A Painting IS a Photograph, Gerhard Richter
M.
aid to a establishing a motif in their painting, or slavishly
squaring it off and copying the exact image, Gerhard Richter brings
another idea: a painting is also a photograph.
Since a photograph is a picture created by light and chemicals on
a sensitive surface, then a painting can be described as a photograph.
"I'm not trying to imitate a photograph; I'm trying to make one.
And if I disregard the assumption that a photograph is a piece
of paper exposed to light, then I am practising photography
by other means: I'm not producing paintings that remind you of
a photograph but producing photographs."
GERHARD RICHTER Landscapes, 1998
ISBN 3-89322-951-5
Any thoughts?
Marilyn
Joe Bennett
I am responding from the perspective of a painter whose "day job" all
his life was writing in one form or another, and who has an abiding love
of the English language. I have to control myself when I come across
distortions of the language such as that proposed by Richter. A
painting is not a photograph, not in any way, shape or form, and his
"artspeak" distortion simply must be challenged.
Within the language, the constraints of language, the word "photograph"
has a very specific meaning, involving far more than the finished
product, the print. Photography is like painting, a process that has a
beginning, a middle and an end. Never the twain shall intersect. Just
the fact that the literal meaning of photograph involves a reproduction
achieved on a "sensitive surface" disqualifies Richter's statement from
inclusion in any collection of "statements that make sense." A canvas,
regardless of how artfully prepared, cannot by any means of imagination
-- short of terminally torturing the language -- be described as an
inherently "sensitive" surface.
The Richter's of this world have a place. Their mission is to stir the
bile, which provokes the aerobic system, which can lead to mental health
if met, finally, by a shriek that says: "Cut out the bullshit and get to
work!"
So much for Richter. His comment is artspeak bullshit and deserves to
slide gracelessly into history.
My opinion. Others welcome, but mine won't change.
Best wishes,
Joe Bennett
mark webber
(snipping all of it in its articulate sense!)
A delicious dismissal and very much on the money.
But thank you, too, Marilyn, for the Richter quote. It was very funny!
Mark
M.
Marilyn
M.
Perhaps it reads better in the
original German. There is a bilingual website on Richter.
Since he is considered to be the most amazing painter of the last half
of the 20th century, he has the right to give any "artistic statement"
he wants. He has more recently recanted some of his earlier
artistic atatements (from the 60's) so I would urge that you look
for the irony in his statements. Also consider that he is weary of
being interviewed and asked the same cliche questions.
A carefully prepared linen canvas, gessoed and buffered to feel like
silk can be described as sensitive. Or am I abusing the language here?
A painting is the reproduction of the artist's mental image or motif.
No?
M.
Keith O'Connor
It is incredible how people can put their mouth
(in this cas keyboard) in drive and their brains
in neutral. Unfortunately you will probably die
having acquired nothing more than your current
level of knowledge and wisdom.
______tinman end______
M.
I was quoting one of the greatest living contemporary painters.
It was his artist's statement. It was meant to be thought provoking
not anger/hatred provoking.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
Chris
I don't know much about Richter, but as for the statement per se, I find
it rather intriguing. Perhaps what he is getting at is that we tend to
perceive photos in a certain way, as we are usually conditioned to think
of them as representing reality in a particular fashion, and he sees no
reason why one should treat his images differently. I.e., the two
processes differ only in technical aspects, which may be essentially
irrelevant, relative to their main purpose of providing a projection of
a moment of reality.
Cheers;
Chris
Alison A Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Joe Bennett wrote:
>
>(snipping all of it in its articulate sense!)
>
>A delicious dismissal and very much on the money.
>
>But thank you, too, Marilyn, for the Richter quote. It was very funny!
>
>Mark
The only funny thing about that was the way that Marilyn, typically,
took the quote so badly out of context that it completely misinterpreted
what Richter says he was trying to do with his photo paintings in the
1960's. Not only has Marilyn mislead this group into believing that
Richter said this in 1998 when in fact it was around 1972 and referred
to a specific body of work, but she has also clearly misunderstand his
intent.
