AbStRaCt?
drookes
Is abstract an easy out? For the artist, the viewer, the patron, the
analyst? Is it a wonderful way for all to sound so very intellectual on
the cheap? Take Twombley. Can anyone tell a good one from a disaster?
Did he have a good day or bad.....or do we just accept him on the basis
that he is above criticism? Has anyone out there heard such utterances
as: Hey, that Pollock is the pits; or that Kline is so banal.
The writers are having a ball coming up with more impressive forms of
ArtSpeak: "the continuum of the concept is contained in the creation."
Sure and the "pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon."
Did the industrialist who paid 6 million for a Johns see something in it
that was worth the price or was he told (by the slick dealer) that here
was the true icon of the twentieth century. And while we're at it,
wouldn't you say that the art schools would have an easier time of it
not training with fundamentals and rather allowing the young minds go to
it with wild abandon?
How many times has the student seen a art professor demonstrate a
painting in front of the class? Their reasons for not doing so are
generally these two: we don't want the student emulating us or we are
not here to perform or entertain but to "enlighten."
In theater, music, dance there are many demonstrations and passage
examples that are conveyed to the students. Not so in art colleges. So
sad. H.B.
drookes
> No easier than any other art form. I'm curious why you single out abstract
> art in particular. Sounds as if you have an ax to grind. I was of the
> opinion that abstract art is very much less 'popular' these days, and
> easier to attack than in the past. This having no bearing on the art of
> course, but rather on fashion and popularity in the art world.
Okay, I was using abstract as a generic term. Let's instead say much
that is "Modern." And you are right, I do have an ax to hone. Your use
of the words "popular" and "fashion" are quite germain to my pique. We
can so often be sucked into fashion by some quite brilliant minds.
Clement Greenberg and Robert Hughes come to mind. In fact a few years
ago Hughes was running around North America telling us all what was hot
and what was not. In their own unique way most art analysts are laying
same. Whether we buy into it or not is the question. When one wants to
sound clued in, then by all means that person can leap into great
wordage about what Rivers REALLY means. Without going on, I think you
know my grind.
> What in gods name are you talking about? If one has something moving and
> insightful to say, something intelligible perhaps, does it matter what
> form the art takes? A critics job is to look and to think. Why limit ones
> experiences and insights. On the other hand, if there is nothing upstairs
> there is nothing upstairs: a figurative work isn't going to turn one into
> a philosopher.
Please explain what you mean by "figurative work not turning one into a
philosopher." Are you panning figurative or are you panning
philosophers.<g>
Most art critics are very good using words but are very lacking in truly
analyzing a work of art. (Of course you and I will be differing plenty
at what we think is "art.") Incidentally, and this may heat you up, I
can't think of too many art critics who are non-artists who have much to
say. I'm ready to duck!!
You say "what a work can mean." I am rather bored with artists trying
to "say something." Let's not get into Goya's great etchings on the
horrors of war. Let's just look at your average contemporary artist.
Most rely upon their glorified doodles being obscure enough to "force"
and (snicker) "challenge" the viewer into thinking there is really
something heavy happening. Like a Rorschack (sp) test. I'm a born
cynic. How about you.
As easily as any other artist. Of course these judgements are not
> objective. Don't be confused with a critics opinion and your own elevation
> of that same opinion to absolute objective truth. Take all opinions with a
> grain of NaCL(salt), including your own.
I really don't take my opinion with a grain of salt. I take it quite
seriously. I do laugh at my own being with flaws and all but I take my
thoughts with a certain weight............and bias! I am never
confused with a critics opinion and my own insight.
Yes. What is your point here?
Many of our so called icons have hit such rarified air that most purists
are feared to name names: that Pollock stinks!!! But then I must admit
that I really can't tell a good from a bad in this area. Can you???
Now, now, now; be honest.
Clever investors don't let personal opinions get in the
> way of profit, not on that scale. It's all the same: pig bellies, crude
> oil, paintings, real estate. I think you are confusing investment with
> aesthetics.
Of course on this I agree with you. I was merely posing the question in
a snide way.
How many times has the student seen a art professor demonstrate a
> > painting in front of the class? Their reasons for not doing so are
> > generally these two: we don't want the student emulating us or we are
> > not here to perform or entertain but to "enlighten."
> > In theater, music, dance there are many demonstrations and passage
> > examples that are conveyed to the students. Not so in art colleges. So
> > sad. H.B.
