FUTURISTS?
HUMBERT CAMPBELL
twilight zone of genetic manipulation. I thought there were some realy
interesting responces. AND since I love interesting responces I though
I would throw this out for group thought.
THE FUTURISTS
Ok they were a bunch of wankers who wrote better manifestoes than paint
paintings and who didn't produce a damn thing. Also I HATE their whole,
lets blow up museums idea. I myself have always felt a kind of kinship
with history and hate to see anything which is a piece of that great
story damaged.
BUT
Were they on to something? Were they just ballsy enough to say F
everyone else I'm doing it my way? Was there maybe something of value
in the destrution of the past to create the future?
Like I said I don't like them, I personaly feel they were wankers, but
at the same time I think they had guts.
Enough about what I think. What do you think?
HUMBERT
christopher moss
THE FUTURISTS
everyone else I'm doing it my way?"
_Well, how big were the futurist's balls? interesting question. Tiny if
you ask me. That attitude of "F everyone else I'm doing it my way" can
be a very good one. I'm not sure if I think the futurists were misfit
enough to actually do this though. If they were don't you think their
work would show a little bit more for it. When people begin to make art
in support of a manifesto naturally the work is going to suffer. As I
see it the Futurists are no exception, they did little more than
illustrate their ideas, and not very well I might add.
_But that's not the question at hand here. You asked "Were they just
ballsy enough to say F everyone else I'm doing it my way?". Here I have
to ask myself; did they have any more balls than anyone else who changed
the face of art history? I'm thinking here of Caravaggio who I have
recently come to understand as a huge rebel. I think he had that F it
all attitude, and he made great advances in the field of painting.
_What about the obvious modern superstar Jackson Pollock, he had some
big ones, didn't he? I mean deKooning's were obviously much heavier but
Jack's were definitely larger in size.
_ Were their balls any bigger than Duchamp's? I can't say, but I think
they thought along the same lines. Duchamp did it (to his own
disadvantage) a bit more poetically than the Futurists though.
_Dada aside, I think the Futurists had comparatively small packages.
What have been the effects of their movement in the scheme of art? Does
anybody take them seriously any more? I for one haven't thought about
them since I learned of their existence a few years ago. Back to an
earlier point, I don't think they changed much of anything.
Was there maybe something of value in the destruction of the past to
create the future?
_Maybe there is. But that's the beauty of the past. We can be as
selective as we want when we look at the past. Some might even argue
that the past (or what we think of as the past) is selected for us
already. I'm not sure what kind of a tangent I'm on now but my point is
that we can look at any art we want to right now. We just pull it out of
the past and look, right? So likewise we don't have to look if we don't
want too.
_A question that keeps coming to mind as I write here is why? Why did
the Futurists want to destroy the past? The future is inevitable, and
without the past where would we be? Square one again, with nothing
behind us and some disturbing cubist based art in front of us. Rather
Orwellian concept happening here, let's just reinvent the past every
day.
_The past is a resource from which to quell knowledge and information.
Destroy it and (I agree with you here) we would be lost.
Like I said I don't like them, I personally feel they were wankers, but
at the same time I think they had guts.
Enough about what I think. What do you think?
HUMBERT
-cm
humbert_...@my-deja.com
finally died so here I am on my new computer. Well I thought this of all
questions would evoke SOME sort of a responce but it looks like your the only
one biting so here goes.> _Well, how big were the futurist's balls?
interesting question. Tiny if> you ask me. That attitude of "F everyone else
I'm doing it my way" can be a very good one. I'm not sure if I think the
you think theirwork would show a little bit more for it. When people begin to
make art> in support of a manifesto naturally the work is going to suffer. As
I> see it the Futurists are no exception, they did little more than>
extent. However thats not the question. As I said the Futerists were wankers
and as you say painting to support a manifesto causes the work to suffer. No
contest. But what I wonder is wether or not a group can be perposfully
revolutionary succusfully. Obviously the Futurists were not but they are
certainly unique in that they set out to be. I suppose what I am getting at
is the the whole idea of, were truly revolutionary artists like Braque or
the Akhenatenists of Egypt trying to be revolutionary or did it just happen
that way? At the level great painters like these were working I have a hard
time beleiving they didn't realise to some degree what they were doing was so
vastly different. > _But that's not the question at hand here. You asked
"Were they just> ballsy enough to say F everyone else I'm doing it my way?".