Richter's paintings are *pictures of photographs* - the purpose of which
was not to use photography as a means for painting, or to imitate
photography, but *to use painting as a means for photography* (in an
interview with Rolf Schon 1972) - an affirmation of photography, by
painting, at a time of crisis in an attempt to rescue painting from its
demise, where his sole concern was *content*. He did not, like so many
of his contemporaries in the 60's, dismiss painting as a bourgeois
inheritance ... and recognised the importance of the historical
progression of painting - in this he stood aside from his
contemporaries. At the same time he acknowledged photography in its own
right as an artistic form that dramatically changed the way we paint.
Nobody could have misinterpreted Richter more than Marilyn has by
declaring that he believed a Painting is a Photograph. How can one come
to the conclusion that a painter is one of the greatest of the century
if one does not take the time and effort to interpret what he is
stating.
Alison
Alison A Raimes
<tin...@home.com> writes
>A painting is a photograph.
>
>It is incredible how people can put their mouth
>(in this cas keyboard) in drive and their brains
>in neutral. Unfortunately you will probably die
>having acquired nothing more than your current
>level of knowledge and wisdom.
>
>______tinman end______
Even more incredible that in this case Marilyn has done exactly what
Richter detests - when asked about the conventions of painting, Richter
said that they ".... are harmful because they are determined
ideologically. They hinder enlightenment." He then went on to say
"That's why I think so highly of psychoanalysis, because it removes
prejudices and makes us mature, independent, so that we can act more
truly, more humanly, without God, without ideology." (Interview by
B.H.D Buchlon 1986.)
Its impossible then, for someone as narrow minded as Marilyn, to ever
understand where Richter was coming from.
A painting is not a photograph - Richter said it a hundred times or
more.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mark webber
> I was quoting one of the greatest living contemporary painters.
> It was his artist's statement. It was meant to be thought provoking
> not anger/hatred provoking.
Though this was not directed specificly to me, your right.
While I don't find much of interest in Richter's work, I do appreciate
your attempt to start more dialog about fine art.
Thanks,
Mark
Peter Nelson
M. wrote in message <37DE6C...@direct.net>...
>Since a photograph is a picture created by light and chemicals on
>a sensitive surface, then a painting can be described as a photograph.
Bad premise = bad conclusion.
A photograph is a image formed by the chemical reaction of a
photosensitized surface to light falling on that surface.
(actually, your conslusion doesn't even follow from your
incorrect premise since a canvas is not a sensitive surface)
---peter
Joe Bennett
knots...first wife...her name...frightening...),
"M." wrote:
>
> Interesting & visceral responses.
>
> Perhaps it reads better in the
> original German.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, reads better in German...
There is a bilingual website on Richter.
> Since he is considered to be the most amazing painter of the last half
> of the 20th century,
By whom? Some believe, and I am one, that nothing of any real interest
or millennial staying power has happened since Picasso died.
he has the right to give any "artistic statement"
> he wants.
And here we get to the nub of it: the "Artist's Statement."
You seem like a nice person, innocent in a way, with some trust in the
profundity of the "Artist's Statement." But seriously, have you ever
read one that did not fairly reek of Country Outhouse? So deep, so
profound, so...so...so...spiritual! Getting right to the essence of the
human condition, as only he...and he alone!...can possibly know it!
Wow.
Marilyn, when you can read an "Artist's Statement" and not retch, when
you can read one and not think, "What bullshit!"; then Child, you have
arrived. You have touched reality.
Actually Marilyn, I know nothing about Richter, Twombly, whomever, of
the 20th Century. For me, the 20th Century has not yet happened. It is
1870 and Corot is about to paint a portrait of Berthe, the cute teenager
whose parents run a fabric shop up the street. The "Artist's Statement"
has not yet been devised as a means of giving some kind of ligitimacy to
the scribblings of a dysfunctional art community.
Possibly, if ever I get to the 20th Century and run across one of those
dysfunctions, I might have a higher opinion of their statements. Until
then, I must, and urge you to do the same, treat those mouthings with
disdain.
Joe Bennett
Aside to Chris Brobeck...
I really expected you to pitch in on this one, and you did not
disappoint. And with the calm approach so typical and so much
appreciated. I have a piece on the Clam Harbor thing, Devil's Notch or
whatever, well under way and will try to send a photo of the painting (A
painting is NOT a photograph!) when finished, if I can take a decent
one. Generally, I screw up, but will try. Stay well!
