later.
William - So what is an artist that does artless art? What is this process
whereby we revise our judgements to suit our moments? How is it we think we
fail and in fact have ended up succeeding? I see assumption after assumption
in your statements. Yet I certainly am no foreigner to the dilemma. When we
are in the process, even certainty has no real value except the joy and
release we feel in the absorbtion of our small selves into the artform
itself. Meditation/Contemplation/Samadhi. When we are out of it, we can in
fact doubt who we are.
> Cezanne did not break away from all cultural convention, as you suggest.
> If he thought he did, he was wrong. It is very easy to see how his work
> (including the ghastly late bathers) relates closely to the art of his
> immediate and remote predecessors and to the theories about art that were
> current in his time.Cezanne loved to paint. He was an original. I never suggested he lived in a
vacuum, he did however not pander to anyone. Thank you Cezanne!
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
dray...@worldlightproductions.com