Here I have> to ask myself; did they have any more balls than anyone else who
changed> the face of art history? I'm thinking here of Caravaggio who I have>
recently come to understand as a huge rebel. I think he had that F it> all
attitude, and he made great advances in the field of painting. > _What about
the obvious modern superstar Jackson Pollock, he had so
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
humbert_...@my-deja.com
> THE FUTURISTS
OK well that didn't work Sorry about that last post still not used to the
new systetm.
I gues Ill try this again but my appologies if anything gets mudled.
> _Well, how big were the futurist's balls? interesting question. Tiny if
> you ask me. That attitude of "F everyone else I'm doing it my way" can
> be a very good one. I'm not sure if I think the futurists were misfit
> enough to actually do this though.
Yes they just liked to party and talk but not acctually do.
If they were don't you think their
> work would show a little bit more for it.
Yes
When people begin to make art
> in support of a manifesto naturally the work is going to suffer. As I
> see it the Futurists are no exception, they did little more than
> illustrate their ideas, and not very well I might add.
See previous post.
I think my answer to this came through on the other responce.
> _But that's not the question at hand here. You asked "Were they just
> ballsy enough to say F everyone else I'm doing it my way?". Here I have
> to ask myself; did they have any more balls than anyone else who changed
> the face of art history? I'm thinking here of Caravaggio who I have
> recently come to understand as a huge rebel. I think he had that F it
> all attitude, and he made great advances in the field of painting.
> _What about the obvious modern superstar Jackson Pollock, he had some
> big ones, didn't he? I mean deKooning's were obviously much heavier but
> Jack's were definitely larger in size.
Not only were Jacks bigger but he loved them and he would be glad to show
them to you.
Ok balls aside, I think part of what this question was trying to get at was
not only the idea of being perposly revolutionary but wether or not the Idea
of challenging ideas of old is a viable idea. I think challenging ideas is
the most imoportant thing one can do particularly ones that you agree with.
I think I may have already said this in another post but its something I
encourage in all my students.
Also were people like caravagio saying "hm think Ill start a revolution
today" or is it just something that developed. The right person at the right
time.
> _ Were their balls any bigger than Duchamp's? I can't say, but I think
> they thought along the same lines. Duchamp did it (to his own
> disadvantage) a bit more poetically than the Futurists though.
Frankly put Duchamp had no balls. He bought a couple of fake eggs and kept
them in his shorts. End of story.
> _Dada aside, I think the Futurists had comparatively small packages.
> What have been the effects of their movement in the scheme of art? Does
> anybody take them seriously any more? I for one haven't thought about
> them since I learned of their existence a few years ago. Back to an
> earlier point, I don't think they changed much of anything.
Ok I once again agree that they are useles But I don't feel this is grounds
for dismissing them. I know how you feel and I agree with you but is simply
not succeeding at being revolutionary enough ground to dismiss them. Granted
they failed, but at least they made the attempt. They at least should be
credited with that. And again, how many have been said to be worthless and
have risen post mortem to be giatns. (Ok now if these guys ever rise up ill
personally smack them down again) What I disagree with is your grounds of
dismissal. Perhaps I am over writing this but I wish to be clear.
>
> Was there maybe something of value in the destruction of the past to
> create the future?
>
> _Maybe there is. But that's the beauty of the past. We can be as
> selective as we want when we look at the past. Some might even argue
> that the past (or what we think of as the past) is selected for us
> already.
If you are refering to the argument that there is no true history I beleive
there is just that we will never know what it is. Look at Pearl Harbor alone
to see how little we truely understand recent past let alone human origins.
I'm not sure what kind of a tangent I'm on now but my point is
> that we can look at any art we want to right now. We just pull it out of
> the past and look, right? So likewise we don't have to look if we don't
> want too.
> _A question that keeps coming to mind as I write here is why? Why did
> the Futurists want to destroy the past? The future is inevitable, and
> without the past where would we be? Square one again, with nothing
> behind us
I kow Im interupting mid centence here but havent you answered your own
question here? How wonderful would it be to be totally unfettered and begin
a new renaisance?
and some disturbing cubist based art in front of us. Rather
> Orwellian concept happening here, let's just reinvent the past every
> day.
George Orwell? As in The Time Machine? Have you ever actually read it?
It's all about the destruction of all society and the beginning of a new one.
Do you mean the futursts were Orwellian? This bit came off a bit confused.