JB
burnin...@my-deja.com
"M." <bra...@direct.net> wrote:
> To the debate about artists using photographs either as an
> aid to a establishing a motif in their painting, or slavishly
> squaring it off and copying the exact image, Gerhard Richter brings
> another idea: a painting is also a photograph.
Everyone is allowed an opinion. Fortunately, we are not required to
take everyone's opinion seriously.
>
> Since a photograph is a picture created by light and chemicals on
> a sensitive surface, then a painting can be described as a photograph.
If this argument is to be considered valid, then it should also be
possible to describe a leaf with birdshit on it as a photograph also.
>
> "I'm not trying to imitate a photograph; I'm trying to make one.
> And if I disregard the assumption that a photograph is a piece
> of paper exposed to light, then I am practising photography
> by other means: I'm not producing paintings that remind you of
> a photograph but producing photographs."
>
> GERHARD RICHTER Landscapes, 1998
> ISBN 3-89322-951-5
>
> Any thoughts?
Try looking up the term sophistry in the dictionary.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
M.
It would be interesting to know what the influences are between
Wolf Kahn and Gerhard Richter.
The quote cited was from an imaginative poetic mind, an analogy
if you will. Before the quote the author Dietmar Elger writes,
<Common to all the works, however, is the use of a photographic
original, and Richter always made a particular point of this formal
aspect of his work in his statements at the time: [the time being 1965]
"I'm not trying to imitate a photograph;...">
more comment interwoven below.
Chris wrote:
>
> Hi Marilyn;
>
> I don't know much about Richter, but as for the statement per se, I find
> it rather intriguing.
If you get a hold of the book, check out p. 17 it will take your
breath away even in the small format of the reproduction.
Perhaps what he is getting at is that we tend to
> perceive photos in a certain way, as we are usually conditioned to think
> of them as representing reality in a particular fashion, and he sees no
> reason why one should treat his images differently. I.e., the two
> processes differ only in technical aspects, which may be essentially
> irrelevant, relative to their main purpose of providing a projection of
> a moment of reality.
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
You got it!
Here's another intriguing Richter quote which I gleaned from the web,
and do not have the written documentation:
"It does not seem useful that we become fewer and fewer and come to an
end when we have learned so much. Over and over again, later
generations have to strive for decades to regain a standard of
experience long since reached before.
The much despised 'artistic scene of today' is quite harmless and
friendly when we do not compare it with false claims: it has nothing
to do with traditional values that we uphold (or which elevate us),
it
has virtually nothing at all to do with art. Thus the 'art scene' is
not despicable, cynical or without spirit but as a temporarily
blossoming, busily proliferating scene it is only a variation on a
perpetual social game that fulfils needs for communication, in the
same way as sport, stamp collecting or breeding cats. Art happens
despite this, rarely and always unexpectedly, never because we make
it
happen."
Marilyn
Philip Ayers
> Interesting & visceral responses.
>
> Perhaps it reads better in the
> original German. There is a bilingual website on Richter.
> Since he is considered to be the most amazing painter of the last half
> of the 20th century, he has the right to give any "artistic statement"
> he wants. He has more recently recanted some of his earlier
> artistic atatements (from the 60's) so I would urge that you look
> for the irony in his statements. Also consider that he is weary of
> being interviewed and asked the same cliche questions.
>
> A carefully prepared linen canvas, gessoed and buffered to feel like
> silk can be described as sensitive. Or am I abusing the language here?
> A painting is the reproduction of the artist's mental image or motif.
> No?
>
> M.
NO!
mdeli
>To the debate about artists using photographs either as an
>aid to a establishing a motif in their painting, or slavishly
>squaring it off and copying the exact image, Gerhard Richter brings
>another idea: a painting is also a photograph.
>
>Since a photograph is a picture created by light and chemicals on
>a sensitive surface, then a painting can be described as a photograph.
>
>"I'm not trying to imitate a photograph; I'm trying to make one.
>And if I disregard the assumption that a photograph is a piece
>of paper exposed to light, then I am practising photography
>by other means: I'm not producing paintings that remind you of
>a photograph but producing photographs."
>
>GERHARD RICHTER Landscapes, 1998
>ISBN 3-89322-951-5
>
>Any thoughts?
