Artist of the Century
Marilyn
Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
besides your own true self, that is.
(this question was posed in Coagula Art Journal)
I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
Marilyn
Alfred Glass
>Hey Artists,
>
>Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
>besides your own true self, that is.
>I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
<some snippage>
umm.. well it is hard to name one isnt it.
and im a wimp, so im going for two..
Mattise and Picasso. these two had evolving styles that were always
innovative.. and Mattise worked well past the point where his body could
do everything he wanted it to. Hey, its just my opinion..
Steve G
Charles Eicher
>
>Hey Artists,
>
>Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
Which century?
>besides your own true self, that is.
Darn it!
>I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
Fair question. But in today's short-attention-span journalism, you have to
narrow things down to a sound-bite.
If I had to pick ONE, I'd go back to early in the century, and pick Marcel
Duchamp. And he'd spin in his grave if he were selected "artist of the century."
Personally, I think it would be more appropriate to select major artists by
historical periods, not centuries. I could easily divide this century into 3 or
4 major eras. For example:
1. Prior to the end of WWI
2. through the end of WWII
3. Through the Vietnam war
4. Vietnam to today
That seems to be divided strictly along the lines of military conflict, but I
think anyone familiar with 20th century art history would easily see these wars
as the focus of dramatic shifts in global consciousness, and were reflected by
major shifts in the Arts. Anyway, you could simplify this a bit into 2 eras,
pre-WWII and post-war, but that would be a bit too simple, I think.
mark webber
In article <364D34D9.5150@not_a_real_address.ca>, Marilyn says...
> >
> >Hey Artists,
> >
> >Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
>
I think maybe Duke Ellington. Yes. Duke Ellington.
Mark
Marilyn
Visual artist
Marilyn
>
> Marilyn wrote:
>
> > Hey Artists,
> >
> > Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Aaaaaand the radioactive palete goes to:
>
> ErnstReneo'keefemooredali Matisegigervarese Borgeszappapollock....
> sorry, i dont remember the last name.
I'm thinking about voting for Whistler Warhol but I'm not sure
if he worked much in the 20th century. This artist "walked
with kings and touched the common man."
Marilyn
> >
> >Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
>
20th Century
>
> >besides your own true self, that is.
>
> Darn it!
>
> >I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
>
> Fair question. But in today's short-attention-span journalism, you have to
> narrow things down to a sound-bite.
>
> If I had to pick ONE, I'd go back to early in the century, and pick Marcel
> Duchamp. And he'd spin in his grave if he were selected "artist of the century."
>
> Personally, I think it would be more appropriate to select major artists by
> historical periods, not centuries. I could easily divide this century into 3 or
> 4 major eras. For example:
> 1. Prior to the end of WWI
> 2. through the end of WWII
> 3. Through the Vietnam war
> 4. Vietnam to today
> That seems to be divided strictly along the lines of military conflict, but I
> think anyone familiar with 20th century art history would easily see these wars
> as the focus of dramatic shifts in global consciousness, and were reflected by
> major shifts in the Arts. Anyway, you could simplify this a bit into 2 eras,
> pre-WWII and post-war, but that would be a bit too simple, I think.
Okay, divide the century into quarters and you could make two lists -
One list of artists (4, one for each quarter) would be the
artists who made the greatest impact on visual art in the 20th cent.
The other list of 4 artists would be more subjective, being
the artists whose work you think is the greatest.
1. Pre WWI Duchamp had the greatest impact, he changed everything.
Edvard Munch's work, I think is the greatest, and he was innovative
in being the first (?) to paint psychological subjects.
Gotta think about the rest.
M.
Solbrig
Alfred Glass schrieb in Nachricht <72jlle$f0h$1...@toto.tig.com.au>...
>Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
>>Hey Artists,
>>
>>Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
>
sch...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> Hey Artists,
>
> Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
> besides your own true self, that is.
Hands down winner has to be Jasper Johns... Irma.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Solark
Marilyn wrote:
> Hey Artists,
>
> Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
> besides your own true self, that is.
>
> (this question was posed in Coagula Art Journal)
>
> I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
>
Charles Eicher
<mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> Okay, divide the century into quarters and you could make two lists -
> One list of artists (4, one for each quarter) would be the
> artists who made the greatest impact on visual art in the 20th cent.
> The other list of 4 artists would be more subjective, being
> the artists whose work you think is the greatest.
Yeah, now that I think about it, there are some great groups to pick from
for each era, but I'm having a hard time singling anyone out.
> 1. Pre WWI Duchamp had the greatest impact, he changed everything.
> Edvard Munch's work, I think is the greatest, and he was innovative
> in being the first (?) to paint psychological subjects.
Well, if I had to pick only one for the whole century, i'd still pick MD
because everyone still has to deal with him in their own way, even today.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
Artguru01
the inner workings of the human mind. Simply magnificent!
Chris
artg...@aol.com
CROCUSDES
influence on American sculpture in the latter part of this century. World wide
I might suggest Henry Moore instead.
Neither artist was the first to do what they did but both have had the most
impact. If I have to choose only one of the two, then Henry Moore.
Influence and significance are not the same thing so I'm not sure how to answer
Marilyn's original question. I've applied the principle of influence in this
case.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
Ariane
*** Picasso **** (sans doute)
On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Marilyn wrote:
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
one Andy whats his name, isn't he an actor??
sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <364D34D9.5150@not_a_real_address.ca>,
> Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
> > besides your own true self, that is.
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
basho
Iian Neill
> besides your own true self, that is.
>
>
> I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
I nominate Pietro Annigoni. I am tempted to choose Ives Gammell, but I
haven't seen enough of his work to come to such a definite conclusion.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Marilyn
>
> > > From: Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca>
> > > Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> > > Subject: Artist of the Century
> > >
> > > Hey Artists,
> > >
> > > besides your own true self, that is.
In one year, do you think we will see a new, accomplished artist who
will top Picasso or Matisse ?
>
> > > I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
> I think they think it is more interesting to force nonexistant
> competition on the art world.
>
> Trying to decide who made the most pointless work of art or who is
> most overated would probably lead us to discuss the same people.
cynical & negative.
& ain't there enough of that around ?
M.
ps
best wig of the century: Andy Warhol
br...@wralaw.com
> > From: Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca>
> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> > Subject: Artist of the Century
> >
> > Hey Artists,
> >
> > Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
> > besides your own true self, that is.
This Century ain't dead yet...
> > I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
I think they think it is more interesting to force nonexistant
competition on the art world.
Trying to decide who made the most pointless work of art or who is
most overated would probably lead us to discuss the same people.
> > Marilyn
Bryn Ayers of North America ... Reality is a Word ...
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca>
> > > > Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> > > > Subject: Artist of the Century
> > > >
> > > > Hey Artists,
> > > >
> > > > Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
> > > > besides your own true self, that is.
> > This Century ain't dead yet...
>
> will top Picasso or Matisse ?
> >
> > > > I'm still trying to choose one. Why does it always have to be ONE?
> > I think they think it is more interesting to force nonexistant
> > competition on the art world.
> >
> > Trying to decide who made the most pointless work of art or who is
> > most overated would probably lead us to discuss the same people.
>
> cynical & negative.
> & ain't there enough of that around ?
>
> M.
>
> ps
> best wig of the century: Andy Warhol
>
Maybe we should discuss the overated ones, there are a few out there you
know!!
Ariane
On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Marilyn wrote:
> From: Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
> > > > Hey Artists,
> > > >
> > > > Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
> > > > besides your own true self, that is.
> > This Century ain't dead yet...
>
> In one year, do you think we will see a new, accomplished artist who
> will top Picasso or Matisse ?
(snip)
Maybe not in the next hundred. But it would be nice to see more
sorcerers of painted beauty in the world today.
a bientot,
A.
Philip Ayers
(mdeli) wrote:
: > The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
: > and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
: > than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
: > composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
: > --
: > Mani DeLi
: > ...no skill
Well well mani,
Now you've filled in the picture pretty well.
I like Mickey too, especially the empty streets and towns mickey
investagates, but you can have all the Dali you want, as I just don't have
the stomach for his stuff.............except perhaps the very early stuff
& the jewelry, which is a wonderful spoof.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mdeli
>> Who would you name as _the_ artist of the century?
yuki wrote
> Trying to decide who made the most pointless work of art or who is
> most overated would probably lead us to discuss the same people.
>> cynical & negative.
>> & ain't there enough of that around ?
Hey no negativity or cynicism here. Orders, of Marilyn!
>> M.
>>
>> ps
>> best wig of the century: Andy Warhol
>>
biggest boob in this conference: Marilyn
>
>Maybe we should discuss the overated ones, there are a few out there you
>know!!
Like Picasso Matisse, Cezanne, Mondrian , de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly
etc. etc. and all the rest of the Modern Academic bullshit posing as
masterpieces.
The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
SURELY YOU JEST!
--
basho
gwen_...@cybergal.com
> Like Picasso Matisse, Cezanne, Mondrian , de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly
> etc. etc. and all the rest of the Modern Academic bullshit posing as
> masterpieces.
>
> The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
> and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
> than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
> composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
Poor, poor Mani! I am so sad to learn that you have such a warped aesthetic
sense, it must be worse than having no aesthetic sense at all.
I think art is where you look for it, I saw the most beautiful rainbow
recently it set off the autumn colours to perfection. I also love the look of
a well stocked bookshelf with all the books higgledy piggledy, it is a quite
unintentional piece of art.
I don't think we can say who the best artist of this century is - the century
is not yet complete. I think that Picasso's blue period paintings are pretty
spectacular, though.
--
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
psugden
century work and was still able to fill it with deep content and was
still accepted by the mainstream art critics and the Mus. of Modern
Art. So much of the modern art from the turn of this century onward was
surface.
You also mentioned the worst artist slot: There is no question as to
Picasso to fill that. Read Jose' Arguelle's write-up on him in his
book, "The Transformative Vision". He seems to hit the nail on the
head.
DFRussell
>In article <3654c1e0...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>> Like Picasso Matisse, Cezanne, Mondrian , de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly
>> etc. etc. and all the rest of the Modern Academic bullshit posing as
>> masterpieces.
>>
>> The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
>> and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
>> than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
>> composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
>> --
>> Mani DeLi
>> ...no skill no art
>>
>Poor, poor Mani! I am so sad to learn that you have such a warped aesthetic
>sense, it must be worse than having no aesthetic sense at all.
>
>I think art is where you look for it, I saw the most beautiful rainbow
>recently it set off the autumn colours to perfection. I also love the look of
>a well stocked bookshelf with all the books higgledy piggledy, it is a quite
>unintentional piece of art.
If you actually believe what you just said, why are you ragging on
Mani in your first paragraph?
Little contradictory, eh? :-)
>I don't think we can say who the best artist of this century is - the century
>is not yet complete.
Ah, yes. Another, "I'm so open-minded" artiste' :-)
Ariane
On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, mdeli wrote:
> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
(snip)
> >
> >Maybe we should discuss the overated ones, there are a few out there you
> >know!!
>
> Like Picasso Matisse, Cezanne, Mondrian , de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly
> etc. etc. and all the rest of the Modern Academic bullshit posing as
> masterpieces.
>
> The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
> and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
> than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
> composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no brain....
HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAA, Ha, HAAHAAAHAAAHAA, Disney, HA, HAAAAA,HAAAA, H,
Mani, you funny; you messed in the head, but you funny.
DFRussell
Very few people have had more influence on this century than Disney.
The company that micky built owns ABC and several other entertainment
companies. Micky Mouse is almost as recognizable is Coca Cola.
mdeli
Ayers) wrote:
>In article <3654c1e0...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
>(mdeli) wrote:
>
>
>: > The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
>: > and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
>: > than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
>: > composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
>: > --
>: > Mani DeLi
>: > ...no skill
>
>Well well mani,
>Now you've filled in the picture pretty well.
>I like Mickey too, especially the empty streets and towns mickey
>investagates, but you can have all the Dali you want, as I just don't have
>the stomach for his stuff.............except perhaps the very early stuff
>& the jewelry, which is a wonderful spoof.
I wasn't referring to matters of your stomach. I was talking about
influence.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
gwen_...@cybergal.com
nobody@localhost wrote:
>>I think art is where you look for it, I saw the most beautiful rainbow
> >recently it set off the autumn colours to perfection. I also love the look of
> >a well stocked bookshelf with all the books higgledy piggledy, it is a quite
> >unintentional piece of art.
>
> If you actually believe what you just said, why are you ragging on
> Mani in your first paragraph?