>
> I had a painting teacher demonstrate ink painting. And this was well into
> my undergrad study. He first set some icon/alters on a desk, lit incense,
> rung a tiny bell and roamed the room to clear the air of spirits, then
> meditated for quite a while. After a spell he sprung to life like a jackle
> and attacked the sheet of paper on the desk in an instant with a fully
> charged ink brush and let out a roar the likes of which I am not certain I
> have heard since. Paint went all over the place, including several
> onlookers and the paper. It was entertaining AND enlightening. He is an
> AbEx painter heavily Zen/Japan/Indian influenced. The concentration of
> energy was astounding. Paticularly from a mild manneed man well into his
> 50's. Of course, this was rare, but worked because of it's intesity and
> speed (and because he was introducing us to the oriental calligraphic and
> ink painting tradition in a non-studio seminar class). He was getting us
> into the art of those that concentrated everything into a single gesture,
> a single line. A qoute from a recent rock climibng equipment catalogue:
> "there is a Japanese form of painting where the paper is so delicate that
> if the artist makes an abrupt or unnatural stroke, the parchment will
> tear. It's like enforced simplicity--too much thought and you're lost".
> But in general, why would one really want to watch someone paint a
> painting...it seems about as exciting as watching grass grow.
It seems you had a bad time with demonstrations. As with a P. Domingo
seminar on the voice, a demonstration of ideas and approaches is worth
more than a million pretty words. Watching a master (rare in most
colleges) draw a nude, explaining universal truths whilst proceeding,
will bring tears to the hungry student. Again, Matisse saw the fallacy
in the newer art schools: students were allowed to do their own thing.
He felt at the time this would be the beginning of the end. Florid B.S.
would replace tough years of academic slugging. Demonstrations that are
well executed in an art school are very rare and I could go on for hours
about their positive benefits.
No, my friend, they are not as banal as watching grass grow.
Without trying to get into heat and not enlightenment, on this score you
don't know what you are talking about. Cordially, H.B.
Neal Weiss
> Is abstract an easy out? For the artist, the viewer, the patron, the
> analyst?
No easier than any other art form. I'm curious why you single out abstract
art in particular. Sounds as if you have an ax to grind. I was of the
opinion that abstract art is very much less 'popular' these days, and
easier to attack than in the past. This having no bearing on the art of
course, but rather on fashion and popularity in the art world.
> Is it a wonderful way for all to sound so very intellectual on
> the cheap?
What in gods name are you talking about? If one has something moving and
insightful to say, something intelligible perhaps, does it matter what
form the art takes? A critics job is to look and to think. Why limit ones
experiences and insights. On the other hand, if there is nothing upstairs
there is nothing upstairs: a figurative work isn't going to turn one into
a philosopher.
There is criticism that strives to be evaluative, to discern good from
bad, within the general field of art and within an individual artist's
production. There is other criticism that strives to interpret, to find
what a work of art can mean, obstensibly without an evaluative function
(ie, good or bad).
> Take Twombley. Can anyone tell a good one from a disaster?
> Did he have a good day or bad.....or do we just accept him on the basis
> that he is above criticism?
As easily as any other artist. Of course these judgements are not
objective. Don't be confused with a critics opinion and your own elevation
of that same opinion to absolute objective truth. Take all opinions with a
grain of NaCL(salt), including your own.
> Has anyone out there heard such utterances
> as: Hey, that Pollock is the pits; or that Kline is so banal.
Yes. What is your point here?
> Did the industrialist who paid 6 million for a Johns see something in it
> that was worth the price or was he told (by the slick dealer) that here
> was the true icon of the twentieth century.
I am hoping that he saw dollar signs, if he is dropping that kind of cash
on an investment. Clever investors don't let personal opinions get in the
way of profit, not on that scale. It's all the same: pig bellies, crude
oil, paintings, real estate. I think you are confusing investment with
aesthetics.
> And while we're at it,
> wouldn't you say that the art schools would have an easier time of it
> not training with fundamentals and rather allowing the young minds go to
> it with wild abandon?
Lee Gordon Seebach
Neal Weiss wrote:
> But in general, why would one really want to watch someone paint a
> painting...it seems about as exciting as watching grass grow.
I've seen Bettina Steinke, an incredibly accomplished portrait artist,
paint a color study from a model.
I watched Irving Shapiro (AWS) paint numerous watercolor
demonstrations, while one of his students at the American Academy of
Art.
I've observed many artist-friends in action, as we painted side-by-side
on location, or as we did portraits of each other. I've sat for
portraits by artist-friends and watched them work.
