Realism and Modernism
Stewart
come up with simple ways to demonstrate, explain, or answer questions
about modern art versus realistic art. Here's one I've used often;
Realist artist- "Look at my work! See how the road curves into the
distance. Look at my use of both linear and aerial perspective. I
paint life as it is, I am a realist!"
Modern artist- "No! You are a trickster, an illusionist! How can you
paint life as it is? Your canvas is flat! I am intellectually true to
my canvas and can still create figure-ground relationships, ambiguous
figure-ground relationships and spatial relationships with shapes and
color. I am more of a realist than you are!"
Comments?
Stewart Schooley
Unknown Artist
Silly. Modernism is a world view. It has little to do with line or
color, and everything to do with things like universal truth and binary
weighted dualisms.
RBrac53660
Pffft universial truth captured in a single image. I think not.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Unknown Artist" <AnUnkno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Silly. Modernism is a world view. It has little to do with line or
> color, and everything to do with things like universal truth and
binary
> weighted dualisms.
>
tired old Hegelian dialectic) to do with 'universal truth' (whatever
that might be)?
--
non illegitimi te carborundum
Stewart
I think my post clearly showed that I was only talking about painting.
I didn't state a personal preference of any kind and my intention was
to give the questioner enough information that hopefully would ay
least give them some
Stewart
Rats! This retired old dog isn't too slick at these new tricks
computers. I clicked the wrong time and place.
As I was saying, my intention was to provide them with "food for
thought" when looking at paintings.
To keep this thread in the direction I intended, if possible, what do
you say when asked about realist and modern paintings?
Stewart
chris
"Stewart" <ge...@ncweb.com> wrote in message
news:63b4b8c0.02022...@posting.google.com...
>
> To keep this thread in the direction I intended, if possible, what do
> you say when asked about realist and modern paintings?
>
understanding that they are two independent - rather than opposed -
categories (they actually coincide in many areas), then that person isn't
starting a discussion that is likely to be fruitful.
But if you'd like to read a few books on the history of modernism, and the
history of realism, and then come back, I'm sure you'd find lots of people
to debate with.
Cheers;
Chris
Nik Maack
chris wrote:
> But if you'd like to read a few books on the history of modernism, and the
> history of realism, and then come back, I'm sure you'd find lots of people
> to debate with.
Why not suggest he read a few books on the topic of "debate", as well?
If you'd like to have a conversation with me on the topic of my being a
sarcastic asshole, I suggest you read up on my family tree, take a few
courses on sarcasm, and then consult a local proctologist.
Martin Skidmore
> you say when asked about realist and modern paintings?
I think you have a problem. Your first two paragraphs were a nice
contrast, and not untrue, but perhaps the central project of Modernism
(and a lot of what people include in 'modern art' is of course more
strictly Postmodern) was finding a 'metanarrative', a way of (in art's
case) understanding what paintings are and how they relate to anything
else to replace the old certainties represented by realism. This
involved all sorts of replacements backed up by all sorts of new
theories or metanarratives. And then Postmodernism suggested that
Modernism was on a loser, that there were no replacements, that none
of these structures were more meaningful than any other.
Of course the above isn't more than a few thoughts suggesting it's too
complex to summarise that easily, and doesn't begin to address those
complexities. Frankly, I can't see that you could do much better in
brief than what you did say at the start of this thread, perhaps
adding that the Modernists tried a lot of very different ways to find
new, meaningful ways of structuring those elements.
The trouble with and joy of almost everything in art is that it's
always more complex than the last person said, and I don't exclude
myself here.
Stewart
Debate? I was on the debate team in college for two years.
Read a few books on Modern Art? I've read more than a few and one
thing I learned was that each author had a particular jargon that I
had to figure out first.
That was nothing compared to the jargon here. Even, evidently, when it
isn't necessary in answering a simple question. Do you pour your
jargon all over every single person who says to you, "I don't
understand modern painting, can you tell me something about it?"