>
that he limited his aesthetic options so. He says 'no skill, no art', I am
sure that I would like the paintings that he likes and considers skillful -
I regret that he would not like or appreciate the beauty of some art that
I like that he would consider unskilled. I am quite fond of Gauguin, for
example, and I am sure that some would consider at least some of his
paintings 'unskilled'.
DFRussell
>In article <3655be7...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
>>>I think art is where you look for it, I saw the most beautiful rainbow
>> >recently it set off the autumn colours to perfection. I also love the look of
>> >a well stocked bookshelf with all the books higgledy piggledy, it is a quite
>> >unintentional piece of art.
>>
>> If you actually believe what you just said, why are you ragging on
>> Mani in your first paragraph?
>>
>I am sorry that it was not clear. I didn't mean to 'rag' Mani, I felt sorry
>that he limited his aesthetic options so. He says 'no skill, no art', I am
>sure that I would like the paintings that he likes and considers skillful -
>I regret that he would not like or appreciate the beauty of some art that
>I like that he would consider unskilled. I am quite fond of Gauguin, for
>example, and I am sure that some would consider at least some of his
>paintings 'unskilled'.
"Feeling sorry" for someone because their taste is different than
yours' is lying to yourself -- and it's normally thought to be
condescending.
You do not need to apologize for being unclear. No one else does :>)
mdeli
>In article <3655be7...@news.mindspring.com>,
> I didn't mean to 'rag' Mani, I felt sorry
>that he limited his aesthetic options so. He says 'no skill, no art', I am
>sure that I would like the paintings that he likes and considers skillful -
>I regret that he would not like or appreciate the beauty of some art that
>I like that he would consider unskilled. I am quite fond of Gauguin, for
>example, and I am sure that some would consider at least some of his
>paintings 'unskilled'.
I believe that all artwork which lacks skill is aesthetically
worthless. The vast majority of such work with a few exceptions is
also considered worthless in public eyes.
Most unskilled Modern Academic Art gets little more than a fifteen
second glance by a man in a rush. With good reason.
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
nobody@localhost wrote:
> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3655be7...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >>>I think art is where you look for it, I saw the most beautiful rainbow
> >> >recently it set off the autumn colours to perfection. I also love the look
of
> >> >a well stocked bookshelf with all the books higgledy piggledy, it is a
quite
> >> >unintentional piece of art.
> >>
> >> If you actually believe what you just said, why are you ragging on
> >> Mani in your first paragraph?
> >>
> >that he limited his aesthetic options so. He says 'no skill, no art', I am
> >sure that I would like the paintings that he likes and considers skillful -
> >I regret that he would not like or appreciate the beauty of some art that
> >I like that he would consider unskilled. I am quite fond of Gauguin, for
> >example, and I am sure that some would consider at least some of his
> >paintings 'unskilled'.
>
> yours' is lying to yourself -- and it's normally thought to be
> condescending.
>
> You do not need to apologize for being unclear. No one else does :>)
>
demean those works
which stand for the highest form of art. Art is not about technique! If the
technique calls
attention to itself then the artist has failed!! basho
>
--
--
basho
gwen_...@cybergal.com
nobody@localhost wrote:
> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3655be7...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > nobody@localhost wrote:
> >>>I think art is where you look for it, I saw the most beautiful rainbow
> >> >recently it set off the autumn colours to perfection. I also love the look
of
> >> >a well stocked bookshelf with all the books higgledy piggledy, it is a
quite
> >> >unintentional piece of art.
> >>
> >> If you actually believe what you just said, why are you ragging on
> >> Mani in your first paragraph?
> >>
> >I am sorry that it was not clear. I didn't mean to 'rag' Mani, I felt sorry
> >that he limited his aesthetic options so. He says 'no skill, no art', I am
> >sure that I would like the paintings that he likes and considers skillful -
> >I regret that he would not like or appreciate the beauty of some art that
> >I like that he would consider unskilled. I am quite fond of Gauguin, for
> >example, and I am sure that some would consider at least some of his
> >paintings 'unskilled'.
>
> "Feeling sorry" for someone because their taste is different than
> yours' is lying to yourself -- and it's normally thought to be
> condescending.
>
>
If it were just a difference in taste, I would agree with you. Looking at his
web page, though, it seems to me that Mani has adopted an extreme pose, quite
unconnected with the actual aesthetics of paintings - this posture leads him
to lose out on many important aesthetic experiences. I find that many
technically brilliant drawings leave me absolutely cold - other people may
not find this, I don't argue that it is wrong to find an icy treatment
attractive. I also find Hopper, who clearly had some technical skill has
paintings that do less for me than wallpaper. I also find the Disney cartoons
flat, monotonous and trite - however much money they may have made.
Interestingly, though, I watched Mulan the other day, which is also an
animated cartoon. I found the art work delicate, original and subtle -
something that I had never expected to find in this sort of thing. Sadly
Disney has put such a teutonic like uniform on all its cartoon products that
they come out like bars of soap, not art.
I saw that the self-portrait van Gogh gave to his mother sold for forty eight
million pounds this week. I think that it is one of the least good of his
paintings, and certainly not worth the money. This is not to say that his best
paintings are not brilliant.
--
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Solark
Dear Mani DeLi:
I agree with you in a way that.....
The best turkey is my mom's turkey..
We are ruled mainly by tradition where books are the most influential archives of tradition itself.
We repeat what we have learned, from books or heard from people. So our point of view is limited to learned things, of course with exemptions.
When we go to a poll for the most influential artist of the century:
1) Do we vote for the one who had more printed papers or talked about? or
2)The one that was not too popular in paper and oral tradition, and after him or her the art industry started approaching subjects the way he or she did?
or
3)simply the best money maker for the artcash elite?
If i go with only one, i would go for a surreal artist, where Rene Magrite, Max Ernst, and Salvador Dali are the ones who made the high lights in the
traditon learned world.
A combined answer to my three questions above and just to give a name, would be Salvador Dali, maybe part of his work is not pleasing or well executed,
but the surreal movement is still going on. Disney in some way is surreal and is influenced by the movement; cartoons defies the laws of physics or almost
any law, just like our dreams, now days movies are playing with surreal special effects, advertisement, printed or animated, commercials, all want to get
out of reality.
Dali was influenced by other surreal artist like Bosch, or the surreal religious painters of all times. religious art is surreal in essence.
Carlos Solorzano
DFRussell
>In article <36577479...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
>> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3655be7...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> > nobody@localhost wrote:
>> >>>I think art is where you look for it, I saw the most beautiful rainbow
>> >> >recently it set off the autumn colours to perfection. I also love the look
>of
>> >> >a well stocked bookshelf with all the books higgledy piggledy, it is a
>quite
>> >> >unintentional piece of art.
>> >>
>> >> If you actually believe what you just said, why are you ragging on
>> >> Mani in your first paragraph?
>> >>
>> >I am sorry that it was not clear. I didn't mean to 'rag' Mani, I felt sorry
>> >that he limited his aesthetic options so. He says 'no skill, no art', I am
>> >sure that I would like the paintings that he likes and considers skillful -
>> >I regret that he would not like or appreciate the beauty of some art that
>> >I like that he would consider unskilled. I am quite fond of Gauguin, for
>> >example, and I am sure that some would consider at least some of his
>> >paintings 'unskilled'.
>>
>> "Feeling sorry" for someone because their taste is different than
>> yours' is lying to yourself -- and it's normally thought to be
>> condescending.
>>
>> You do not need to apologize for being unclear. No one else does :>)
>>
>>>>When one is passionate about art it is difficult to listen to those who
>demean those works
>which stand for the highest form of art. Art is not about technique! If the
>technique calls
>attention to itself then the artist has failed!! basho
I would agree that art isn't about technique. I would also agree that
without a base of technique that the chances are *VERY* high that it's
crap.
That's what Mani's saying. I agree.
>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>
>--
>basho
DFRussell
>In article <36577479...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
>> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3655be7...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> > nobody@localhost wrote:
>> >>>I think art is where you look for it, I saw the most beautiful rainbow
>> >> >recently it set off the autumn colours to perfection. I also love the look
>of
>> >> >a well stocked bookshelf with all the books higgledy piggledy, it is a
>quite
>> >> >unintentional piece of art.
>> >>
>> >> If you actually believe what you just said, why are you ragging on
>> >> Mani in your first paragraph?
>> >>
>> >I am sorry that it was not clear. I didn't mean to 'rag' Mani, I felt sorry
>> >that he limited his aesthetic options so. He says 'no skill, no art', I am
>> >sure that I would like the paintings that he likes and considers skillful -
>> >I regret that he would not like or appreciate the beauty of some art that
>> >I like that he would consider unskilled. I am quite fond of Gauguin, for
>> >example, and I am sure that some would consider at least some of his
>> >paintings 'unskilled'.
>>
>> "Feeling sorry" for someone because their taste is different than
>> yours' is lying to yourself -- and it's normally thought to be
>> condescending.
>>
>>
>
>If it were just a difference in taste, I would agree with you. Looking at his
>web page, though, it seems to me that Mani has adopted an extreme pose, quite
>unconnected with the actual aesthetics of paintings - this posture leads him
>to lose out on many important aesthetic experiences.
Maybe. Instead of "feeling sorry for him" point out where his logic
fails or agree that it is personal preference and stop arguing.
> I find that many
>technically brilliant drawings leave me absolutely cold
I find many paintings are complete crap because the "artist" lacked
technical ability.
> - other people may
>not find this, I don't argue that it is wrong to find an icy treatment
>attractive. I also find Hopper, who clearly had some technical skill has
>paintings that do less for me than wallpaper
Well, I like Hopper :)
You're allowed to have an opinion. So am I an Mani.
Philip Ayers
(mdeli) wrote:
You can kiss my ass if you say please!
: > I wasn't referring to matters of your stomach. I was talking about
: > influence.
: > --
: > Mani DeLi
: > ...no skill no art
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Ariane
On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
> Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, mdeli wrote:
> >
> >> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> >> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> >> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
> >>
> >(snip)
> >
> >> >
> >> >Maybe we should discuss the overated ones, there are a few out there you
> >> >know!!
> >>
> >> Like Picasso Matisse, Cezanne, Mondrian , de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly
> >> etc. etc. and all the rest of the Modern Academic bullshit posing as
> >> masterpieces.
> >>
> >> The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
> >> and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
> >> than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
> >> composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
> >> --
> >> Mani DeLi
> >> ...no brain....
> >
> >HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAA, Ha, HAAHAAAHAAAHAA, Disney, HA, HAAAAA,HAAAA, H,
> >
> >Mani, you funny; you messed in the head, but you funny.
>
> Very few people have had more influence on this century than Disney.
> The company that micky built owns ABC and several other entertainment
> companies. Micky Mouse is almost as recognizable is Coca Cola.
So then, maybe Mani should forget Disney and vote Mickey as `Artist of the
Century'. And while we're at it, I suggest that Wal-Mart should be voted
North America's #1 institution of higher learning. Never mind that
over-rated phoney Yale, Stanford, McGill, Harvard garbage. Yay Mickey!!
Ariane
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
(coupe)
> I would agree that art isn't about technique. I would also agree that
> without a base of technique that the chances are *VERY* high that it's
> crap.
>
> That's what Mani's saying. I agree.
>
Yes, and don't forget that he's saying that Picasso & Matisse were
"phonies" and had no base of technique. And THIS is, as you say, crap.
Not only did they have technique but they went beyond technique with
impeccable compositional sense and brilliant ideas. They were excellent
colourists (esp. Matisse), and had an aesthetic intuition on par with any
Western artist of any age. Further, they helped expand the vocabulary of
Western art by incorporating art from other cultures and other times.
They were what they were renowned for: great innovators in the Western
tradition of fine art in the 20th century. Period.
Philip Ayers
none..nope....not at all.
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.981124...@alcor.concordia.ca>,
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Larry Seiler
> will top Picasso or Matisse ?
Due to the overwhelming influx of new art histories in an ever increasing
global village, mandating tolerance and pluralism....when you say "we" then
I would think that opinion of "the world".... I would have to say, no.
There may be individual heroes to people within their varied disciplines.
When a small snowball is first begun to roll down the mountain, it is at
that intial stage nearest the top. Now that this thing called art has
picked up momentum and become the size it has....it picking up more and
more snow (art histories, opinions and definitions, mediums, pluralism,
etc;) it is not nearer to the point of origin nor is it likely to find its
way back up there.
There are too many self-interest groups selfishly vying for positioning in
the marketplace of ideas to find that level of collective agreement again.