To see someone who knows what they're doing actually execute a work of
art is an astounding experience, but only if you are interested in
soaking up some valuable knowledge and insights. To observe their
attitude, their approach, to watch them falter perhaps and then recover,
to learn their procedures first hand, to listen to them mutter something
under their breath, to listen to their jokes, it's all beneficial
exposure. I've painted with some of the best: Richard Schmid, Paul
Strisik, Walt Gonske and Rod Goebel, to name just a very few. I learned
from all of them, and they learned from me. I've demonstrated before
groups. People have sat behind me and watched me paint or draw.
What a great thing it must have been to witness William Merritt Chase
do a fish still life demonstration! Or paint with John Singer Sargent.
How about Charles Hawthorne and one of his model-on-the-beach demos in
Provincetown. I'd trade quite a bit to be able to transport myself back
in time to experience any one of these.
We learn a great deal by role-modeling and by observation. A
demonstration is a fabulous teaching method.
--
Lee Gordon Seebach
Seebach Fine Art: http://www.seebach.com/sfa/
Neal Weiss
> Okay, I was using abstract as a generic term. Let's instead say much
> that is "Modern." And you are right, I do have an ax to hone. Your use
> of the words "popular" and "fashion" are quite germain to my pique. We
> can so often be sucked into fashion by some quite brilliant minds.
Single point perspective drawing became a fashionable and popular art
activity in the early 1500's. Lot's of folks were sucked into it by some
brilliant minds. LdaV comes to mind.
> > A critics job is to look and to think. Why limit ones
> > experiences and insights. On the other hand, if there is nothing upstairs
> > there is nothing upstairs: a figurative work isn't going to turn one into
> > a philosopher.
>
> Please explain what you mean by "figurative work not turning one into a
> philosopher." Are you panning figurative or are you panning
> philosophers.<g>
Simple. A critics job is to look and to think. It doesn't matter what he
is looking at as long as he is integrating it into his experience and
giving it expression. The object has no special emmanance or privilidge.
Just because you attempt to deride abstract art does nothing to alter
insights that a critic may have and express...likewise, figurative art is
not some special artistic category that deserves and produces sublime
insights. Personally, speaking as a painter and someone intimite with
theory and criticism, I think that the terms abstract and figurative are
obsolete. Likewise the terms representational and nonrepresentational.
There is too much cross over between what was once a rigid boundry, so
much so that they now often inhere within one another. And btw, I never
gave much credence to the idea of the one form of painting over the other.
Categories are broad and encompass so much. I was always simply interested
in what interested, excited, and inspired me and uninterested in the rest
of it(without locking it out forever). Of course, my interests change
daily. I am an artist: why hem myself into an aesthetic prison? then spend
the rest of my life in fear and ignorance trying to defend my errors.
> Most art critics are very good using words but are very lacking in truly
> analyzing a work of art. (Of course you and I will be differing plenty
> at what we think is "art.") Incidentally, and this may heat you up, I
> can't think of too many art critics who are non-artists who have much to
> say. I'm ready to duck!!
Bernard Berenson.
Your comments here are not only highly prejudiced they are entirely uninformed
(which is I would quess, at the root of your arguements. I think if you
had a vaster panarama of the formal qualities of all painting, both
contemporary and historical, and benefited from the insights of those
non-artists, you would be led to understand that much of what you value in
your figurative art exists in other art forms as well, and perhaps be led
to realize what is perhaps weak and overlooked in your own work, through
your own force of habit and limited perspective.
> You say "what a work can mean." I am rather bored with artists trying
> to "say something." Let's not get into Goya's great etchings on the
> horrors of war.
> Let's just look at your average contemporary artist.
> Most rely upon their glorified doodles being obscure enough to "force"
> and (snicker) "challenge" the viewer into thinking there is really
> something heavy happening. Like a Rorschack (sp) test. I'm a born
> cynic. How about you.
Yes.
I am going to call you on it here. Sorry, no more GENERIC "average
contemprary artists" and "glorified doodling stereotypes". Give me titles.
Give me particular paintings, better yet, so as not to diminish the
insights by choosing any number of worthless cast-offs secreted by any
artist, past or present,... refer to specific paintings in a major musuem
collection. No more generalities...for I fear these generalities are
simply (to evoke Goya) 'the sleep of reason' ...as well as the sleep of
direct experience. I suspect that your 'generic examples' are nothing more
than an imaginary prototype of all your paranoias and prejudices. And
further more, you sound an awfully alot like these "non-artist" critics
who you are attacking, only you are not even remotely as insightful,
explanatory, or cogent, indeed your much less so (I am not intending to be
rude here, but only direct you to your own arguements, proclamations, and
shortcomings). Fortunately other painters make work independent of your
thought processes. I for one, am grateful to individuals, whether they
make art or not (the destinction isn't germaine if one can see and think)
for being limpid and penetrating in their relations of their experiences
before art. Conversly, if on can paint, or think they can paint, yet still
have nothing to offer verbally by way of fresh platinum insights or
simple penetrating articualtion...why bother listening? It's empty drivel
no matter what sentiments drive it: rancor, jealousy, pride, ressentiment,
or sincerety.