The above statement is the usual meaningless Artspeak stupidity.
It will serve to bring out much meaningless blather here. Artzies love
vague long statements. When they take time to gas off their
interpretations, it takes their minds off their awful paintings and
financial problems.
Richter's abstractions are technically more advanced than those of an
untalented artzy fartzy like Fox etc. This because Richter learned how
to express a bit of form. Outside of this they amount to the usual
schmiers.
His attempts at drawing anything realistic are pure 20th century
no-skill-realism. He can hardly copy a photograph.
However he has to be respected as a winner at the Modern Academic Art
lottery. This bugs many Artzy Fartzies who fail to understand why
their similar crap doesn't produce much in the line of money.
I suspect Richter will eventually be another has-been.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Chris
"M." wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> It would be interesting to know what the influences are between
> Wolf Kahn and Gerhard Richter.
>
Now I'm going to have to buy the Richter book; it's unlikely any of the
local libraries have it, since it's not a romantic novel:( Do you know
any sites on the net with some substantial info on Richter?
Re. WK - I noticed in the book by Justin Spring that Kahn worked alot
with Gamblin colours (and in fact did one painting specifically because
he was interested in a new red they had brought out) - interesting,
because when the question as to favorite brands of paints was brought up
earlier, I dont think that brand name was mentionned.
> The quote cited was from an imaginative poetic mind, an analogy
> if you will.
Re poetic minds - a friend showed me a book of e.e. cummings poetry,
that also had many of his drawings in it. They're quite good..
> Here's another intriguing Richter quote which I gleaned from the web,
> and do not have the written documentation:
>
> "It does not seem useful that we become fewer and fewer and come to an
> end when we have learned so much. Over and over again, later
> generations have to strive for decades to regain a standard of
> experience long since reached before.
>
> The much despised 'artistic scene of today' is quite harmless and
> friendly when we do not compare it with false claims: it has nothing
> to do with traditional values that we uphold (or which elevate us),
> it
> has virtually nothing at all to do with art. Thus the 'art scene' is
> not despicable, cynical or without spirit but as a temporarily
> blossoming, busily proliferating scene it is only a variation on a
> perpetual social game that fulfils needs for communication, in the
> same way as sport, stamp collecting or breeding cats. Art happens
> despite this, rarely and always unexpectedly, never because we make
> it
> happen."
>
I really like that, but I'm going to have to think about it!
Thanks;
Chris
Chris
Joe Bennett wrote:
>
> Aside to Chris Brobeck...
>
> I really expected you to pitch in on this one, and you did not
> disappoint. And with the calm approach so typical and so much
> appreciated. I have a piece on the Clam Harbor thing, Devil's Notch or
> whatever, well under way and will try to send a photo of the painting (A
> painting is NOT a photograph!) when finished, if I can take a decent
> one. Generally, I screw up, but will try. Stay well!
>
> JB
Joe;
First, you are too kind! Unfortunately, I've been in more than my share
of flame wars, but not here. I like the company :)
As for the Clam Harbour picture (and other Nova Scotia paintings), I'd
love to see the work when it's done. I'd also like to hear of any other
Nova Scotia/Maritime landscapes you found to be of interest; it would be
fun to have lists of such places available for different areas. Same for
anyone else reading this.
BTW, you mentionned that you were in another (more wordy :) field before
painting. Do you think that affects your work now? I certainly (for
example) think my own math work strongly influences how I perceive
things; while Renoir's start as a tole painter (lamps & lampshades) is
always somewhat evident in his work...Or maybe I've just gotten the
causal reelationships mixed around (eg Gaugin's nature would tend him
both towards financial exchanges & his style of art, rather than the
former affecting the latter.)
Cheers;
Chris
M.
>
>
> Now I'm going to have to buy the Richter book; it's unlikely any of the
> local libraries have it, since it's not a romantic novel:( Do you know
> any sites on the net with some substantial info on Richter?
My daughter picked it up in Montreal. Yes, I found a couple of sites
through WebCrawler. Get back to me on the Korsica painting? Could
almost be Cape Breton Island in the mist. Well, maybe except for the
tall blue mountains in the background :)
> Re. WK - I noticed in the book by Justin Spring that Kahn worked alot
> with Gamblin colours (and in fact did one painting specifically because
> he was interested in a new red they had brought out) - interesting,
> because when the question as to favorite brands of paints was brought up
> earlier, I dont think that brand name was mentionned.