Heroes will now be defined by those that bring about the highest global
ideal, and artists best heard and seen who champion such causes....with
their art itself being secondary, perhaps a contribution to things such as
planet sustainability, environment, peaceful coexistence, etc;
Marilyn
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
>
> > From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> > Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
> >
> >
> > >
> > >On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, mdeli wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
> > >>
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >Maybe we should discuss the overated ones, there are a few out there you
> > >> >know!!
> > >>
> > >> Like Picasso Matisse, Cezanne, Mondrian , de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly
> > >> etc. etc. and all the rest of the Modern Academic bullshit posing as
> > >> masterpieces.
> > >>
> > >> The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
> > >> and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
> > >> than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
> > >> composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
> > >> --
> > >> Mani DeLi
> > >> ...no brain....
> > >
> > >HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAA, Ha, HAAHAAAHAAAHAA, Disney, HA, HAAAAA,HAAAA, H,
> > >
> > >Mani, you funny; you messed in the head, but you funny.
> >
> > Very few people have had more influence on this century than Disney.
> > The company that micky built owns ABC and several other entertainment
> > companies. Micky Mouse is almost as recognizable is Coca Cola.
>
> So then, maybe Mani should forget Disney and vote Mickey as `Artist of the
> Century'. And while we're at it, I suggest that Wal-Mart should be voted
> North America's #1 institution of higher learning. Never mind that
> over-rated phoney Yale, Stanford, McGill, Harvard garbage. Yay Mickey!!
And don't forget Arianne, there is no difference between
cartoons
illustration
fine art
masterpieces
amd the USA is the world, no the universe.
M.
Marilyn
You've partially described postmodernism. And I agree that with
the erosion of the line between private & public, adulation will
become passe. All the heros' clay feet will be so much in evidence.
Adolescent personality submergence (being a fan) into the personalities
of popular entertainers will probably continue but on a higher, objective
and educated level, hero-worship is declining. It may continue as you
mention on a regional level. Regionalism is a growing phenom.
Also as you mention,
it is the name of the artist which now gives authority to the work,
today.
Look at the ads now, they boldly print the artists' names where they
used to show thumbnails of the work. That is only a small concrete
example of the switch.
Mostly "Il faut etre de son temps" (Daumier ) and that is my struggle.
One hegemony struggles against the former and then becomes a hegemony
itself: modernism, postmodernism.
Maybe there is no
"art world"
and there are only individual artists engaged in their work,
in their times.
Marilyn
Ariane
> If Micky had been the artist, you might have a point. As it is, you
> don't.
=== And if Disney had been the artist......nahh, not even then.
> > And while we're at it, I suggest that Wal-Mart should be voted
> >North America's #1 institution of higher learning.
>
> Mind-numbingly irrelevant.
>
> > Never mind that
> >over-rated phoney Yale, Stanford, McGill, Harvard garbage. Yay Mickey!!
>
> Personally, I'd take a lot of what disney did over a lot of the shit
> that comes from that places you just mentioned.
.....As I would have guessed.
DFRussell
DFRussell
>
>On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
>
>> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>>
>(coupe)
>
>> I would agree that art isn't about technique. I would also agree that
>> without a base of technique that the chances are *VERY* high that it's
>> crap.
>>
>> That's what Mani's saying. I agree.
>>
>
>Yes, and don't forget that he's saying that Picasso & Matisse were
>"phonies" and had no base of technique.
Yeah. His opinion is shared by other people. No one is forcing you
to believe what he said.
[another pointless tirade about how wonderful insert_name was deleted]
br...@wralaw.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> Yes, and don't forget that he's saying that Picasso & Matisse were
he is saying that Matisse and Picasso were crap.
> Not only did they have technique
Technique in the minimal sense, As far as I know Picasso only
revealed below average techinical prowess.
> but they went beyond technique with
> impeccable compositional sense and brilliant ideas.
If they went beyond technique they did so without it.
>They were excellent
> colourists (esp. Matisse),
If they were excelent colorists they were not great technicians as
far as I know.
>and had an aesthetic intuition on par with any
> Western artist of any age.
Maybe...
>Further, they helped expand the vocabulary of
> Western art by incorporating art from other cultures and other times.
They were renowned as the inventors of art from other cultures.
> They were what they were renowned for: great innovators in the Western
> tradition of fine art in the 20th century. Period.
If you could forgo the technique comment, the rest might be supportable
as it is more subjective to say that an artist is good esthetically than
technically. And therefore more correct especially if you qualify it
with I believe.
My opinion is that that Picasso and Miro are all-right to look at but
that they do not exhibit the qualities of Technical Genius. We can
suppose that they were too intelligent to paint as realistically as
Merisis, but since they didn't I suppose they couldn't. And if they
were esthetic geniuses as we are lead to believe it is unfortunate that
we could never get a glimpse of what realistic or complicated visions
did torture their minds.
Bryn (never Phil) Ayers
gwen_...@cybergal.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> My opinion is that that Picasso and Miro are all-right to look at but
> that they do not exhibit the qualities of Technical Genius. We can
> suppose that they were too intelligent to paint as realistically as
> Merisis, but since they didn't I suppose they couldn't. And if they
> were esthetic geniuses as we are lead to believe it is unfortunate that
> we could never get a glimpse of what realistic or complicated visions
> did torture their minds.
>
I do not value 'Technical Genius', I have seen too much technically brilliant
work that is certainly not art to see this as important.
I don't know who you include in your 'we' when you say that we can not glimpse
what 'visions' 'tortured their minds'. I know that you do not include me.
"Guernica", to name but one painting of his, induces a powerful emotional
response that clearly resonates to his vision of the emptiness and horror
of war. Whatever technique you may wish to argue that this painting has, or
has not, is clearly responsible for it dramatic effect on the viewer.
--
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
gwen_...@cybergal.com
nobody@localhost wrote:
> Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
> >
> >> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
> >> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> >> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
> >>
> >(coupe)
> >
> >> I would agree that art isn't about technique. I would also agree that
> >> without a base of technique that the chances are *VERY* high that it's
> >> crap.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes, and don't forget that he's saying that Picasso & Matisse were
> >"phonies" and had no base of technique.
>
> to believe what he said.
>
is objectively wrong. A number of people sharing an opinion does not make
it correct. I think that anybody who claimed that either of these artists
had no 'technique' or artistic ability would be simply making a point to
be noticed - like a little boy throwing a tantrum. There is so much
evidence that it is not true that it is risible to claim that it is.
>
> [another pointless tirade about how wonderful insert_name was deleted]
>
I think that you are unfair here. It was not a tirade, and it was not
pointless. The point is that a counter example to a claim can refute the
claim - as I think happened here. Anyway this is posted on rec.arts.fine so,
as a discussion on what constitutes fine art it is entirely relevant, and
apt.
I have read Mani's web page and see his objection to the academic lauding of
art because it is modern rather than because of its intrinsic worth. I think
that academics have a hard life, they have to keep showing that their
brilliance is worth something. In Art they think that this requires being
shocking or extreme or ultra modern - when good aesthetic judgement would be
far more worth while. I don't argue with the fact that many academic art
claims are simply silly.
It is also the case that much marketing has been done to 'hype' certain
artists - there may be many unrecognised and brilliant artists who have
produced much better paintings, sculpture and so forth but are unknown
because their marketing was not good.
Though there is a lot to be said for the above two points, they do not require
that you rubbish all artists who have been marketed well, or who have caught
the academic band waggon. After all a very obscure and brilliant artist may
just be discovered tomorrow and praised. The art may be very different from
what Mani likes. He will, if his view is consistent, criticise it out of hand
and not bother to look at it. This would be sad, simplistic and silly.
An open mind is not necessarily an empty mind. It is possible to take, say,
Picasso and realise that a lot of his paintings were not good, some were even
terrible. This does not detract from the fact that many were brilliant.
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> In article <73gfg6$9gs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
> > My opinion is that that Picasso and Miro are all-right to look at but
> > that they do not exhibit the qualities of Technical Genius. We can
> > suppose that they were too intelligent to paint as realistically as
> > Merisis, but since they didn't I suppose they couldn't. And if they
> > were esthetic geniuses as we are lead to believe it is unfortunate that
> > we could never get a glimpse of what realistic or complicated visions
> > did torture their minds.
> >
> I do not value 'Technical Genius', I have seen too much technically brilliant
> work that is certainly not art to see this as important.
>
> I don't know who you include in your 'we' when you say that we can not glimpse
> what 'visions' 'tortured their minds'. I know that you do not include me.
> "Guernica", to name but one painting of his, induces a powerful emotional
> response that clearly resonates to his vision of the emptiness and horror
> of war. Whatever technique you may wish to argue that this painting has, or
> has not, is clearly responsible for it dramatic effect on the viewer.
>
>
> Gwen Jones
>
> There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
> Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
There are those that paint and those that are obsessed with technique, the
later should be engineers or teachers! basho
--
basho
Philip Ayers
: > There are those that paint and those that are obsessed with technique, the
: > later should be engineers or teachers! basho
: >
: > --
: > basho
basho-
I don't know what you mean exactly by "technical", but if it's what I
think it is then it seems a little too cartesian for my mind, but if, for
the sake of argument there was this duality, then many great artists have
been technically inventive, even "brilliant technicians". But, I -don't
think- you can dissect the true artistic animal, anymore than you can
seperate the mind from the brain.
sincerely-
Philip Ayers
: > There are those that paint and those that are obsessed with technique, the
: > later should be engineers or teachers! basho
: >
: > --
: > basho
Mr. basho-
Ariane
On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> From: br...@wralaw.com
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.981124...@alcor.concordia.ca>,
> Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That's what Mani's saying. I agree.
> > >
> > Yes, and don't forget that he's saying that Picasso & Matisse were
> > "phonies" and had no base of technique. And THIS is, as you say, crap.
> I don't think you can read the posts by Mani and not realize that
> he is saying that Matisse and Picasso were crap.
=== No, you didn't understand. What he says ABOUT them is crap.
>
> > Not only did they have technique
> Technique in the minimal sense, As far as I know Picasso only
> revealed below average techinical prowess.
=== And as far as I can tell, Picasso revealed an exceptionally superb
mastery of technique in painting.
> > but they went beyond technique with
> > impeccable compositional sense and brilliant ideas.
> If they went beyond technique they did so without it.
=== They brought it to new heights. Compositionally speaking, Picasso is
simply a true master.
> >They were excellent
> > colourists (esp. Matisse),
> If they were excelent colorists they were not great technicians as
> far as I know.
=== Colour use is not part of painting technique? There's more to
painting than draughtsmanship I'm afraid.
> >and had an aesthetic intuition on par with any
> > Western artist of any age.
> Maybe...
> >Further, they helped expand the vocabulary of
> > Western art by incorporating art from other cultures and other times.
> They were renowned as the inventors of art from other cultures.
=== Inventors of other culture's art forms?
> > They were what they were renowned for: great innovators in the Western
> > tradition of fine art in the 20th century. Period.
> If you could forgo the technique comment, the rest might be supportable
> as it is more subjective to say that an artist is good esthetically than
> technically. And therefore more correct especially if you qualify it
> with I believe.
=== Ah, but they were both superb technicians. Matisse was perhaps more
of an aesthetic, like say, Modigliani, but Picasso, now he was a true
master.
> My opinion is that that Picasso and Miro are all-right to look at but
> that they do not exhibit the qualities of Technical Genius.
=== Miro? No matter.
We can
> suppose that they were too intelligent to paint as realistically as
> Merisis, but since they didn't I suppose they couldn't. And if they
> were esthetic geniuses as we are lead to believe it is unfortunate that
> we could never get a glimpse of what realistic or complicated visions
> did torture their minds.
=== Yes, Picasso has realistic work. As does Matisse. I suspect that
this type of painting bored them. Or, ostensibly, they would have
continued doing it. And you DO get a glimpse of their visions....it lies
in their work itself.
A.
Marilyn
>
> In article <73h3qu$qc6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> > In article <73gfg6$9gs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> >
>
> I stand by this, how does one who can not paint an apple realistically
> paint a nighmare about a cow-woman.
To respond to that statement in reference to Picasso's ability.
First of all, HE COULD PAINT APPLES any way you want them. But he was
a child prodigy painter, his father an art instructor, he got BORED painting
apples. He said to himself, "it has all been done before." He had technique,
he went beyond technique, innovating, exploring and changing the course of
painting forever.
M.
> Also your assertion doesn't refute my statement which I qualified with
> his 'realistic and complicated' visions. One can potentially recreate a
> simple vision like that of a red square without having a great deal of
> knowledge about how to paint. Care to debate Goedels Theorem?