It sounds like your anti Futurist but pro Orwell with no idea what orwell was
on about.
> _The past is a resource from which to quell knowledge and information.
> Destroy it and (I agree with you here) we would be lost.
RIGHT ON!
>
> Like I said I don't like them, I personally feel they were wankers,
> Enough about what I think. What do you think?
Deja vu
> HUMBERT
christopher moss
Not only were Jacks bigger but he loved them and he would be glad to
show them to you.
_And he did. (I'm laughing).
Ok balls aside, I think part of what this question was trying to get at
was not only the idea of being perposly revolutionary but wether or not
the Idea of challenging ideas of old is a viable idea.
_Yes, most definately. If you've got a new idea that needs to be
expressed go ahead and do it. There is however a current that I've
noticed in modern art that encourages this spirit to no end. My problem
with revolution is that too many people feel they've got to rebel just
to rebel. And most of them don't even understand what they're rebeling
against. So being revolutionary for a reason, yes that's important, but
I don't see any reason why the futurists were rebelling. I think they
just wanted to destroy a lot of art because they were jealous. I
understand your point about dismissing them for the wrong reasons, based
on their art, and I hope I've made it a bit more clear why I dismiss
them, based on their ideas about revolution.
I think challenging ideas is the most imoportant thing one can do
particularly ones that you agree with. I think I may have already said
this in another post but its something I encourage in all my students.
_Challenging ideas can be very benificial, especially to students. As
far as challenging visual ideas go (which is what were talking about
here, at least a bit, I think?) this too can be benificial. We can learn
a lot more about ourselves and who we realy are through this. One of the
things I struggle with is the idea of sensibility, the concept of one's
self, our own voice, in painting. I think questioning and rebeling has a
lot to do with the development of one's sensibility.
Also were people like caravagio saying "hm think Ill start a revolution
today" or is it just something that developed. The right person at the
right time.
_I'm not sure about Caravaggio's case but I am completely sure that he
was responding to his own sensibility. I don't know if anybody with any
real smarts would wake up one day and say "hm, think I'll start a
revolution today". Frankly I'd be a bit scared of someone like that.
_I've been thinking about Caravaggio's first painting a lot lately (the
one at the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan). Who the heck taught this guy
how to paint? I'm sure he painted other work before this but it's lost
now so it dosn't matter, the fact remains that at the age of 20 or so he
painted this still life that is totally unlike any painting I have ever
see before or since. What's with that 1/8 inch of table at the bottom?
What kind of a contrivence is that perspective, he's got that table top
at a complete 90 degrees to the picture plane. And the space, without
using any perspectival lines he gives us this basket with fruit that we
can almost feel in real space, as if it were on our own living room
table. We feel those grapes are in front of that apple, and those leaves
receed, sitting firmly behind another apple. The design, geez, the
originality of design here is amazing and certainly needs to be
discussed but I'v gotten way off track (or have I ?).
_So I think Caravaggio's revolution was more a very personal and unique
awareness of what painting could be which had more to do with him just
being himself than it did with a need to revolt. But if being yourself
is revolutionary, then let's bring the house down. I hope this dosn't
sound like I'm contradicting myself here, Caravaggio was a rebel for the
right reasons, that's my point.
Frankly put Duchamp had no balls. He bought a couple of fake eggs and
kept them in his shorts. End of story.
_I'm laughing hystericly now.
I know I'm interupting mid sentence here but haven't you answered your
own question here?
_Not sure what you mean by that.
How wonderful would it be to be totally unfettered and begin a new
renaisance?
_Scary.
George Orwell? As in The Time Machine? Have you ever actually read it?
It's all about the destruction of all society and the beginning of a new
one. Do you mean the futursts were Orwellian? This bit came off a bit
confused. It sounds like your anti Futurist but pro Orwell with no idea
what orwell was on about.
_Just a refrence to his book 1984, where the past gets reinvented every
day.
Deja vu
-cm
Erik A. Mattila
christopher moss wrote:
> Not only were Jacks bigger but he loved them and he would be glad to
> show them to you.
>
> _And he did. (I'm laughing).
>
> Ok balls aside, I think part of what this question was trying to get at
> was not only the idea of being perposly revolutionary but wether or not
> the Idea of challenging ideas of old is a viable idea.