Yeah, they were mentioned here by yours truly and I have used them from
my Emily Carr College days, when they had a Gamblin rep give us a talk
on oil paint and pigments (BEFORE I read that WK used them.) I don't
do enough oil painting but I'm working up to doing more of it.
>
> > The quote cited was from an imaginative poetic mind, an analogy
> > if you will.
>
> Re poetic minds - a friend showed me a book of e.e. cummings poetry,
> that also had many of his drawings in it. They're quite good..
Have you seen the book "Poets on Painting" the writing is so good,
who cares about the content. (just kidding.)
[snipped Richter quote about Breeding Cats)
> I really like that, but I'm going to have to think about it!
>
I thought it summed up things quite well, as I waver between the two
worlds, the art world he describes, and the reality of trying to
actually produce art, if ever. The enticing thing about painting to me
is to always believe that your masterpiece is yet to be accomplished,
maybe the next one. As Richter says there is no perfect, or absolute
painting, it's all so random. Random that is, after years of learning
and practice.
Marilyn
Chris
"M." wrote:
>
> Yeah, they were mentioned here by yours truly and I have used them from
> my Emily Carr College days, when they had a Gamblin rep give us a talk
> on oil paint and pigments (BEFORE I read that WK used them.) I don't
> do enough oil painting but I'm working up to doing more of it.
Whoops, sorry! But I do remember you use the Sennelier pastels :)...Its
neat though, when you find an artist you really respect, and then find
points of (seemingly small) commonality..An impressionist (I guess
post-impressionist really) I enjoy was JP Russell; just read the other
day that his favorite red was a deep madder; one I would find hard to
live without! I guess it makes them seem more alive, rather than being a
somewhat distant icon...
>
> Have you seen the book "Poets on Painting" the writing is so good,
> who cares about the content. (just kidding.)
>
No, but I've heard good stuff about it. In a similar vein, the arts
association here paired a number of local poets with paintings, and had
them write about the paintings (or at least use them as a starting
point). I've always had a special place for the mixture of written
words, politics, and art; I suppose Patchen being one of my favorites. I
also really enjoy Robert Lederman's work, I can see why Giuliani finds
him more than upsetting!
> [snipped Richter quote about Breeding Cats)
>
[...]
>
> I thought it summed up things quite well, as I waver between the two
> worlds, the art world he describes, and the reality of trying to
> actually produce art, if ever. The enticing thing about painting to me
> is to always believe that your masterpiece is yet to be accomplished,
> maybe the next one. As Richter says there is no perfect, or absolute
> painting, it's all so random. Random that is, after years of learning
> and practice.
>
Sort of back to chance preferring the prepared mind :)
It's funny; one of the reasons I left art school (I mentioned this
before) was I couldn't stand the art scene that surrounded it,
particularly in the late 60's & early 70's; while the sciences were much
more welcoming & tolerant of dissenting opinions. I guess these things
go in cycles.
I think that's the one problem that I have with Richter's statement,
since below the superficial scene is the need for artist-to-artist
communication; and what's blowing around on the surface does effect the
more primary levels, though perhaps not hugely. But his separating the
two is important; just as is the acknowledgment of the chaotic nature of
creative success.
Cheers;
Chris
PS - I just ordered the Richter book, Landscapes. You know, I had
promised to get myself out of debt this year; guess there's always next
year :)
Keith O'Connor
Besides: for centuries art has been defined as a
human composed system of relationships. Yes under
certain atmospheric conditions nature may begin to
display aspects of a relationship system within
the visual field. Such photographic have been
assigned a degree of artistic merit. In the past
some artists warned their students about letting
nature do their work for them.
Now another case where a photograph can have a
degree of artistic merit. Photographs of
theatrical settings in which all the visual
perceptual elements have been subjected to a
designers will, and organized into a composition.
The resulting photograph would have a degree of
artistic merit.
Many artists have voiced the problem of using
photographs as source material. Too much detail
and not enough plastic information were the main
concerns that I recall.