>
> >that clearly resonates to his vision of the emptiness and horror
> > of war. Whatever technique you may wish to argue that this painting has, or
> > has not, is clearly responsible for it dramatic effect on the viewer.
>
> How would a higher level of technique prevent Picasso from communicating
> this dramatic effect?
>
> Clearly it wouldn't unless the dramatic effect was not Picasso's to
> begin with.
>
> I do not stand behind 'technique' and more importantly 'realism' as
> the sacred cow of art. My own art-work is not that technical, I exist
> somewhere between Cezann and Flack. But I do recognize the reality that
> technique, especially generative technique, limits the artists ability
> to do what he intends to do.
> Technical ability does not mean that what the artist intends to do
> is worth doing. In fact we can more clearly see 'bad' artists when they
> haven't relinqueshed control of the work to the Media. If Norman Rockwell
> had splattered paint on the Canvas we might think he was Pollack or
> Motherwell, especially after the critics got ahold of him. Which is
> more or less what I think of Cezann, Matisse, etc (though not exactly).
>
> If Technique ruins an artist it is because the Media is better than
> he is. What would rather see bird droppings or falling rain, or the
> happy family and turkey carcass underneath it.
>
> Of course in the case of photo-realism the artist relinquishes control
> to technical props, which is not what I ideally recommend either.
>
> What I mean by controll is that what the artist can do anything,(which
> is impossible but can be approached), with the media he intends to.
> That is to say if he dreams in colors he can paint in colors, if he
> imagines photographically he can paint photographically. And if he is
> shit-head we know it instead of trying to guess what on the canvas is
> the 'artist' and what is the media.
>
> > Gwen Jones
br...@wralaw.com
gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> In article <73gfg6$9gs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
> I do not value 'Technical Genius', I have seen too much technically brilliant
> work that is certainly not art to see this as important.
I have seen a lot of artwork that is esthetically bad and technically
accurate(meaning realistic, clean, etc.) I have seen even more art that is
technically bad and esthetically bad. Technique does not IMHO equate good
art, but bad technique IMHO does equate obfuscation. I say this as someone
who paints. It is nearly impossible to paint what you intend to unless you
lack intent or vision. Even with immaculate technique the final product
will include compromises caused by the Media.
>
> > we could never get a glimpse of what realistic or complicated visions
> > did torture their minds.
> I don't know who you include in your 'we' when you say that we can not glimpse
> what 'visions' 'tortured their minds'. I know that you do not include me.
> "Guernica", to name but one painting of his, induces a powerful emotional
> response
I stand by this, how does one who can not paint an apple realistically
paint a nighmare about a cow-woman.
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> In article <73hi17$80b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, yuki...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> : > There are those that paint and those that are obsessed with technique, the
> : > later should be engineers or teachers! basho
> : >
> : > --
> : > basho
>
>
> I don't know what you mean exactly by "technical", but if it's what I
> think it is then it seems a little too cartesian for my mind, but if, for
> the sake of argument there was this duality, then many great artists have
> been technically inventive, even "brilliant technicians". But, I -don't
> think- you can dissect the true artistic animal, anymore than you can
> seperate the mind from the brain.
>
> sincerely-
>
> Philip (never Phil) Ayers
> http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
> p.a...@mindspring.com.
>
Perhaps a better
word would be rules. Yes, rules is a better word. You need them but you don’t
need them.
Obsessed by them and you can kill creativity!
--
basho
Larry Seiler
> it is the name of the artist which now gives authority to the work,
> today.
> Look at the ads now, they boldly print the artists' names where they
> used to show thumbnails of the work. That is only a small concrete
> example of the switch.
agree..... *sigh*.....
I like your last idea of artists simply engaged in their work.
Larry
gwen_...@cybergal.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > I don't know who you include in your 'we' when you say that we can not
glimpse
> > what 'visions' 'tortured their minds'. I know that you do not include me.
> > "Guernica", to name but one painting of his, induces a powerful emotional
> > response
>
> I stand by this, how does one who can not paint an apple realistically
> paint a nighmare about a cow-woman.
> Also your assertion doesn't refute my statement which I qualified with
> his 'realistic and complicated' visions. One can potentially recreate a
> simple vision like that of a red square without having a great deal of
> knowledge about how to paint. Care to debate Goedels Theorem?
>
Since I have a degree in mathematics and know that Goedel's Theorem has
absolutely nothing to do with this, no, I don't care to debate it.
Visions, almost by definintion, are not realistic, that is why they are
visions. The point of art is usually to reduce complexity to get at the
deeper emotion, so I left out your qualifications because they did not make
sense to me.
>
> >that clearly resonates to his vision of the emptiness and horror
> > of war. Whatever technique you may wish to argue that this painting has, or
> > has not, is clearly responsible for it dramatic effect on the viewer.
>
> How would a higher level of technique prevent Picasso from communicating
> this dramatic effect?
>
> Clearly it wouldn't unless the dramatic effect was not Picasso's to
> begin with.
>
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>
> I do not stand behind 'technique' and more importantly 'realism' as
> the sacred cow of art. My own art-work is not that technical, I exist
> somewhere between Cezann and Flack. But I do recognize the reality that
> technique, especially generative technique, limits the artists ability
> to do what he intends to do.
>
I agree, up to a point. A lot of this 'technique' is actually a result of
long hard practice, I might stick my neck out and say that probably 90%
of it is.
>
> Technical ability does not mean that what the artist intends to do
> is worth doing. In fact we can more clearly see 'bad' artists when they
> haven't relinqueshed control of the work to the Media. If Norman Rockwell
> had splattered paint on the Canvas we might think he was Pollack or
> Motherwell, especially after the critics got ahold of him. Which is
> more or less what I think of Cezann, Matisse, etc (though not exactly).
>
I agree, though I do not think that I would about Cezanne or Matisse. This
is what I meant about Hopper, good pictures in their way, but empty. Maybe
this emptiness does convey what he wanted to show about America, but I find
it nihilistic and unhelpful.
>
> Of course in the case of photo-realism the artist relinquishes control
> to technical props, which is not what I ideally recommend either.
>
I am not so sure about this. What 'photo-realism' I have seen is quite
different from photography, what is shown is more garish, sharper and more
brutal than a photograph. This, and the composition, of course, make it a
limited but very interesting technique - mostly the composition has been
disappointing to me. It has seemed that a lot of 'photo-realism' should be
called 'holiday-snap' realism as it is as trite.
>
> What I mean by controll is that what the artist can do anything,(which
> is impossible but can be approached), with the media he intends to.
> That is to say if he dreams in colors he can paint in colors, if he
> imagines photographically he can paint photographically. And if he is
> shit-head we know it instead of trying to guess what on the canvas is
> the 'artist' and what is the media.
>
If you have to guess what is the artist and what is the medium then you can't
really be an artist yourself. The more I paint and draw myself, the more I
can understand other paintings and drawings.
--
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Iian Neill
> >paint a nighmare about a cow-woman.
>
> First of all, HE COULD PAINT APPLES any way you want them. But he was
> a child prodigy painter, his father an art instructor, he got BORED painting
> apples. He said to himself, "it has all been done before." He had technique,
> he went beyond technique, innovating, exploring and changing the course of
> painting forever.
Ah, the old "Picasso could draw like Raphael when just a boy, therefore he had no
need of painting realistically" myth. Perhaps those who assert this need to look
more closely at Raphael's work - and at Picasso's, for that matter. The drawings of
his that I have seen - that were in the realistic mode - were competent for a
student in an atelier - but not on the level of a Master. This hardly seems
surprising as Picasso rejected that system of art education, and instead embraced
... well, let us not go into that right now.
With regards to painting apples, however, I read a reminiscence on Picasso this
very afternoon, given to us by the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein, who was
apparently a close friend of Pablo. Rubinstein recalled that he had observed
Picasso painting numerous pictures of the same banal still-lives, and had enquired
as to why he didn't turn to something new. (One would assume that these "banal"
still-lives might have included apples.) In any case, Picasso apparently threw him
an angry glance and retorted: "Every hour I experience something new - my
perception changes, and so I paint this new perception."
Is this the same Picasso, Marilyn, who gave up paintings apples because they were
too "boring"?
> > >that clearly resonates to his vision of the emptiness and horror
> > > of war. Whatever technique you may wish to argue that this painting has, or
> > > has not, is clearly responsible for it dramatic effect on the viewer.
> >
> > How would a higher level of technique prevent Picasso from communicating
> > this dramatic effect?
> >
> > Clearly it wouldn't unless the dramatic effect was not Picasso's to
> > begin with.
> >
> > I do not stand behind 'technique' and more importantly 'realism' as
> > the sacred cow of art. My own art-work is not that technical, I exist
> > somewhere between Cezanne and Flack. But I do recognize the reality that
> > technique, especially generative technique, limits the artists ability
> > to do what he intends to do.
Every time you string together words to create sentences, paragraphs, and essays
you have used technique. I often find it amusing to hear Modernist-sympathizers
decrying a virtuosic technique in the Fine Arts when they applaude it in music and
in literature. Technical skill is that which allows the artist to realize his
"vision", to take an abstract concept and concretize it in reality - but this
requires more than simply making whatever strokes of the brush you feel like; it
requires discipline, thought, study, as well as passion. Lack of technical finesse
is not creativity : the rantings of a drunken lout are as much art as the splashed
pyrotechnics of Jackson Pollock. If you attended a speech on that took as its
theme, say, the French Revolution, and if the speaker was inebriated and could only
make wild gesticulations and half-coherent gutteral growls, or hideous screams -
would you call this a successful speech? - or would you say that it was a moving
performance, good because the orator stammered, screamed and shouted incoherently
in a drunken rage? To be move an audience with his ideas, beliefs, etc., an orator
needs discipline of thought and the ability to structure his sentences into
paragraphs - each word must be included to express his ideas as clearly and
powerfully as possible - any technical incompetence would only only destroy the
effect of his speech.
And so it applies to the Fine Arts as well, which use images instead of words as
their medium. The artist with little or no technical ability is just like the
drunken orator who cannot move his audience in the slightest - to therefore have
any impact at all he shouts louder, makes rude gestures, tries to shock them out of
their "bourgeisoi" complacency. So do the incompetents attempt to hide their
ineptitude - yet all they do is broadcast it louder for all to observe.
> > Technical ability does not mean that what the artist intends to do
> > is worth doing.
Excellent point. Art needs a worthy subject to attain the highest honours. One
could indeed write a technically brilliant book about how you cooked two eggs in
the morning, tied your shoelaces, took out the garbage and then went back to bed -
but it would not be a great book. Any great work of art needs a noble theme to
strive for; this isn't to say that all those works of art that eschew noble themes
are "bad" - not at all. It would seem to me, though, that they aren't worthy of
claiming the highest honours. They certainly deserve a place in the ranks of Art
itself - but the point of venerating certain works is that one respects what is
noble and good (in a word, uplifting) about them. Squandering a brilliant technique
on painting a garbage heap would not be an example of great art, even though it may
be aesthetically superb. Obviously I have made two distinctions concernign
qualitative judgements here: theme and composition.
> > In fact we can more clearly see 'bad' artists when they
> > haven't relinqueshed control of the work to the Media.
Does this mean that Vladimir Horowitz should have thrown his years of training and
hard, disciplined practise to the wind in pursuit of this ideal of "self
expression"? Be careful not to confuse naive, primitive expression with sincere
expression. A great technique is no guarantee of genius - but genius cannot exist
without technique. The point of art is in communication of feelings, thoughts and
ideas to other human beings; if this communication is crippled by incoherent,
childish expression then the artist has failed in his duty.
Sometimes the artist will just want to communicate his feelings at having
observed some beautiful or horrific scene - yet in both cases he will fail in his
role as artist if he is technically incompetent. Expression that which is horrid or
macabre requires just as much skill as painting that which is beautiful and
elevating.
> > If Technique ruins an artist it is because the Media is better than
> > he is. What would rather see bird droppings or falling rain, or the
> > happy family and turkey carcass underneath it.
You have lost me here.
> > Of course in the case of photo-realism the artist relinquishes control
> > to technical props, which is not what I ideally recommend either.
Neither do I. Photo-realism has a number of problems with its philosophy, which I
shall not go into here out of concern of brevity.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my student art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
sch...@my-dejanews.com
gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> In article <73gfg6$9gs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
> > My opinion is that that Picasso and Miro are all-right to look at but
> > that they do not exhibit the qualities of Technical Genius.