I try to give them something, and for those of you who also try to
give a brief response, what do you say to them?
Stewart
mdeli
magazine? I tried to find some of his work on the net- no luck. There
are sites but hardly any work.
His work is quite amazing. Read about his background.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Nik Maack
Stewart wrote:
> Debate? I was on the debate team in college for two years.
> Read a few books on Modern Art? I've read more than a few and one
> thing I learned was that each author had a particular jargon that I
> had to figure out first.
I kind of guessed you'd read books on modern art. I was trying to make
fun of the person who suggested you go out and read books on the
subject. I thought suggesting you read books on "debate" was
exaggeration enough for comic effect. I guess I should have suggested
he tell you to read book on "reading".
I'm not quite sure why, but the Internet is rife with people who "took a
course" and then assume the entire universe is ignorant on the subject.
> That was nothing compared to the jargon here. Even, evidently, when it
> isn't necessary in answering a simple question. Do you pour your
> jargon all over every single person who says to you, "I don't
> understand modern painting, can you tell me something about it?"
I try to live a jargon free lifestyle. I'm more writer than painter,
really, although I do both.
> I try to give them something, and for those of you who also try to
> give a brief response, what do you say to them?
I tried to answer this question not that long ago in this very
newsgroup. A short, summary of my answer might go like this: some
painters try to paint what's outside our heads (realism) some try to
paint what's inside our heads (modernism). There is some overlap, of
course. But when I close my eyes I see a complex swirling pattern of
all kinds of things. Most of it is not very realistic.
A complex example: I just woke up from a dream about a videogame where
I was supposed to kill many alligators with dish detergent. This, the
game assured me, would kill them dead. The videogame turned real, and I
was trying to force the gators into a tank full of soapy water. The
tank turned into a rotweiler -- still full of soapy alligators -- which
ran away.
I chased after him, as did my aunt and my neighbour. My aunt was
embarrassed by what I was doing, and told my neighbour that the dog was
fine, just acting strangely, nothing to worry about. She somehow
managed to ignore the six or seven gators inside the dog belching soap
bubbles out its mouth. All of this was happening at my father's
birthday party, which was being held on the front lawn of my parents' home.
Try to paint a scene from that using realism.
Nik
Chillie Benes
>Try to paint a scene from that using realism.
>
> Nik
Yeah! I've learned to watch what I eat before
retiring and another suggestion - keep the
bedroom cool. People tend to dream weirder when
they are sleeping too warm, I've heard. Now
if I could just remember why I wrote about
"factoids" and "asteroids" in the same paragraph
in my dream journal yesterday...
Nikolaus Maack
> Yeah! I've learned to watch what I eat before
> retiring and another suggestion - keep the
> bedroom cool. People tend to dream weirder when
> they are sleeping too warm, I've heard.
I don't see weird dreams as a bad thing.
I've done some experimenting with lucid dreams, where I summon a character
into a dream and ask them questions. Using this technique I've summoned
God (Odin), Satan (Loki), and Vincent Van Gogh.
When lucid (aware that I am dreaming) and I want to summon someone, I just
yell out their name. Usually, when I do this, it sounds very very loud,
and I worry that I have yelled the name out in my sleep. When I called on
Vincent Van Gogh, it was a particularly odd time.
I was out in a park somewhere, and I yelled out his name. A man on a
bicycle came zooming up out of nowhere. He got off his bike and we
greeted each other. He had a red beard and red hair, and was wearing a
straw hat.
"Can you tell me something about painting?" I asked him.
"Nothing, really," he said. "Why do you ask?"
"Well, you're a famous painter. Reknowned. Everyone likes your stuff."
"Really? Right now I'm only 19, and I've never picked up a paintbrush in
my life."
"That's too bad. Because I was hoping you'd be able to offer me some
painting tips."
"Nope. Sorry."