If you do not accept the premise that art is a
system of relationships then we will always differ
in our opinions. I realize that the modern
tendency is against the composed picture and
therefor my ideas belong to a past age. The
composed picture will I believe rise again. (you
will not the masculine metaphor)
So what if you are quoting one of the greatest
living contemporary painters. You assume that
their social position insures that they can never
say something stupid. You surrender your own
ability to come to your own conclusions to some
social icon. It does not take genius to work out
the above analysis. You have enough knowledge to
do it , so why accept everything some shit ass
social icon proclaims.
Have fun:
_______tinman end_____
"M." wrote:
>
> Come on Tinman, have a heart!
> I was quoting one of the greatest living contemporary painters.
> It was his artist's statement. It was meant to be thought provoking
> not anger/hatred provoking.
>
> Keith O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > A painting is a photograph.
> >
> > It is incredible how people can put their mouth
> > (in this cas keyboard) in drive and their brains
> > in neutral. Unfortunately you will probably die
> > having acquired nothing more than your current
> > level of knowledge and wisdom.
> >
> > ______tinman end______
> >
> > "M." wrote:
> > >
> > > To the debate about artists using photographs either as an
> > > aid to a establishing a motif in their painting, or slavishly
> > > squaring it off and copying the exact image, Gerhard Richter brings
> > > another idea: a painting is also a photograph.
> > >
> > > Since a photograph is a picture created by light and chemicals on
> > > a sensitive surface, then a painting can be described as a photograph.
> > >
> > > "I'm not trying to imitate a photograph; I'm trying to make one.
> > > And if I disregard the assumption that a photograph is a piece
> > > of paper exposed to light, then I am practising photography
> > > by other means: I'm not producing paintings that remind you of
> > > a photograph but producing photographs."
> > >
> > > GERHARD RICHTER Landscapes, 1998
> > > ISBN 3-89322-951-5
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Marilyn
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
Chris
Keith O'Connor wrote:
>
> tinman is looking for a heart you know that.
>
While tinman may need a heart, I've got the sneaking suspicion that
Tinman is really scarecrow in metallic drag...
> Besides: for centuries art has been defined as a
> human composed system of relationships.
But that's exactly what the quote seems to be asking us to explore - our
relationship with photographs and paintings. Look at your own post - its
riddled with the assumption that a photo can't be just as composed as a
painting, but clearly that's not the case. You aren't able to really
draw a line between them (as of yet).
Usually I've seen it going the other way - photographers who would
apparently prefer to have their work seen more along the lines of
painting (one I know has been subjected to more than a little teasing as
his work would do an abstract expressionist proud in terms of
unrecognizability). But it's neat twist the other way.
Cheers;
Chris
M.
>
> tinman is looking for a heart you know that.
>
Since you display
anger in your written words, and anger is an emotion,
then you must have a heart. Or does having no heart,
simply mean that you have no empathy, unlike
Dr. Spock who had no emotions at all.
Or we could postulate that anger can be a form of
empathy. For example, you witness an injustice,
you claim to feel no empathy for the victim, but
you are angry that a law was broken, a crime committed,
whatever. Therefore your (righteous) anger (in this case)
could be interpreted as a form of empathy.
Your response was interesting and that is the fascinating
thing about this forum, the differing responses.
Another idea from a guy on a lit ng is that men have a special
module in their brains which can interfere with
logical thinking. The module is called "im the greatest."
As an example James Joyce had it in the extreme, or how
could he have taken on the conscience of his race.
This module can be very productive for an artist.
But when I state my admiration for a painter
like Gerhard Richter, it seems your male brain module
"i'm the greatest" interferes with your thinking process.
Each line of your post gets stronger until you end
with the angry exclamation that Gerhard Richter is
a shit-ass icon without stating whether you know of him
or his artwork & writings.
Now I re-iterate that I personally admire his
work and his writings but not only that, people I admire,
(like a friend who has a PhD in Art History from Yale)
also admire his work. In fact, there is a consensus
among my colleagues whose opinions I respect that
Gerhard Richter is the greatest painter in the second
half of the 20th century. Some of the men I know have overcome
the "im the greatest" module long enough to be able to admit
that. (Although somedays, I'm more in favour of Andy.)