>
> what 'visions' 'tortured their minds'. I know that you do not include me.
> "Guernica", to name but one painting of his, induces a powerful emotional
> of war. Whatever technique you may wish to argue that this painting has, or
> has not, is clearly responsible for it dramatic effect on the viewer.
Those who dismiss Picasso out-of-hand for whatever reasons
they suppose are usually mostly ignorant of his oeuvre.
Picasso could do what any 'normal' artist could do but he
didn't. He was an inventive genius who lived, breathed and
yes, even ate ART (or at least artfully)... Abby.
sch...@my-dejanews.com
yuki...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <p.ayers-2511...@ip184.princeton.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> > In article <73hi17$80b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, yuki...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
> > : > There are those that paint and those that are obsessed with technique,
> > I guess I am not sure what technique really is when it pertains to art!
> Perhaps a better
> word would be rules. Yes, rules is a better word. You need them but you don’t
> need them.
> Obsessed by them and you can kill creativity!
Rules is hardly synonymous with technique. Knowing the 'rules' does
not a techician make -- nor an artist make. Rules (in art) are there
to be broken. Technique is the manifestation of that 'breaking.' Abby.
sch...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <73h3qu$qc6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> > > In article <73gfg6$9gs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > >
>
> >
> > paint a nighmare about a cow-woman.
>
> To respond to that statement in reference to Picasso's ability.
> First of all, HE COULD PAINT APPLES any way you want them. But he was
> a child prodigy painter, his father an art instructor, he got BORED painting
> apples. He said to himself, "it has all been done before." He had technique,
> he went beyond technique, innovating, exploring and changing the course of
> painting forever.
of Picasso, would take the trouble to watch a video
that was made while he was still living. Picasso and
his last wife appear in it and the person who did the
filming had full access to their daily lives. The
video is in two parts, each about an hour in length.
I'm sorry that I don't have more information but I
don't own the videos myself. In any event, I can't
imagine anyone coming away from that two-hour experience
saying anything negative about Picasso, technique-wise
or any other wise. The video runs through several
hundred of his works over the entire ouevre (his lifetime's
works). Cheers, Abby.
PS And of course there are all those books on Picasso
that would enlighten anyone caring to learn more...
gwen_...@cybergal.com
sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <365CC3D2.6EF1@not_a_real_address.ca>,
> Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <73h3qu$qc6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> > > > In article <73gfg6$9gs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > > I stand by this, how does one who can not paint an apple realistically
> > > paint a nighmare about a cow-woman.
> >
> > To respond to that statement in reference to Picasso's ability.
> > First of all, HE COULD PAINT APPLES any way you want them. But he was
> > a child prodigy painter, his father an art instructor, he got BORED painting
> > apples. He said to himself, "it has all been done before." He had technique,
> > he went beyond technique, innovating, exploring and changing the course of
> > painting forever.
> I wish people like Gwen, who have such a stilted view
> of Picasso,
>
I think that you have the heading lines confused - I didn't say the stuff
about apples!
--
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
gwen_...@cybergal.com
sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <73h3qu$qc6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> > In article <73gfg6$9gs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> >
> > > that they do not exhibit the qualities of Technical Genius.
> >
> > I don't know who you include in your 'we' when you say that we can not
glimpse
> > what 'visions' 'tortured their minds'. I know that you do not include me.
> > "Guernica", to name but one painting of his, induces a powerful emotional
> > response that clearly resonates to his vision of the emptiness and horror
> > of war. Whatever technique you may wish to argue that this painting has, or
> > has not, is clearly responsible for it dramatic effect on the viewer.
>
> Those who dismiss Picasso out-of-hand for whatever reasons
> they suppose are usually mostly ignorant of his oeuvre.
> Picasso could do what any 'normal' artist could do but he
> didn't. He was an inventive genius who lived, breathed and
> yes, even ate ART (or at least artfully)... Abby.
>
I am not sure that you read what I said above. I think that Picasso has
produced some magnificent work - what I said about 'Guernica' was intended to
be a positive reflection to counter some of the negative 'no skill, no art'
comments that had been made. I certainly have not dismissed Picasso out of
hand and I have spent many hours with his paintings in various galleries
around the world - all worth while!
Marilyn
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine,
> [3]alt.artcom
> Followup to: [4]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5]<364D34D9.5150@not_a_real_address.ca>
> [6]<Pine.OSF.3.96.981115...@alcor.concordia.ca
> >
> [7]<730b04$i34$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> [8]<3653C948.C1E@not_a_real_address.ca>
> [9]<731a5h$b5k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> [10]<3654c1e0...@news.interlog.com>
> [11]<7346mb$sh1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> [12]<3655be7...@news.mindspring.com>
> [13]<736phf$v28$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> [14]<36577479...@news.mindspring.com>
> [15]<738fte$8vk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> [16]<3658b6f3...@news.mindspring.com>
> [17]<Pine.OSF.3.96.981124102040.25939C-100
>
>> >I stand by this, how does one who can not paint an apple realistically
>> >paint a nighmare about a cow-woman.
>>
>> To respond to that statement in reference to Picasso's ability.
>> First of all, HE COULD PAINT APPLES any way you want them. But he was
>> a child prodigy painter, his father an art instructor, he got BORED painting
>> apples. He said to himself, "it has all been done before." He had technique,
>> he went beyond technique, innovating, exploring and changing the course of
>> painting forever.
>
>no
>need of painting realistically" myth. Perhaps those who assert this need to loo
>k
>more closely at Raphael's work - and at Picasso's, for that matter. The drawing
>s of
>his that I have seen - that were in the realistic mode - were competent for a
>student in an atelier - but not on the level of a Master. This hardly seems
>surprising as Picasso rejected that system of art education, and instead embrac
>ed
>... well, let us not go into that right now.
>
>With regards to painting apples, however, I read a reminiscence on Picasso this
>very afternoon, given to us by the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein, who was
>apparently a close friend of Pablo. Rubinstein recalled that he had observed
>Picasso painting numerous pictures of the same banal still-lives, and had enqui
>red
>as to why he didn't turn to something new. (One would assume that these "banal"
>still-lives might have included apples.) In any case, Picasso apparently threw
>him
>an angry glance and retorted: "Every hour I experience something new - my
>perception changes, and so I paint this new perception."
>
>Is this the same Picasso, Marilyn, who gave up paintings apples because they we
>re
>too "boring"?
>
>Iian
Iian:
Picasso confirms what I said above.
You misinterpret what I said,
I said the [realistic] painting of apples bored him.
Apples are not in themselves boring.
a bientot
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
> In article <365CC3D2.6EF1@not_a_real_address.ca>,
> Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <73h3qu$qc6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> > > > In article <73gfg6$9gs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > > paint a nighmare about a cow-woman.
> >
> > To respond to that statement in reference to Picasso's ability.
> > First of all, HE COULD PAINT APPLES any way you want them. But he was
> > a child prodigy painter, his father an art instructor, he got BORED painting
> > apples. He said to himself, "it has all been done before." He had technique,
> > he went beyond technique, innovating, exploring and changing the course of
> > painting forever.
> that was made while he was still living. Picasso and
> his last wife appear in it and the person who did the
> filming had full access to their daily lives. The
> video is in two parts, each about an hour in length.
> I'm sorry that I don't have more information but I
> don't own the videos myself. In any event, I can't
> imagine anyone coming away from that two-hour experience
> saying anything negative about Picasso, technique-wise
> or any other wise. The video runs through several
> hundred of his works over the entire ouevre (his lifetime's
> works). Cheers, Abby.
>
> PS And of course there are all those books on Picasso
> that would enlighten anyone caring to learn more...
>
Abby:
Picasso's ability is often debated here, almost as if in the
real world out there, there was no evidence to prove his ability.
M.
mdeli
>> If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
Marilyn answers
>No thanks, Iian, I am interested in NEW masters. May I take this
>opportunity to welcome you, into the 20th century and soon to be
>21st century?
This is a confession of an ignoramus.
Marilyn like so many Artzy fartzies takes pride in self imposed
ignorance.
The fact is, that except for Modern Academic Art she is ignorant all
other 20th century work. She also imagines that those who like the art
she doesn't like know nothing of that which she approves of.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
>Picasso confirms what I said above.
>You misinterpret what I said,
>I said the [realistic] painting of apples bored him.
>Apples are not in themselves boring.
Whether or not Picasso was bored by apples or water melons is
irrelevant. His drawing and technique is mostly crap in whatever he
did. His rendering in his portraits on an art student level and his
ideas are boringly repetitive. His allegiance to the new is a myth. He
never got further than 1923.
He cranked out more crap than most other artists. He is a tenth rate
commercial illustrator whose work is well below the level of the worst
comic books.
mdeli
>
>So then, maybe Mani should forget Disney and vote Mickey as `Artist of the
>Century'.
Why have you seen any of Micky's artwork?
> And while we're at it, I suggest that Wal-Mart should be voted
>North America's #1 institution of higher learning.
Do tell us why?
> Never mind that
>over-rated phoney Yale, Stanford, McGill, Harvard garbage. Yay Mickey!!
I presume you are referring to the legions of failures these
institutions produce. I'm especially aware of the pompous asses
produced by the in clique at Yale.
Mattison
aahahahahha this is funny......same a's ? at SJ State ? gigglezzzz
they are so self absorbed in their art scene which has been here 35 +
years and never happened .... till I showed up
you go twelve miles out side of town and no one ever heard of SJ
state....
better off getting the degree in marketing
HAIL! the Slugs....like we care....
SJS....they try everyway possible to get in the way of my work and
we just keep popping up where they least expect...try Cannes....
gigglezzzzzz
u should have seen the pom.puss....when that happened....
their littel green eye balls running round the tables....
2 funnnnnnnnn.e
Mattison
Artist of the cent.u.r.e....
check out our new online store
http://www.rhinodev.com/M
and e.me.your.cent.u.r.e
giggglzzzzz
Mattison
The way that IDIOT ! treated his family!!!!!!!!
No way should he get the title!
Marina his grandd. gave us catalogues at the big GP Private
reception and let me tell you kids the truth be know .... the guy was
a real selfish LOOSER!!!!!!!!
Pic someone who the kids really can look up to! How about a
woman since they had to paint against such odds!
Mattison
br...@wralaw.com
gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> In article <73ibh8$to2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > his 'realistic and complicated' visions. One can potentially recreate a
> > simple vision like that of a red square without having a great deal of
> > knowledge about how to paint. Care to debate Goedels Theorem?
> Since I have a degree in mathematics
Impressive.
> and know that Goedel's Theorem has
> absolutely nothing to do with this, no, I don't care to debate it.
Well that was a red haring or more accurately lobster roe. But I'm
afraid Goedels Theorem is the real heart of our problem.
> > technique, especially generative technique, limits the artists ability
> > to do what he intends to do.
> >
> I agree, up to a point. A lot of this 'technique' is actually a result of
> long hard practice, I might stick my neck out and say that probably 90%
> of it is.
I am only for the 10%.
> different from photography, what is shown is more garish, sharper and more
> brutal than a photograph. This, and the composition, of course, make it a
> limited but very interesting technique -
It's limitation is reality which is infinite... I'm not saying this just
to contradict you I really don't think you understood my criticism of
photorealism... Which is the same for the other isms.
> If you have to guess what is the artist and what is the medium then you can't
> really be an artist yourself.
Granted I am not an artist, nor a cook,
>The more I paint and draw myself, the more I
> can understand other paintings and drawings.
Drawing and painting is where I search for the truth of myself. I am
more of Picasso than those who love him blindly, -Who tend through the fault
of Evolution to both lack invention, skill, estheticism, nor fanaticism, nor
goodness of spirit, nor cynicism, what I am against is the discontinuity of
knowledge. And before Picasso I am the first person who I am certain is
guilty of this mortal sin.
>
> Gwen Jones
>
> There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
> Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
Bryn Ayers
Partially dead from Turkey
Ariane
On 27 Nov 1998, Mattison wrote:
> From: Mattison <matt...@att.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine, alt.artcom
> Subject: FORGET PICASSO!~ Artist of the Century
>
> FORGET PICASSO!!!!!!!!!
>
> The way that IDIOT ! treated his family!!!!!!!!
>
> No way should he get the title!
=== The title of what? I agree that `Father of the Century,' `Husband of
the Century,' or `Just all Around Great Guy of the Century,' may not be
his for the claiming, but, Picasso is this century's most pervasive
artistic force and genius due to his artistic work, ONLY.