> but I take my thoughts with a certain weight............and bias! I am never
> confused with a critics opinion and my own insight.
Perhaps too much weight. I recommend becoming more confused. It will only
benefit you into new synthesis, and alternative perspective.
> It seems you had a bad time with demonstrations.
<<big snip>>
> No, my friend, they are not as banal as watching grass grow.
> Without trying to get into heat and not enlightenment, on this score you
> don't know what you are talking about.
You misunderstand me, my friend. I enjoyed the ink paint demonstration
immensly ( I suppose you are more intimate with my experiences than I am).
And yes, I do know precisely what I am talking about...I was bored with
watching lame pedestrian demostrations (either of paintng, drawing,
rhetoric,or theory) when I could be involved in something of great
interest myself (the anatomy dissection demonstrations at Columbia were
another exciting exception). Likewise this thread is feeling like those
demonstrations: pedestrian, dry haired, and retrograde. I am going to exit
here: good luck on the looking and the making.
drookes
Neal Weiss wrote:
>
. A critics job is to look and to think. It doesn't matter what he
> is looking at as long as he is integrating it into his experience and
> giving it expression. The object has no special emmanance or privilidge.
> Just because you attempt to deride abstract art does nothing to alter
> insights that a critic may have and express...likewise, figurative art is
> not some special artistic category that deserves and produces sublime
> insights. Personally, speaking as a painter and someone intimite with
> theory and criticism, I think that the terms abstract and figurative are
> obsolete. Likewise the terms representational and nonrepresentational.
> There is too much cross over between what was once a rigid boundry, so
> much so that they now often inhere within one another. And btw, I never
> gave much credence to the idea of the one form of painting over the other.
> Categories are broad and encompass so much. I was always simply interested
> in what interested, excited, and inspired me and uninterested in the rest
> of it(without locking it out forever). Of course, my interests change
> daily. I am an artist: why hem myself into an aesthetic prison? then spend
> the rest of my life in fear and ignorance trying to defend my errors.
>
Brilliant in his own way. But he could not analyze a painting. No one
can analyze a painting better than someone who paints. (to jump ahead
to your retort to this retort, yes, most artist don't analyze but there
are a select few that are fiercely good.) I am talking of the actual
act of painting itself. Sir Clark of England is another good example of
one who oversees the schools of art in their historic context, how one
will influence the other, etc.
There is a grey area between represent. and nonrep. art but as we have
little time and space it cuts through the blather. If that doesn't suit
you, fine. You are all things to all art and that is also fine. All
these wonderful influences and such, and I'm happy for you. I've had a
half a century of them and now somewhat more focused without apologies.
Where I'm at and where I'm looking has much more than enough aspects to
keep me very scintilated for several lifetimes. Your interests that
"change daily" puts you into the catagory of hyper-renaissance man. My
mind is not quite that elastic.
I think if you
> had a vaster panarama of the formal qualities of all painting, both
> contemporary and historical, and benefited from the insights of those
> non-artists, you would be led to understand that much of what you value in
> your figurative art exists in other art forms as well, and perhaps be led
> to realize what is perhaps weak and overlooked in your own work, through
> your own force of habit and limited perspective.
>
We should perhaps quit flinging inuendoes at one another. Your thoughts
of my "limited perspective" is interesting. As well, your concern of
my blindness in what is "weak and overlooked" in my work is
commendable. I have enough insecurities with my life and work to keep
me on the edge. (I do take criticism very well, if the person giving it
knows what he/she is talking about and means it in a constructive way.)
To reiterate, non artists talking about art should be accepted only in
their limited way.
> I am going to call you on it here. Sorry, no more GENERIC "average
> contemprary artists" and "glorified doodling stereotypes". Give me titles.