:-)
Marilyn
Alison A Raimes
<tin...@home.com> writes
>Many artists have voiced the problem of using
>photographs as source material. Too much detail
>and not enough plastic information were the main
>concerns that I recall.
Richter *did* use the photograph as an object or source - just as one
would set up a still life. It is a big mistake to see Richter's photo-
paintings as representations of objects though. It was the photo and not
the subject within the photo, that became his source. The objectiveness
of the photograph as object and the subjectivism of the painting worked
in two ways. First extrinsically, by removing the need for
representation, and then intrinsically, by pre-determining the
compositional form and reducing its representational task to that of
replication. In this way he was able to dismiss the avant-garde
rejection of painting and the Greenberg modernist withdrawal into self-
referential abstraction. He marked time while keeping painting alive in
the face of crisis and without trying to make any great or momentous
breakthrough.
Whether or not that makes him *great* is subjective .... or in Marilyn's
case because she read it somewhere.
Alison
Keith O'Connor
Chris wrote:
>
> Keith O'Connor wrote:
> >
> > tinman is looking for a heart you know that.
> >
>
> While tinman may need a heart, I've got the sneaking suspicion that
> Tinman is really scarecrow in metallic drag...
________________
good one!!!
____________________
>
> > Besides: for centuries art has been defined as a
> > human composed system of relationships.
>
> But that's exactly what the quote seems to be asking us to explore - our
> relationship with photographs and paintings. Look at your own post - its
> riddled with the assumption that a photo can't be just as composed as a
> painting,
________________________
You can't read. I did not make an assumption. I
based my argument on a definition and an
interpretation of said definition. I also
mentioned theatrical exceptions under certain
conditions.
______________________
You are not developing your arguments .
_____________________
but clearly that's not the case. You aren't able
to really
> draw a line between them (as of yet).
___________________________
this is an assumption on your part, also
condecending, but I am a nice guy I won't jump on
you for it.
_________________________
>
> Usually I've seen it going the other way - photographers who would
> apparently prefer to have their work seen more along the lines of
> painting (one I know has been subjected to more than a little teasing as
> his work would do an abstract expressionist proud in terms of
> unrecognizability). But it's neat twist the other way.
___________
my discussion started with naturalism and you
switched to abstraction to prove a point. Not
nice, bad boy go to your room.
_______
have fun
_______tinman end______>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
Kay
Kay
Keith O'Connor wrote in message <37E5610F...@home.com>...
:Are you trying to emasculate me?
:
:have fun
:______tinman end______
:
:"M." wrote:
:>
:> Keith O'Connor wrote:
:> >
:> > tinman is looking for a heart you know that.
:> >
:> Tinman,
Iian Neill
> Since you display
> anger in your written words, and anger is an emotion,
> then you must have a heart. Or does having no heart,
> simply mean that you have no empathy, unlike
> Dr. Spock who had no emotions at all.
I assume you are referring to the Vulcan from the series "Star Trek".
If this is the case, allow me to make a small correction: Spock is
never referred to as "Doctor", always as "Mister" or "Commander". As
the Science Officer aboard the fictional vessel in question, it is
unlikely he had extensive medical training.
> Another idea from a guy on a lit ng is that men have a special
> module in their brains which can interfere with
> logical thinking. The module is called "im the greatest."
> As an example James Joyce had it in the extreme, or how
> could he have taken on the conscience of his race.
> This module can be very productive for an artist.
I presume you are referring to an over-inflated ego. I can't think of
any "module" in the brain that would make one think "I am the
greatest". For your friend's sake, I hope he was speaking humorously.
> But when I state my admiration for a painter
> like Gerhard Richter, it seems your male brain module
> "i'm the greatest" interferes with your thinking process.
> Each line of your post gets stronger until you end
> with the angry exclamation that Gerhard Richter is
> a shit-ass icon without stating whether you know of him
> or his artwork & writings.
Perhaps ultra-feminists also have this part of the brain over-
developed? It might explain this ad hominem attack on "Tinman".
What seems more likely (rather than a mythical "module") is that you
were offended by "Tinman"'s criticism, and attempted to belittle him by
arguing that he allowed his ego to interfere with his ability to
reason. Of the two attacks, yours is the more unintelligent and
offensive.