> Marina his grandd. gave us catalogues at the big GP Private
> reception and let me tell you kids the truth be know .... the guy was
> a real selfish LOOSER!!!!!!!!
=== I agree. A total social flop. But that's probably what happens to
people who sniff so much turpentine, and judging by his output and
creative process, he lived on the stuff.
> Pic someone who the kids really can look up to! How about a
> woman since they had to paint against such odds!
>
> Mattison
=== Yes, for this I would pick Francoise Gilot in the 20th century. A
phenomenal painter who absorbed Picasso's lessons on design and
composition and made them hers. Her work is serenely powerful and despite
the barriers to her ability to paint all the time and to truly immerse
herself into the Parisienne art scene the way men freely could, here work
is all the more spectacular.
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, mdeli wrote:
> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine, alt.artcom
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
> :
> >Picasso confirms what I said above.
> >You misinterpret what I said,
> >I said the [realistic] painting of apples bored him.
> >Apples are not in themselves boring.
> >Marilyn
>
>
> Whether or not Picasso was bored by apples or water melons is
> irrelevant. His drawing and technique is mostly crap in whatever he
> did.
=== Who cares. Technique in oil painting is more than drawing and
obviously Disney boy, pretty much the rest of the world expects more out
of art than good draughtsmanship. Ingres, the draughtsman, cannot compare
to Delacroix, the painter in terms of power. In fact, Ingres is dismissed
by many a connoisseur because he's too ONE-DIMENSIONAL.
His rendering in his portraits on an art student level and his
> ideas are boringly repetitive.
=== I think its the case that you're understanding of his ideas are
boringly repetitive. Picasso, by 1930, was working on and mastering 3 or
4 different styles at the same time after having developed many other
styles of painting prior to this.
His allegiance to the new is a myth. He
> never got further than 1923.
=== Yeah, those last 2000 or so works don't count at all.
> He cranked out more crap than most other artists.
=== Absolutely. And by the same token, he cranked out more masterpieces.
He went through canvases like pages in a sketchbook. Its a good idea
really.
He is a tenth rate
> commercial illustrator whose work is well below the level of the worst
> comic books.
Ok, I get it, you're just full of it and you're trolling. Ha, Ha, very
funny Mani. You probably have Picasso prints plastered all over your
studio walls to remind you to get back to work. Well, the net is
entertainment after all I suppose. Bonne journee.
A.
Ariane
On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, mdeli wrote:
> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
> > Ariane wrote
> >
> >So then, maybe Mani should forget Disney and vote Mickey as `Artist of the
> >Century'.
>
> Why have you seen any of Micky's artwork?
=== Yeah, it's hanging in the Orlando Louvre right next to Walt's own
personal oeuvre.
> > And while we're at it, I suggest that Wal-Mart should be voted
> >North America's #1 institution of higher learning.
>
> Do tell us why?
=== Because that's the level of your Disney comment.
> > Never mind that
> >over-rated phoney Yale, Stanford, McGill, Harvard garbage. Yay Mickey!!
>
> I presume you are referring to the legions of failures these
> institutions produce. I'm especially aware of the pompous asses
> produced by the in clique at Yale.
=== Yes. University has no other purpose than to turn out failures who
are pompous because they're oh so good at failing in life. I often go to
the english and french university libraries here in Montreal to laugh at
all the failures who publish their works which are stored there. Total
losers like Einstein, Freud, Jung, Mallarme, Toynbee, Beaudelaire,
Voltaire, St. Thomas Aquinas, Churchill, de Gaulle, Hegel,
Nietzsche.....The list goes on and on right Mani?
Yay Mickey!!!
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...curator of the `Donald Duck' gallerie des Beaux-Arts.
>
Marilyn
***I second the motion. Last time I saw or heard of her, Francoise,
was in a documentary on TV,
she was in a print shop in Los Angeles pulling off one of her prints.
Youthful, engergetic, beautiful, intelligent, talented, great mother,
the only person to survive a relationship with Picasso, intact.
M.
mdeli
>An open mind is not necessarily an empty mind. It is possible to take, say,
>Picasso and realise that a lot of his paintings were not good, some were even
>terrible. This does not detract from the fact that many were brilliant.
>
Fine, name a few brilliant ones and lets discuss them.
br...@wralaw.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> On 27 Nov 1998, Mattison wrote:
>
> > From: Mattison <matt...@att.net>
>
> his for the claiming, but, Picasso is this century's most pervasive
> artistic force and genius due to his artistic work, ONLY.
Picasso is the most famous artist who epitomized cynicical utilitarian
darwinism, prolific decorative dadaism, and intentionally childish and
intentionally ugly art.
Thank god for eggs
Yes Yes I ate my whipping cream
mdeli
<da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
>
>> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>>
>(coupe)
>
>> I would agree that art isn't about technique. I would also agree that
>> without a base of technique that the chances are *VERY* high that it's
>> crap.
>>
>> That's what Mani's saying. I agree.
>>
>
>Yes, and don't forget that he's saying that Picasso & Matisse were
>"phonies" and had no base of technique.
Right!
>Not only did they have technique but they went beyond technique with
>impeccable compositional sense and brilliant ideas.
Picasso had a few lousey ideas which he repeated ad nauseum. Matisse
never had an idea in his life. Matisse's composition is worse than his
drawing.
> They were excellent
>colourists (esp. Matisse),
-Inspired by jelly beans. His color unlike Picasso's is abominable.
The moron hardly had enough skill to squeeze the tube.
> and had an aesthetic intuition on par with any
>Western artist of any age.
-As long as it wasn't above 9.
> Further, they helped expand the vocabulary of
>Western art by incorporating art from other cultures and other times.
What "vocabulary?
>They were what they were renowned for: great innovators in the Western
>tradition of fine art in the 20th century. Period.
They were among the founders the western 20th century tradition for
Modern Academic incompetence. Big deal!
mdeli
>Those who dismiss Picasso out-of-hand for whatever reasons
>they suppose are usually mostly ignorant of his oeuvre.
Utter nonsense.
>Picasso could do what any 'normal' artist could do but he
>didn't.
He tried but he couldn't .
> He was an inventive genius who lived, breathed and
>yes, even ate ART (or at least artfully)... Abby.
The above sentence is sentimental crap. If you really want to bone up
your Artspeak try reading Art Forum.
mdeli
<da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
I wrote:
>> Whether or not Picasso was bored by apples or water melons is
>> irrelevant. His drawing and technique is mostly crap in whatever he
>> did.
>
>=== Who cares.
Most viewers care.
>Technique in oil painting is more than drawing and
>obviously Disney boy, pretty much the rest of the world expects more out
>of art than good draughtsmanship.
So do I Picasso groupie.
> Ingres, the draughtsman, cannot compare
>to Delacroix,
Indeed . Delacroix was a second rater. His color is brown sauce and
his drawing full of errors and schmier. Even is better work is
straight third class academic. He is completely over rated.
> the painter in terms of power. In fact, Ingres is dismissed
>by many a connoisseur
You mean by incompetent groupies like you.
> because he's too ONE-DIMENSIONAL.
Picasso is no dimensional. He, unlike you, admired Ingres no end. He
did some feeble attempts to imitate him between cranking out his reams
of crap.
> His rendering in his portraits on an art student level and his
>> ideas are boringly repetitive.
>
>=== I think its the case that you're understanding of his ideas are
>boringly repetitive. Picasso, by 1930, was working on and mastering 3 or
>4 different styles at the same time after having developed many other
>styles of painting prior to this.
His styles aren't that different. Any artists paints in lots of styles
. SO what. Picasso never produced anything that was beond the level
of a poor illustrater whatever the style..
> His allegiance to the new is a myth. He
>> never got further than 1923.
>
>=== Yeah, those last 2000 or so works don't count at all.
All schlock. Picasso is the foremost schlock artist of the 20th
Century.
>
>> He cranked out more crap than most other artists.
>
>=== Absolutely. And by the same token, he cranked out more masterpieces.
Name 5.
>He went through canvases like pages in a sketchbook. Its a good idea
>really.
One worse than the next; much like an art student full of enthusiasm
but lacking skill.
>
>> He is a tenth rate
>> commercial illustrator whose work is well below the level of the worst
>> comic books.
>
>Ok, I get it, you're just full of it and you're trolling. Ha, Ha, very
>funny Mani. You probably have Picasso prints plastered all over your
>studio walls to remind you to get back to work.
Wishful thinking.
I do own lots of very silly Picasso books and you can see how I used
them when I next redo my webpage.
mdeli
>There are those that paint and those that are obsessed with technique,
And those that paint and know technique and those that don't.
>the later should be engineers or teachers!
or make a good living.
ANd the idiots who prefer vanity to technique usually starve unless
they switch to teaching or engeneering etc.; with good reason
DFRussell
>In article <365b59b9...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
>> Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
>> >> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>> >> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>> >>
>> >(coupe)
>> >
>> >> I would agree that art isn't about technique. I would also agree that
>> >> without a base of technique that the chances are *VERY* high that it's
>> >> crap.
>> >>
>> >> That's what Mani's saying. I agree.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, and don't forget that he's saying that Picasso & Matisse were
>> >"phonies" and had no base of technique.
>>
>> Yeah. His opinion is shared by other people. No one is forcing you
>> to believe what he said.
>>
>There is good evidence, some of which has been presented, that this opinion
>is objectively wrong.
To be polite, there is no such thing as a "wrong" opinion.
> A number of people sharing an opinion does not make
>it correct.
I was trying to give the people who like Cezanne the benefit of the
doubt :-)
> I think that anybody who claimed that either of these artists
>had no 'technique' or artistic ability would be simply making a point to
>be noticed - like a little boy throwing a tantrum.
As I said, it's an opinion and everyone is allowed one. That you
don't like Mani's is pretty irrelevant.
> There is so much
>evidence that it is not true that it is risible to claim that it is.
Then present a rational basis for Cezanne having technical ability
instead of just telling people who think otherwise that they are
incorrect. Please note: your *opinion* doesn't matter anymore than
anyone elses opinion.
>>
>> [another pointless tirade about how wonderful insert_name was deleted]
>>
>
>I think that you are unfair here. It was not a tirade, and it was not
>pointless.
Nope. I'm not being unfair. I'm just tired of opinions presented as
fact and see no point humoring the poster.
[another big snip]
DFRussell
>
>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
>
>> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>>
>> Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On Sat, 21 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
>> >> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>> >> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>> >>
>> >> Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >On Fri, 20 Nov 1998, mdeli wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
>> >> >> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>> >> >>
>> >> >(snip)
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Maybe we should discuss the overated ones, there are a few out there you
>> >> >> >know!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Like Picasso Matisse, Cezanne, Mondrian , de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly
>> >> >> etc. etc. and all the rest of the Modern Academic bullshit posing as
>> >> >> masterpieces.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
>> >> >> and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
>> >> >> than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
>> >> >> composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Mani DeLi
>> >> >> ...no brain....
>> >> >
>> >> >HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAA, Ha, HAAHAAAHAAAHAA, Disney, HA, HAAAAA,HAAAA, H,
>> >> >
>> >> >Mani, you funny; you messed in the head, but you funny.
>> >>
>> >> Very few people have had more influence on this century than Disney.
>> >> The company that micky built owns ABC and several other entertainment
>> >> companies. Micky Mouse is almost as recognizable is Coca Cola.
>> >
>> >So then, maybe Mani should forget Disney and vote Mickey as `Artist of the
>> >Century'.
>>
>> If Micky had been the artist, you might have a point. As it is, you
>> don't.
>
>=== And if Disney had been the artist......nahh, not even then.
Oddly enough, when looking at the dictionary, it doesn't define
"artist" as "what Ariane decides it is.".
>
>
>> > And while we're at it, I suggest that Wal-Mart should be voted
>> >North America's #1 institution of higher learning.
>>
>> Mind-numbingly irrelevant.
>>
>> > Never mind that
>> >over-rated phoney Yale, Stanford, McGill, Harvard garbage. Yay Mickey!!
>>
>> Personally, I'd take a lot of what disney did over a lot of the shit
>> that comes from that places you just mentioned.
>
>.....As I would have guessed.
And quite happy to say it :-)
>
Ariane
On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, mdeli wrote:
> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine, alt.artcom
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
> On Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:44:40 -0500, Ariane
> <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >> Whether or not Picasso was bored by apples or water melons is
> >> irrelevant. His drawing and technique is mostly crap in whatever he
> >> did.
> >
> >=== Who cares.
>
> Most viewers care.