>
> _Yes, most definately. If you've got a new idea that needs to be
> expressed go ahead and do it. There is however a current that I've
> noticed in modern art that encourages this spirit to no end. My problem
> with revolution is that too many people feel they've got to rebel just
> to rebel. And most of them don't even understand what they're rebeling
> against. So being revolutionary for a reason, yes that's important, but
> I don't see any reason why the futurists were rebelling. I think they
> just wanted to destroy a lot of art because they were jealous. I
> understand your point about dismissing them for the wrong reasons, based
> on their art, and I hope I've made it a bit more clear why I dismiss
> them, based on their ideas about revolution.
>
> I think challenging ideas is the most imoportant thing one can do
> particularly ones that you agree with. I think I may have already said
> this in another post but its something I encourage in all my students.
>
> _Challenging ideas can be very benificial, especially to students. As
> far as challenging visual ideas go (which is what were talking about
> here, at least a bit, I think?) this too can be benificial. We can learn
> a lot more about ourselves and who we realy are through this. One of the
> things I struggle with is the idea of sensibility, the concept of one's
> self, our own voice, in painting. I think questioning and rebeling has a
> lot to do with the development of one's sensibility.
>
> Also were people like caravagio saying "hm think Ill start a revolution
> today" or is it just something that developed. The right person at the
> right time.
>
> _I'm not sure about Caravaggio's case but I am completely sure that he
> was responding to his own sensibility. I don't know if anybody with any
> real smarts would wake up one day and say "hm, think I'll start a
> revolution today". Frankly I'd be a bit scared of someone like that.
> _I've been thinking about Caravaggio's first painting a lot lately (the
> one at the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana in Milan). Who the heck taught this guy
> how to paint? I'm sure he painted other work before this but it's lost
> now so it dosn't matter, the fact remains that at the age of 20 or so he
> painted this still life that is totally unlike any painting I have ever
> see before or since. What's with that 1/8 inch of table at the bottom?
> What kind of a contrivence is that perspective, he's got that table top
> at a complete 90 degrees to the picture plane. And the space, without
> using any perspectival lines he gives us this basket with fruit that we
> can almost feel in real space, as if it were on our own living room
> table. We feel those grapes are in front of that apple, and those leaves
> receed, sitting firmly behind another apple. The design, geez, the
> originality of design here is amazing and certainly needs to be
> discussed but I'v gotten way off track (or have I ?).
> _So I think Caravaggio's revolution was more a very personal and unique
> awareness of what painting could be which had more to do with him just
> being himself than it did with a need to revolt. But if being yourself
> is revolutionary, then let's bring the house down. I hope this dosn't
> sound like I'm contradicting myself here, Caravaggio was a rebel for the
> right reasons, that's my point.
>
> Frankly put Duchamp had no balls. He bought a couple of fake eggs and
> kept them in his shorts. End of story.
>
> _I'm laughing hystericly now.
>
> I know I'm interupting mid sentence here but haven't you answered your
> own question here?
>
> _Not sure what you mean by that.
>
> How wonderful would it be to be totally unfettered and begin a new
> renaisance?
>
> _Scary.
>
> George Orwell? As in The Time Machine? Have you ever actually read it?
> It's all about the destruction of all society and the beginning of a new
> one. Do you mean the futursts were Orwellian? This bit came off a bit
> confused. It sounds like your anti Futurist but pro Orwell with no idea
> what orwell was on about.
H.G. Wells wrote the novel. BTW, "The Time Machine" is on the Internet -
http://www.litrix.com/timemach/timem001.htm
I think you need to do a bit of time travel yourself - namely absorb some
of the world or 1910 Europe to get a sense of the context of Italian
futurism. It was an amazing time, characterized by the collapse of many of
Europe's older conventions, and the prelude to the war which I'm sure hung
over every thought like a heavy black cloud. You know, today if some one
says "I want to be revolutionary" we think it incredibly corney and hokey.
But it wasn't that way at all in 1910. You have to view historical periods
as much as posssible through the 'eye of the times,' so to speak. From
that point of view, the Futurists were pretty extaordinary, in my view. I
don't they ever excelled as painters - but they were more interested in
literature and technology anyway. The influence they had on advertising
design, or mass media generally, is remarkable, foreshadowing the Bauhaus
by quite few years. Check out some of the design work on
http://www.colophon.com/gallery/futurism/index.html . It's really nice
work, I think. I do a lot of design work, so I pay attention generally to
trends in advertising design. These guys really wrote some important
chapters in "The Book." What they did with typography was unprecedented in
1910-15. So I guess they really were "revolutionary."