"I guess, later in your life, you'd be more of a help."
"Yup."
Then we just sort of looked at each other awkwardly until I woke up.
Next time I call on him, I think I'll specify that I'd like to speak to an
older version of Van Gogh.
Nik
Chillie Benes
says...
>Next time I call on him, I think I'll specify that I'd like to speak to an
>older version of Van Gogh.
Yeah, I had the same problem talking to Cheops
one time about those pyramids. And getting two
words in was a problem - constant interruptions
from ole Sphinxter. I wanted to hear what Cheops
had to say about the choice of siding on those
pyramids, and other aesthetic choices. All
Sphinxter wanted to do was talk about the lousy
lay of the land he was forever doomed to look at.
I think what he needed was a good dose of
prune juice...
Alex
There really is no difference between a 'realist' and a 'modernist'.
Both use the same means (color on a flat surface) to create a
painting. Now, say what you will, but a color on a flat surface is an
extremely abstract thing.
It's like music -- you arrange some sounds, and then people talk about
'abstract' music or 'programmatic' music, but it makes no sense
whatsoever. Whether a painting depicts something conventional or
unconventional, it's just a starting point for the expressiveness.
Alex
chris
> give a brief response, what do you say to them?
>
Yes, but what you gave them is as rediculous as trying to illustrate the
difference between lawyers and philosophers by saying
Lawyer: "Hey, I make big bucks, I dress real neat, and I can screw you in
court! It's all real!"
Philosopher:"I think nothing but great thoughts, and have a winderful view
from my ivory tower! And nothing really matters anyway."
If some one said that to me, I'd also go tell them to go to the library,
read a few books on the history of law and philosophy (at least for a start)
and then come back when they understand that the two fields are related,
interdependent in many respects, and yet also independent in many others.
Then they'd perhaps be able to offer some interesting comments.But otherwise
it's just extraordinarily trite stereotyping.
And I really wouldn't care if they were on a college debating team many
years ago, or taught at some unspecified level (or even read books that seem
to regurgitate what passed for thought in the 60's)
Cheers;
Chris
Nik Maack
chris wrote:
> Yes, but what you gave them is as rediculous as trying to illustrate the
> difference between lawyers and philosophers by saying
Aside: Whenever someone spells the word "ridiculous" incorrectly, so
that it reads "rediculous", I am tempted to make a joke where the
punchline is "bluediculous". I don't really have a joke for this yet,
so I simply ramble like this. Then I stop.
The difference between lawyers and philosophers is easy to describe.
When a lawyer dies, people cheer. When a philosopher dies, no one notices.
Thank you.
Andrew D
+Stewart wrote:
+
+> I am an artist and retired art teacher. Over the years I've had to
+> come up with simple ways to demonstrate, explain, or answer questions
+> about modern art versus realistic art. Here's one I've used often;
+>
+> Realist artist- "Look at my work! See how the road curves into the
+> distance. Look at my use of both linear and aerial perspective. I
+> paint life as it is, I am a realist!"
+>
+> Modern artist- "No! You are a trickster, an illusionist! How can you
+> paint life as it is? Your canvas is flat! I am intellectually true to
+> my canvas and can still create figure-ground relationships, ambiguous
+> figure-ground relationships and spatial relationships with shapes and
+> color. I am more of a realist than you are!"
+>
+> Comments?
+>
+> Stewart Schooley
+
+Silly. Modernism is a world view. It has little to do with line or
+color, and everything to do with things like universal truth and binary
+weighted dualisms.
I thought it was all about juxtaposition and textural colour fields.
Andy.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Discussion
is a little off-topic.
When the Hollywood producer Harry Cohn died, many people
were pleased it seemed to say something or other.
Red Skelton had it best:- On seeing the huge crowds at Cohn's
funeral he said "it proves what they always say -: give the public
what they want and they'll come out for it."
N.H
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C7C43E2...@sympatico.ca...