>
> >Technique in oil painting is more than drawing and
> >obviously Disney boy, pretty much the rest of the world expects more out
> >of art than good draughtsmanship.
>
> So do I Picasso groupie.
>
> > Ingres, the draughtsman, cannot compare
> >to Delacroix,
>
> Indeed . Delacroix was a second rater. His color is brown sauce and
> his drawing full of errors and schmier. Even is better work is
> straight third class academic. He is completely over rated.
=== You're full of it Mani. You love Delacroix, tell the truth.
>
> > the painter in terms of power. In fact, Ingres is dismissed
> >by many a connoisseur
>
> You mean by incompetent groupies like you.
>
> > because he's too ONE-DIMENSIONAL.
>
> Picasso is no dimensional. He, unlike you, admired Ingres no end. He
> did some feeble attempts to imitate him between cranking out his reams
> of crap.
=== You're also a burn out Mani. Picasso followed in the European
movement of Romanticism: Hegel, Byron, Blake, Mallarme, Delacroix, etc..
He loved Delacroix and thought Ingres to be an uptight academic sell-out.
He's said as much in "Vivre Avec Picasso," and to Alfred Barr Jr. Maybe
because America doesn't have any art movements (Pollock's
spew-on-the-canvas notwithstanding, oh yes, and Mickeyyyyy!!)
> > His rendering in his portraits on an art student level and his
> >> ideas are boringly repetitive.
> >
> >=== I think its the case that you're understanding of his ideas are
> >boringly repetitive. Picasso, by 1930, was working on and mastering 3 or
> >4 different styles at the same time after having developed many other
> >styles of painting prior to this.
>
> His styles aren't that different. Any artists paints in lots of styles
> . SO what. Picasso never produced anything that was beond the level
> of a poor illustrater whatever the style..
=== You love him Mani, everyone on this newsgroup is on to you.
> > His allegiance to the new is a myth. He
> >> never got further than 1923.
> >
> >=== Yeah, those last 2000 or so works don't count at all.
>
> All schlock. Picasso is the foremost schlock artist of the 20th
> Century.
>
=== But Disney on the other hand.......
> >
> >> He cranked out more crap than most other artists.
> >
> >=== Absolutely. And by the same token, he cranked out more masterpieces.
>
> Name 5.
1) Desmoiselles d'Avignon
2) Guernica
3) Massacre in Korea
4) The Dream
5) La Toilette (1906)
Really, is this necessary? You're just jealous Mani. Get over it and
learn from the guy.
> >He went through canvases like pages in a sketchbook. Its a good idea
> >really.
>
> One worse than the next; much like an art student full of enthusiasm
> but lacking skill.
=== No, his is definitely the way to work. If you want to improve your
skills that is. And anyway, what do you define as skill Mani? What
exactly is your idea of artistic skill?
> >> He is a tenth rate
> >> commercial illustrator whose work is well below the level of the worst
> >> comic books.
> >
> >Ok, I get it, you're just full of it and you're trolling. Ha, Ha, very
> >funny Mani. You probably have Picasso prints plastered all over your
> >studio walls to remind you to get back to work.
>
> Wishful thinking.
>
> I do own lots of very silly Picasso books and you can see how I used
> them when I next redo my webpage.
=== Well, cut the webpage crap and hit the books amigo, Picasso's work can
yet teach you how to better yourself.
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...Yayyy Mickey!!!
Ariane
On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, DFRussell wrote:
> From: DFRussell <nobody@localhost>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: Artist of the Century
>
> >> >> >> >Maybe we should discuss the overated ones, there are a few out there you
> >> >> >> >know!!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like Picasso Matisse, Cezanne, Mondrian , de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly
> >> >> >> etc. etc. and all the rest of the Modern Academic bullshit posing as
> >> >> >> masterpieces.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The two most influential artists are Dali and Disney. There is more
> >> >> >> and better modern art in five minutes of good mickey mouse cartoon
> >> >> >> than in the life work of a phoney like Picasso; better color,
> >> >> >> composition, draftsmanship and ideas.
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Mani DeLi
> >> >> >> ...no brain....
> >> >> >
> >> >> >HA, HA, HA, HAAAAAA, Ha, HAAHAAAHAAAHAA, Disney, HA, HAAAAA,HAAAA, H,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mani, you funny; you messed in the head, but you funny.
> >> >>
> >> >> Very few people have had more influence on this century than Disney.
> >> >> The company that micky built owns ABC and several other entertainment
> >> >> companies. Micky Mouse is almost as recognizable is Coca Cola.
> >> >
> >> >So then, maybe Mani should forget Disney and vote Mickey as `Artist of the
> >> >Century'.
> >>
> >> If Micky had been the artist, you might have a point. As it is, you
> >> don't.
> >
> >=== And if Disney had been the artist......nahh, not even then.
>
> Oddly enough, when looking at the dictionary, it doesn't define
> "artist" as "what Ariane decides it is.".
=== No, but I bet it doesn't define artist as "the CEO of some cheesy
theme-park for overfed Americans' either. Disney was a businessman, not
an artist.
> >> > And while we're at it, I suggest that Wal-Mart should be voted
> >> >North America's #1 institution of higher learning.
> >>
> >> Mind-numbingly irrelevant.
=== As Disney is to art.
> >>
> >> > Never mind that
> >> >over-rated phoney Yale, Stanford, McGill, Harvard garbage. Yay Mickey!!
> >>
> >> Personally, I'd take a lot of what disney did over a lot of the shit
> >> that comes from that places you just mentioned.
> >
> >.....As I would have guessed.
>
> And quite happy to say it :-)
=== ....If the shoe fits....
Marilyn
--[a debate with Mani over Picasso].
--When it comes to the following:
> Name 5.
1) Desmoiselles d'Avignon
2) Guernica
3) Massacre in Korea
4) The Dream
5) La Toilette (1906)
--Permit me to jump in with "Woman [girl?] in a Mirror" or is that the
same as "La Toilette?"
This painting is innovative in the sense that it is kinetic, the woman
actually moves. While other master painters portrayed motion, Picasso
actually made the image move, notably with the front/profile face.
I like "Paulo on a Donkey" do you think it is too sappy?
Marilyn
DFRussell
>> >> If Micky had been the artist, you might have a point. As it is, you
>> >> don't.
>> >
>> >=== And if Disney had been the artist......nahh, not even then.
>>
>> Oddly enough, when looking at the dictionary, it doesn't define
>> "artist" as "what Ariane decides it is.".
>
>=== No, but I bet it doesn't define artist as "the CEO of some cheesy
>theme-park for overfed Americans' either.
Ah yes... the typical snotty-without-a-reason, french-canadian twit
response... how droll. Tell me, are you always this envious of
success.
I wonder why I always see those Ontario license plates rolling down
I85 toward Florida? They were probably carjacked, right? :-)
> Disney was a businessman, not an artist.
It's an opinion. Everyone gets one.
However, I would point out that "artists" are also "businessmen". So,
your implied dig is irrelevant *and* stupid. That Disney was more
successful than Cezanne is Cezanne's fault.
>> >> > Never mind that
>> >> >over-rated phoney Yale, Stanford, McGill, Harvard garbage. Yay Mickey!!
>> >>
>> >> Personally, I'd take a lot of what disney did over a lot of the shit
>> >> that comes from that places you just mentioned.
>> >
>> >.....As I would have guessed.
>>
>> And quite happy to say it :-)
>
>=== ....If the shoe fits....
LOL :-)
You don't have to guess. I've clearly stated it above.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Picasso's ability is often debated here, almost as if in the
> real world out there, there was no evidence to prove his ability.
>
I think that it is really amusing. It is clearly motivated by jealosy,
together with a desire to appear 'clever' or 'cynical'. I think that it would
be very helpful if there was a special notes group for people who want to
make their points and shine up their egos, to do it (rec.arts.fine.criticism
is my suggestion) leaving this group to get on with appreciating art,
discussing it and learning.
I think it would be interesting to discuss who the 'artist of the century'
could be, rather than go around in circles with people who have closed their
minds. I think that it is a pretty meaningless title - after all, Munch's
'The Scream' is one of the best known paintings, but few people know a single
one of his other paintings - should such an artist be considered? We now
see Mondrian, or derivatives of his paintings, on all sorts of products like
shampoo - should this commercial success be important?
--
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
gwen_...@cybergal.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:11:17 GMT, gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>
> >An open mind is not necessarily an empty mind. It is possible to take, say,
> >Picasso and realise that a lot of his paintings were not good, some were even
> >terrible. This does not detract from the fact that many were brilliant.
> >
> Fine, name a few brilliant ones and lets discuss them.
>
This is funny! I did mention one, Guernica, you choose not to discuss it -
then, in another thread, I see you mention a Picasso that you do not like and
attack it. Rather like your web-site, I feel that you attack straw men.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
nobody@localhost wrote:
>
> >There is good evidence, some of which has been presented, that this opinion
> >is objectively wrong.
>
> To be polite, there is no such thing as a "wrong" opinion.
>
about the matter. So, as proved in the previous sentence, your opinion that
there is no wrong opinion is also wrong.
>
> > I think that anybody who claimed that either of these artists
> >had no 'technique' or artistic ability would be simply making a point to
> >be noticed - like a little boy throwing a tantrum.
>
> As I said, it's an opinion and everyone is allowed one. That you
> don't like Mani's is pretty irrelevant.
>
to the question of who the 'Artist of the Century' is. Or were you just trying
to use 'pretty irrelevant' as an insult?
>
> > There is so much
> >evidence that it is not true that it is risible to claim that it is.
>
> Then present a rational basis for Cezanne having technical ability
> instead of just telling people who think otherwise that they are
> incorrect. Please note: your *opinion* doesn't matter anymore than
> anyone elses opinion.
>
very specific probably a demonstration of textbook perspective and realistic
drawing, is not the only, nor the best criterion for judgement.
>
> >>
> >> [another pointless tirade about how wonderful insert_name was deleted]
> >>
> >
> >I think that you are unfair here. It was not a tirade, and it was not
> >pointless.
>
> Nope. I'm not being unfair. I'm just tired of opinions presented as
> fact and see no point humoring the poster.
>
opinion as a fact. Could it be that you are just tired of views, opinions, or
facts that don't agree with your prejudice?
gwen_...@cybergal.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
> > and know that Goedel's Theorem has
> > absolutely nothing to do with this, no, I don't care to debate it.
>
> Well that was a red haring or more accurately lobster roe. But I'm
> afraid Goedels Theorem is the real heart of our problem.
>
Theorem because it sounded as if it had dealt a blow to logic, of course, it
didn't! All Goedel showed was that in arithmetic (and only arithmetic, it
doesn't apply to any other mathematics) an axiom system rich enough to
prove all theorems would be contradictory, an that one that was not
contradictory could not prove all the theorems. If you read the proof
and see how this is established, you can see that it does not apply to
any other field of discourse.
Now, what did you think it was all about?
>
> > > technique, especially generative technique, limits the artists ability
> > > to do what he intends to do.
> > >
> > I agree, up to a point. A lot of this 'technique' is actually a result of
> > long hard practice, I might stick my neck out and say that probably 90%
> > of it is.
> I am only for the 10%.
>
My intuition would agree with you. However, there was a large study done
recently (I could dig up the detail, but it would take time) into just this
point. It looked at artists, mathematicians, musicians, dancers and some other
groups. It worked to establish how many had 'inbuilt' talent, and how many
did not (who showed no childhood special ability). It also looked to see how
much practice people had to put in to get to the top. In all cases the only
factor that consistently predicted how well people would do was practice.
I was fascinated by this study as it contradicted what I would have expected.
>
>
> > If you have to guess what is the artist and what is the medium then you
can't
> > really be an artist yourself.
>
> Granted I am not an artist, nor a cook,
>
Good point - cooking is a form of artistry, in my opinion. I like to cook too,
and find that it helps me appreciate dishes cooked by others.
>
> >The more I paint and draw myself, the more I
> > can understand other paintings and drawings.
>
> Drawing and painting is where I search for the truth of myself. I am
> more of Picasso than those who love him blindly, -Who tend through the fault
> of Evolution to both lack invention, skill, estheticism, nor fanaticism, nor
> goodness of spirit, nor cynicism, what I am against is the discontinuity of
> knowledge. And before Picasso I am the first person who I am certain is
> guilty of this mortal sin.
>
I don't really understand your point here. Apart from the first sentence.