Now me - I can't get the Futurists out of my mind. Every time I see a cat
run across the road at night in front of my headlights, I think of Balla's
little dog with the blurry legs. What a concept - it boggles the mind?
Incedentally, the Italian Futurists had a tremendous influence of Mexican
Revolutionary Art. David Sequieros even went to the extent of not using
'art materials' in favor of industrial pigments -- which again was 'new' at
the time but now is Old Hat.
Erik Mattila
humbert_...@my-deja.com
SS_Po...@webtv.net (christopher moss) wrote:> > > Not only were Jacks
bigger but he loved them and he would be glad to> show them to you. > > _And
he did. (I'm laughing).> > Ok balls aside, I think part of what this question
was trying to get at> was not only the idea of being perposly revolutionary
but wether or not> the Idea of challenging ideas of old is a viable idea. > >
go ahead and do it. There is however a current that I've> noticed in modern
art that encourages this spirit to no end. My problem> with revolution is
that too many people feel they've got to rebel just> to rebel. And most of
them don't even understand what they're rebeling> against. So being
revolutionary for a reason, yes that's important, but> I don't see any reason
why the futurists were rebelling. I think they> just wanted to destroy a lot
certainly jealous, but I still have to give them credit for trying. Again
they were horible failures but the spirit was well intended.I> understand
your point about dismissing them for the wrong reasons, based> on their art,
and I hope I've made it a bit more clear why I dismiss> them, based on their
especially to students. As> far as challenging visual ideas go (which is what
but more wholistically I mean challenging peoples ideas on everything. We
accept so much based on what we are told. For instance we are told that man
walked on the moon and we beleive it. But were any of us actually there on
the moon when it happened? No we just accept that it happened because
someone told us. Ok yes I know we landed on the moon and I am NOT trying to
challenge that, I just mean that accepting ideas just be
humbert_...@my-deja.com
I am rather upset right now. Yesturday I wrote out a long, and what i felt
to be rather well versed responce to one of CMOSS's posts. Today I went to
check it and not on was the message compressed so as to be unreadable but
only half of it was printed.
SO now I have to do it all over again. THANKYOU DEJA.COM your so efficient.
CMOSS: Ok balls aside, I think part of what this question was trying to get
at was not only the idea of being perposly revolutionary but wether or not
the Idea of challenging ideas of old is a viable idea.
>
> _Yes, most definately. There is a current that I've noticed in modern art that encourages this spirit to no end. My problem with revolution is that too many people feel they've got to rebel just to rebel. And most of them don't even understand what they're rebeling against.
HC: Exactly what brings up the relevence of my question. I see many people
who think the only way to be good is to be some tough rebel, and where this
CAN be good it isn't usually productive. Now we have established a context
for our query.
CMOSS: So being revolutionary for a reason, yes that's important, but
> I don't see any reason why the futurists were rebelling. I think they
> just wanted to destroy a lot of art because they were jealous.
HC: I agree, they did it for the wrong reasons they simply seem like a good
spring board for this little chat.
CMOSS: _Challenging ideas can be very benificial, especially to students. As
far as challenging visual ideas go (which is what were talking about here, at
least a bit, I think?)
HC: Yes but more whoistically. Like the true History debate. Is there true
History? Yes. Do we get a clear picture of what it is? Almost never because
we rely on others descriptions of events. Thus my idea that the best way to
truely learn is through experience.
Also were people like caravagio saying "hm think Ill start a revolution
today" or is it just something that developed. The right person at the right
time.
>
CMOSS: _I'm not sure about Caravaggio's case but I am completely sure that he
was responding to his own sensibility. I don't know if anybody with any real
smarts would wake up one day and say "hm, think I'll start a
> revolution today". Frankly I'd be a bit scared of someone like that.
HC: These people are often scary, look at that no prick wonder Hitler.
Certainly a revolutionary but the greatest monster of all time. The other
side of the card though is people like the Dalai Lama, people who wish peace
and personaly growth. People who support wisdom. Look at Martin Luther King
for another great example. So I say don't be scared of revolutionaries, just
make sure what they are reblling against.
CMOSS: _I've been thinking about Caravaggio's first painting a lot lately
I'm sure he painted other work before this but at the age of 20 or so he
painted this still life that is totally unlike any painting I have ever seen
before or since. What's with that 1/8 inch of table at the bottom?