> Now I re-iterate that I personally admire his
> work and his writings but not only that, people I admire,
> (like a friend who has a PhD in Art History from Yale)
> also admire his work. In fact, there is a consensus
> among my colleagues whose opinions I respect that
> Gerhard Richter is the greatest painter in the second
> half of the 20th century. Some of the men I know have overcome
> the "im the greatest" module long enough to be able to admit
> that. (Although somedays, I'm more in favour of Andy.)
This does not prove that Richter is incapable of error. Again, you
resort to an ad hominem argument - in this case, to support YOUR
argument, rather than attack "Tinman"'s.
Regards,
Iian Neill
M.
Iian Neill wrote:
>
> > Since you display
> > anger in your written words, and anger is an emotion,
> > then you must have a heart. Or does having no heart,
> > simply mean that you have no empathy, unlike
> > Dr. Spock who had no emotions at all.
>
> I assume you are referring to the Vulcan from the series "Star Trek".
> If this is the case, allow me to make a small correction: Spock is
> never referred to as "Doctor", always as "Mister" or "Commander". As
> the Science Officer aboard the fictional vessel in question, it is
> unlikely he had extensive medical training.
Absolutely right Iian, it's Mr.
I don't know what came over me.
> > Another idea from a guy on a lit ng is that men have a special
> > module in their brains which can interfere with
> > logical thinking. The module is called "im the greatest."
> > As an example James Joyce had it in the extreme, or how
> > could he have taken on the conscience of his race.
> > This module can be very productive for an artist.
>
> I presume you are referring to an over-inflated ego. I can't think of
> any "module" in the brain that would make one think "I am the
> greatest". For your friend's sake, I hope he was speaking humorously.
All of course was irony/tongue-in-cheek as was my post.
> > But when I state my admiration for a painter
> > like Gerhard Richter, it seems your male brain module
> > "i'm the greatest" interferes with your thinking process.
> > Each line of your post gets stronger until you end
> > with the angry exclamation that Gerhard Richter is
> > a shit-ass icon without stating whether you know of him
> > or his artwork & writings.
>
> Perhaps ultra-feminists also have this part of the brain over-
> developed? It might explain this ad hominem attack on "Tinman".
> What seems more likely (rather than a mythical "module") is that you
> were offended by "Tinman"'s criticism, and attempted to belittle him by
> arguing that he allowed his ego to interfere with his ability to
> reason. Of the two attacks, yours is the more unintelligent and
> offensive.
Tinman is more than capable of defending himself, he chose to
instead to see that it was only a "tongue in cheek" retort.
> > Now I re-iterate that I personally admire his
> > work and his writings but not only that, people I admire,
> > (like a friend who has a PhD in Art History from Yale)
> > also admire his work. In fact, there is a consensus
> > among my colleagues whose opinions I respect that
> > Gerhard Richter is the greatest painter in the second
> > half of the 20th century. Some of the men I know have overcome
> > the "im the greatest" module long enough to be able to admit
> > that. (Although somedays, I'm more in favour of Andy.)
>
> This does not prove that Richter is incapable of error. Again, you
> resort to an ad hominem argument - in this case, to support YOUR
> argument, rather than attack "Tinman"'s.
It was not an argument.
It was not a "right" or "wrong" statement it was a postulation,
a reversal of an old cliche about painting,
"am I making a painting from a photograph, in a way yes,
but my painting could also be described as a photograph
in the sense of chemicals, light, and surface."
Tinman gave me no argument,
he did mention something about my death though.
Lighten up Mr. Iian, life is short, and art is long.
Take Tinman's advice, have fun!
~Artist~
best seats in the house.
LOL
Overall, it was ok and that the writer could have done more research
on the art field. The language appeared invented to me.
I think Joe Public will not see that though nor will they get all the
satire. From the artist perspective you could really take the entire
thing as a comedy and massive spoof of the cultureless Americans on
the scale of the sadness and tragedy of Death of a Salesman!
Defiately a comment on the cultural poverty we have here in
geekdom of Silly Icon Valley!
Man I laughed my head off ~ nearly to tears!
Mattison Ftizgerald
Artist
http://www.rhinodev.com/M
New Art on the Site!
Stop in Santa Fe 2 see the Show
through December '99 Invite on the postcard link!