I find painting and drawing, as acts in themselves, are more important to me
than the result (though that is very important) and certainly more important
that acceptance by other people. The act of pictorial creation is one of
the most absorbing and exciting that I know!
mdeli
>> Indeed . Delacroix was a second rater. His color is brown sauce and
>> his drawing full of errors and schmier. Even is better work is
>> straight third class academic. He is completely over rated.
>
>=== You're full of it Mani. You love Delacroix, tell the truth.
I confess. I love Delacroix a little less than you love Mickey Mouse.
>>. Picasso never produced anything that was beyond the level
>> of a poor illustrator whatever the style..
>
>=== You love him Mani, everyone on this newsgroup is on to you.
Right. I love him a little less than you love Disney.
>> > His allegiance to the new is a myth. He
>> >> never got further than 1923.
>> >
>> >=== Yeah, those last 2000 or so works don't count at all.
>>
>> All schlock. Picasso is the foremost schlock artist of the 20th
>> Century.
>> >=== Absolutely. And by the same token, he cranked out more masterpieces.
>>
>> Name 5.
>
>1) Desmoiselles d'Avignon
>2) Guernica
>3) Massacre in Korea
>4) The Dream
>5) La Toilette (1906)
Soon my next web page revision will contain some interesting revisions
of the idiotic Desmoiselles and Guerinca. I'll note it when it happens
and you can continue to convince yourself of my (as you claim ) love
for Picasso.
As to Massacre in Korea, it is perhaps Picasso's most idiotic
painting. Everyone should have a look at this gigantic piece of crap
where the bored Picasso repeats all of his boring cliches. The
composition color and drawing are nothing less than stupid. Even the
critics rejected this job. (check out his portrait of Stalin (sub
Street corner portraiture) and his "Dove of Peace" scraping.
The "Dream" had critics coming in there pants for about three weeks
after it was auctioned off to some sucker for a phenomenal sum. "The
greatest painting of the 20th century," they exclaimed "and out of one
of the great collections." It is really ordinary Picasso poop,
simplistic, practically nothing, with some bright colors done in
colored cement technique. I guess it arouses modern art buffs because
it isn't as ugly as the usual Picasso fare and is amenable to lots of
psychobabble ( gives the critics an outlet for Artspeak)
I recall that about a year earlier an early period Picasso nothing was
auctioned for some high millions. There was an hour TV program on this
Sothebys event . It included a bozo shill critic who said in his high
fairy accent, "its the greatest painting of the 20th century." That
was far more memorable than the painting which wasn't even crappy
enough to remember.
I'm sure that my above statements are adequate to confirm to Ariane
if no one else, my continuing love for Pablo the Schmierer.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
DFRussell
>In article <3661911...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
>>
>> >There is good evidence, some of which has been presented, that this opinion
>> >is objectively wrong.
>>
>> To be polite, there is no such thing as a "wrong" opinion.
>>
>If your opinion is that 2+2=5 then your opinion is wrong - not question
>about the matter.
Quite true. However, we're not discussing arithmetic. Are you having
a problem understanding the topic?
> So, as proved in the previous sentence, your opinion that
>there is no wrong opinion is also wrong.
You "proven" nothing concerning "art". If it was objective, the
question, "Is it art?" would not exist.
>>
>> > I think that anybody who claimed that either of these artists
>> >had no 'technique' or artistic ability would be simply making a point to
>> >be noticed - like a little boy throwing a tantrum.
>>
>> As I said, it's an opinion and everyone is allowed one. That you
>> don't like Mani's is pretty irrelevant.
>>
>Irrelevant to what?
The discussion of "art". I assumed it would be apparent to anyone
from the context of the statement. Pardon me for my assumption.
> I agree that it is irrelevant to you, but it is relevant
>to the question of who the 'Artist of the Century' is. Or were you just trying
>to use 'pretty irrelevant' as an insult?
No I'm blunt. If it was simply my intent to insult you, I'd have
said you were a silly fucking ditz talking completely out of her ass
and unable to see that she is guilty of what she accuses other people.
Normally, when I reach that point, I simply don't bother responding.
>>
>> > There is so much
>> >evidence that it is not true that it is risible to claim that it is.
>>
>> Then present a rational basis for Cezanne having technical ability
>> instead of just telling people who think otherwise that they are
>> incorrect. Please note: your *opinion* doesn't matter anymore than
>> anyone elses opinion.
>>
>I have argued that 'technical ability', by which you appear to mean something
>very specific probably a demonstration of textbook perspective and realistic
>drawing, is not the only, nor the best criterion for judgement.
No one has said that "technical ability" was the only criteria. Not
even Mani... unless I missed something. I wouldn't personally say
that Picasso was talentless. At points in his career, he did
demonstrate some level of technical ability. I don't personally care
for much of his work, but I wouldn't dismiss it.
There are others mentioned here of which the same could not be said.
>>
>> >>
>> >> [another pointless tirade about how wonderful insert_name was deleted]
>> >>
>> >
>> >I think that you are unfair here. It was not a tirade, and it was not
>> >pointless.
>>
>> Nope. I'm not being unfair. I'm just tired of opinions presented as
>> fact and see no point humoring the poster.
>>
>Your opinion was that it was a 'tirade' you now appear to wish to present this
>opinion as a fact.
LOL :-))))
Possibly I'm just having difficulty following your "logic". I point
out to you that your opinion does nothing to counter Mani's point that
Cezanne had no technical ability... and you tell me I'm presenting my
"opinion" as a fact.
In a word, horseshit.
> Could it be that you are just tired of views, opinions, or
>facts that don't agree with your prejudice?
My "prejudice"...?
Yo! Wally!. What you so politely call my "prejudice" is an opinion...
as valid as is yours. I freely acknowledge that it is an opinion--
something which you fail to do.
:-) And with that, you've fallen into the category where I don't normally
bother to reply.
Have a nice day.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
nobody@localhost wrote:
> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3661911...@news.mindspring.com>,
> > nobody@localhost wrote:
> >>
> >> >There is good evidence, some of which has been presented, that this
opinion
> >> >is objectively wrong.
> >>
> >> To be polite, there is no such thing as a "wrong" opinion.
> >>
> >If your opinion is that 2+2=5 then your opinion is wrong - not question
> >about the matter.
>
> Quite true. However, we're not discussing arithmetic. Are you having
> a problem understanding the topic?
>
the topic of Art, if somebody had the opinion that Egyptian art was excellent
in its use of perspective, this opinion would be wrong.
>
> > So, as proved in the previous sentence, your opinion that
> >there is no wrong opinion is also wrong.
>
> You "proven" nothing concerning "art". If it was objective, the
> question, "Is it art?" would not exist.
>
machine that judged paintings in the same manner as, say, a dozen randomly
selected critics, then this would be an objective judgement - and, if done
properly, would at least agree with a dozen critics.
>
> >>
> >> > I think that anybody who claimed that either of these artists
> >> >had no 'technique' or artistic ability would be simply making a point to
> >> >be noticed - like a little boy throwing a tantrum.
> >>
> >> As I said, it's an opinion and everyone is allowed one. That you
> >> don't like Mani's is pretty irrelevant.
> >>
> >Irrelevant to what?
>
> The discussion of "art". I assumed it would be apparent to anyone
> from the context of the statement. Pardon me for my assumption.
>
judgement of who the Artist of the Century might be - in this case, as
I say below, you are simply wrong, it is relevant, particularly in this
group.
>
> >> Nope. I'm not being unfair. I'm just tired of opinions presented as
> >> fact and see no point humoring the poster.
> >>
> >Your opinion was that it was a 'tirade' you now appear to wish to present
this
> >opinion as a fact.
>
> LOL :-))))
>
> Possibly I'm just having difficulty following your "logic". I point
> out to you that your opinion does nothing to counter Mani's point that
> Cezanne had no technical ability... and you tell me I'm presenting my
> "opinion" as a fact.
>
> In a word, horseshit.
>
of your opinions you present as fact, then you will understand my point.
>
> > Could it be that you are just tired of views, opinions, or
> >facts that don't agree with your prejudice?
>
> My "prejudice"...?
>
> Yo! Wally!. What you so politely call my "prejudice" is an opinion...
> as valid as is yours. I freely acknowledge that it is an opinion--
> something which you fail to do.
>
at my point above. If you look you will see that what you object to
is a question, a proposed hypothesis to explain.
>
> :-) And with that, you've fallen into the category where I don't normally
> bother to reply.
>
soon as you misunderstand what has been said!
br...@wralaw.com
gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> In article <73lrga$lo8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > Drawing and painting is where I search for the truth of myself. I am
> > more of Picasso than those who love him blindly, -Who tend through the fault
> > of Evolution to both lack invention, skill, estheticism, nor fanaticism, nor
> > goodness of spirit, nor cynicism, what I am against is the discontinuity of
> > knowledge. And before Picasso I am the first person who I am certain is
> > guilty of this mortal sin.
> >
> I don't really understand your point here. Apart from the first sentence.
It's an obscure tirade. One of my clearest so far. If you memorize it
and say it everyday you will come over time to understand that most of what
I said is in fact the truth. The principals of painting and cooking are
the foundations for lovemaking and just about everything else. I can prove
by logic that squirrel is neither a chicken nor a shrew, through painting
and gastronomic manipulation that a squirrel is both. Reality is a matter
of perception but not of opinion.
> I find painting and drawing, as acts in themselves, are more important to me
> than the result (though that is very important) and certainly more important
> that acceptance by other people. The act of pictorial creation is one of
> the most absorbing and exciting that I know!
Painting is a perceptual device, the end result is of least importance
to the artist but of grave importance to the human race in general.
Bryn Thomas Ayers
br...@wralaw.com
gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> In article <73lrga$lo8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > afraid Goedels Theorem is the real heart of our problem.
> >
> An awful lot of people have wanted to put some mystical meaning into Goedel's
> Theorem because it sounded as if it had dealt a blow to logic, of course, it
> didn't! All Goedel showed was that in arithmetic (and only arithmetic, it
> doesn't apply to any other mathematics) an axiom system rich enough to
> prove all theorems would be contradictory, an that one that was not
> contradictory could not prove all the theorems. If you read the proof
> and see how this is established, you can see that it does not apply to
> any other field of discourse.
>
> Now, what did you think it was all about?
Bryn Ayers of North America
gwen_...@cybergal.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <73tpv3$qun$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> > In article <73lrga$lo8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > > Well that was a red haring or more accurately lobster roe. But I'm
> > > afraid Goedels Theorem is the real heart of our problem.
> > >
> > An awful lot of people have wanted to put some mystical meaning into
Goedel's
> > Theorem because it sounded as if it had dealt a blow to logic, of course, it
> > didn't! All Goedel showed was that in arithmetic (and only arithmetic, it
> > doesn't apply to any other mathematics) an axiom system rich enough to
> > prove all theorems would be contradictory, an that one that was not
> > contradictory could not prove all the theorems. If you read the proof
> > and see how this is established, you can see that it does not apply to
> > any other field of discourse.
> So Goedels Theorem is in your opinion trite.
>
it wasinvaluable.
An awful lot of people have tried to make more of it than this, though. For
some reason, that is not clear to me, people with know knowledge of maths (so
who cannot have read and understood the theorem) find something exciting
about it - I suppose it is a bit like me, when I was a child, I loved the
word 'uvula', it had such a delightful sound, but I knew nothing about the
structure, its function or its problems.
>
> >
> > Now, what did you think it was all about?
>
Why not answer this question?
--
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
Jan Morris - The matter of Wales, E
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
gwen_...@cybergal.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
> It's an obscure tirade. One of my clearest so far. If you memorize it
> and say it everyday you will come over time to understand that most of what
> I said is in fact the truth. The principals of painting and cooking are
> the foundations for lovemaking and just about everything else. I can prove
> by logic that squirrel is neither a chicken nor a shrew, through painting
> and gastronomic manipulation that a squirrel is both. Reality is a matter
> of perception but not of opinion.
>
said before! I think you use 'prove' very vaguely here. A squirrel is similar
in taste to a chicken, and may look like a shrew in a painting, but it is
most certainly not either - it is still a squirrel.
>
> > I find painting and drawing, as acts in themselves, are more important to me
> > than the result (though that is very important) and certainly more important
> > that acceptance by other people. The act of pictorial creation is one of
> > the most absorbing and exciting that I know!
> Painting is a perceptual device, the end result is of least importance
> to the artist but of grave importance to the human race in general.
>
painter of something that help the understanding or appreciation of the human
condition is important for everybody - it would be wrong for the painter to
destroy it.
However, I think that for an artist, the moment of creation must be more
important than all the rest, recognition, money, fame etc. etc.. If this
were not so, then many first rate artists would have just given up.