> What kind of a contrivence is that perspective, he's got that table top
> at a complete 90 degrees to the picture plane. And the space, without using any perspectival lines he gives us this basket with fruit that we can almost feel in real space, as if it were on our own living room table. The design, geez, the originality of design here is amazing and certainly needs to be discussed but I'v gotten way off track (or have I ?).
HC: Origional? HA! You don't look at enough history my son. First of all
the archaic frontal veiw is indicative of most Greek pottery painting. And
who else would play up that negative space against a solid ground so well but
the Greeks? The table top at a 90degree angle with the picture plane becomes
not just a wonderful device to keep the basket from falling off the picture
plane but is indicative of the Greek pots stripes that offen frame off the
action from the rest of the pot. Also the verry shape of the basket reminds
us of the Greek Kylix style pottery. Is it a master peice? Does it deserve
further discussion? Is it one of the sweetest paintings ever? YES!!! Is it
origional? No not realy. Carravagio just managed to do well with oil that
which the Greeks had already been doing well for quite some time before him
with their pottery vessels.
HC: I know I'm interupting mid sentence here but haven't you answered your
> own question here?
>
CMOSS: _Not sure what you mean by that.
HC Was interupting mid centance, just recheck the post for I think I said it
best the first time
>
HC: How wonderful would it be to be totally unfettered and begin a new
> renaisance?
>
CMOSS: _Scary.
>
HC: Chicken
HC" George Orwell? As in The Time Machine? Have you ever actually read it?
> It's all about the destruction of all society and the beginning of a new
> one. Do you mean the futursts were Orwellian? This bit came off a bit
> confused. It sounds like your anti Futurist but pro Orwell with no idea
> what orwell was on about.
>
CMOSS: _Just a refrence to his book 1984, where the past gets reinvented
every
> day.
HC Ok my opologies on this one. HG Wells wrote "The Time Machine" not
Orwell, I don't know what I was thinking on that one. I have to stop writing
these things at four in the morning.
humbert_...@my-deja.com
to be rather well versed responce to one of CMOSS's posts. Today I went to
check it and not on was the message compressed so as to be unreadable but
DEJA.COM your so efficient. CMOSS: Ok balls aside, I think part of what this
question was trying to get at was not only the idea of being perposly
revolutionary but wether or not the Idea of challenging ideas of old is a
in modern art that encourages this spirit to no end. My problem with
revolution is that too many people feel they've got to rebel just to rebel.
And most of them don't even understand what they're rebeling against.HC:
Exactly what brings up the relevence of my question. I see many people who
think the only way to be good is to be some tough rebel, and where this CAN
be good it isn't usually productive. Now we have established a context for
but> I don't see any reason why the futurists were rebelling. I think they>
just wanted to destroy a lot of art because they were jealous. HC: I agree,
they did it for the wrong reasons they simply seem like a good spring board
for this little chat. CMOSS: _Challenging ideas can be very benificial,
especially to students. As far as challenging visual ideas go (which is what
whoistically. Like the true History debate. Is there true History? Yes. Do
we get a clear picture of what it is? Almost never because we rely on others
descriptions of events. Thus my idea that the best way to truely learn is
start a revolution today" or is it just something that developed. The right
lake
stars were almost always revolutionary, often underground. So we have a
kind of contradiction, that the best work is always against the
mainstream, against the grain, and yet vitally attatched to a tradition
which is much older than the mainstream itself. Go figure.
If the Futurists have any value at all, apart from their pathetic
paintings, it's that they were among the first to address this idea.
But the true strength of painting has never been founded in politics,
but rather in beauty. There's no doubt about the fact that painting has
power - otherwise the heirs of Jack Pollack and Andy Wyeth wouldn't be
rolling in dough as they are. Fifty-three million for a bunch of
sunflowers by Vincent - now somebody please tell me what that's all
about.
Not that I'm bitching, mind you - I've a healthy respect for the
almighty buck - I'm just bewitched, bothered and bewildered that the
offspring of such a humble brother as Vincent could wreak such havok in
the world of the Mercedes -Benz. And I wonder if we couldn't push that
advantage a little bit farther, maybe? Find out why the powers-that-be
seem to need us? Maybe instead of taking the pay-off, try to understand
exactly what is being bought and sold?
These are interesting questions. I don't think they should deter us
from our principle quest, which is the creation and definition of
beauty, but I do think they are worth considering, in preference to
watching TV for instance.
Long live the Futurists. I bet they drank plenty of cheap Italian wine.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
humbert_...@my-deja.com
humbert_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am rather upset right now. Yesturday I wrote out a long, and what i felt
> to be rather well versed responce to one of CMOSS's posts. Today I went to
> check it and not on was the message compressed so as to be unreadable but
> only half of it was printed.SO now I have to do it all over again. THANKYOU
> question was trying to get at was not only the idea of being perposly
> revolutionary but wether or not the Idea of challenging ideas of old is a
> in modern art that encourages this spirit to no end. My problem with
> revolution is that too many people feel they've got to rebel just to rebel.
> And most of them don't even understand what they're rebeling against.HC:
> Exactly what brings up the relevence of my question. I see many people who
> think the only way to be good is to be some tough rebel, and where this CAN
> be good it isn't usually productive. Now we have established a context for
> our query.CMOSS: So being revolutionary for a reason, yes that's important,
> but> I don't see any reason why the futurists were rebelling. I think they>
> just wanted to destroy a lot of art because they were jealous. HC: I agree,
> they did it for the wrong reasons they simply seem like a good spring board
> for this little chat. CMOSS: _Challenging ideas can be very benificial,
> especially to students. As far as challenging visual ideas go (which is what
> were talking about here, at least a bit, I think?)HC: Yes but more
> whoistically. Like the true History debate. Is there true History? Yes. Do
> we get a clear picture of what it is? Almost never because we rely on others
> descriptions of events. Thus my idea that the best way to truely learn is
> start a revolution today" or is it just something that developed. The right
>
WELL ONCE AGAIN THIS THING REFUSES TO PUT A FULL POST UP SO I SHALL HAVE TO
JUST WRIGHT AGAIN LATER
christopher moss
_You're right about the tabletop in Caravaggio's painting, that idea is
directly connected to the Greeks and it's a conection I didn't make
before. I see now what a wonderful marriage of ancient and rennissance
ideas this Caravaggio fellow has made here, the ancients' shape making
combined with the rennissance insistance on spacial issues. Just another
arguement for an increased appreciation of that painting that has come
to light for me.
_And second, maybe I am chicken, but my development right now is focused
on an intense study of the past so that I might fully understand where I
belong in this grand tradition of art. I don't feel I'm finnished with
the past (hope I never am) so I'm not sure how I could contribute to the
revolution of the future, that's all.
-cm
humbert_...@my-deja.com
F revolution man, Im just posing ideas here. When it gets right down to
brass tacs I think the most revolutionary people were the ones with the
cahonees to follow their vission. I doubt many people (like Caravagio) tried
to be revolutionary for the purpose of revolution, I just wanted to explore
the idea. I like your latest post though, Im glad you apretiate the
connection of the big C with the big G's.
Zak and Karina
talks about (I haven't read ALL the posts, so don't beat me up is someone
already mentioned this...). They, along with the symbolists, were the first
ones to try to address art to other senses than sight. They were the first
ones to make tactile, or olfactory art - art for the *lower* senses (sight
and hearing being the higher senses, associated with the intellect and the
visionary, and touch, smell and taste associated with the body and the
domestic). Despite the fact that they were not very good at it, they were
nonetheless the first ones to advance this type of art, which never caught
on at all in the twentieth century. For this reason (and this only it seems
to me - their art stinks!), their ideas about art for the touch or art for
the nose seem to still be futurist in essence.
HUMBERT CAMPBELL wrote:
> WELL! The whole talent and skill thing seems to have gone off into the
> twilight zone of genetic manipulation. I thought there were some realy
> interesting responces. AND since I love interesting responces I though
> I would throw this out for group thought.
>
> THE FUTURISTS
>
> Ok they were a bunch of wankers who wrote better manifestoes than paint
> paintings and who didn't produce a damn thing. Also I HATE their whole,
> lets blow up museums idea. I myself have always felt a kind of kinship
> with history and hate to see anything which is a piece of that great
> story damaged.
>
> BUT
>
> Were they on to something? Were they just ballsy enough to say F
> everyone else I'm doing it my way? Was there maybe something of value
> in the destrution of the past to create the future?
>
> Like I said I don't like them, I personaly feel they were wankers, but
> at the same time I think they had guts.
>
> Enough about what I think. What do you think?
>
> HUMBERT