> Give me particular paintings, better yet, so as not to diminish the
> insights by choosing any number of worthless cast-offs secreted by any
> artist, past or present,... refer to specific paintings in a major musuem
> collection. No more generalities...for I fear these generalities are
> simply (to evoke Goya) 'the sleep of reason' ...as well as the sleep of
> direct experience. I suspect that your 'generic examples' are nothing more
> than an imaginary prototype of all your paranoias and prejudices. And
> further more, you sound an awfully alot like these "non-artist" critics
> who you are attacking, only you are not even remotely as insightful,
> explanatory, or cogent, indeed your much less so (I am not intending to be
> rude here, but only direct you to your own arguements, proclamations, and
> shortcomings). Fortunately other painters make work independent of your
> thought processes. I for one, am grateful to individuals, whether they
> make art or not (the destinction isn't germaine if one can see and think)
> for being limpid and penetrating in their relations of their experiences
> before art. Conversly, if on can paint, or think they can paint, yet still
> have nothing to offer verbally by way of fresh platinum insights or
> simple penetrating articualtion...why bother listening? It's empty drivel
> no matter what sentiments drive it: rancor, jealousy, pride, ressentiment,
> or sincerety.
How did you know I was paranoic? And how did you know I was prejudiced?
From a few simple sentences, you gleaned all of this! My word!! I am
also asuming that many of these other qualities in this paragraph are
attributed to me. I suppose I deserve a few of them, having jumped into
this give and take. We can talk of any number of Pollock's taschist
works. Or any of Rheinhardt's black works. They can certainly be
intellectualized to death but I would like your drift on their
execution, their approach, their color, their dynamics. Just your
observation as to them as visual works of art. What they do to you
personally is another matter and another time. I'm on holiday at this
moment and wouldn't be able to tie up with a particular work so we have
to be semi-generic. If you don't mind. I'll know what you are talking
about.
> Perhaps too much weight. I recommend becoming more confused. It will only
> benefit you into new synthesis, and alternative perspective.
No, no, no. I don't want to be more confused. I know this is your
unique way of leading me to enlightenment. I have my own methods thank
you. Instead of confusion, I like to ponder many things. Some will get
resolved, others will take a lifetime. Confusion sets in without us
seeking it.
ou misunderstand me, my friend. I enjoyed the ink paint demonstration
> immensly ( I suppose you are more intimate with my experiences than I am).
> And yes, I do know precisely what I am talking about...I was bored with
> watching lame pedestrian demostrations (either of paintng, drawing,
> rhetoric,or theory) when I could be involved in something of great
> interest myself (the anatomy dissection demonstrations at Columbia were
> another exciting exception). Likewise this thread is feeling like those
> demonstrations: pedestrian, dry haired, and retrograde. I am going to exit
> here: good luck on the looking and the making.
As I mentioned in another note, there are of course different degrees of
demos. I'm glad you found some good ones. This then confirms that you
feel they are not all useless. Fine. We meet on these grounds. I'm am
sure that we probably agree on many things but are at this point shaking
each other by the shoulders to see what gives. We both know at this
point that we are in quite different worlds. Both legit for sure. We
probably differ in movies and types of spagetti. But picking brains is
good for the soul and mind if the participants allow these differences.
Thank you for your reply. H.B.
Neal Weiss
In article <32C21E...@direct.ca>, drookes <dro...@direct.ca> wrote:
> Neal Weiss wrote:
>
> Berenson doesn't cut it. He was more adept at historical context.
> Brilliant in his own way. But he could not analyze a painting. No one
> can analyze a painting better than someone who paints. (to jump ahead
> to your retort to this retort, yes, most artist don't analyze but there
> are a select few that are fiercely good.) I am talking of the actual
> act of painting itself. Sir Clark of England is another good example of
> one who oversees the schools of art in their historic context, how one
> will influence the other, etc.
Get out the bandages...he cuts.
I mentioned Bereson because I thought that he would be closer to what I
was assuming to be your artistic models(according to what I was gleaning
through a cursory visit through your posts) than some of the other
sources. I will eminently disagree with you (if I am reading you
correctly...although admittedly I am no expert on Bereson, in fact have
read little of him and that was quite some time ago...and minimally at
that, but I decided to rally to his cause anyway, well because maybe I
sensed in my virtually useless perusal of him that there was something to
be had of worth if the time was devoted to it, and the openness to relate
his looking with my own concerns)...that he was a mere contextualizer and
tracker of influences, I will dismiss immediately as reckless drivel.
Okay.
I own one book on the man, a used volume not unlike a picture book, rather
light, nothing dense and pretentious: you get a full page repo, then a few
offhand remarks, rather like Berenson skipping through an open field of
daisies, perhaps even enjoying a balmy picnic lunch, and savoring
aesthetic morsels...a smorgarsbord. The book is given the impressive title
of, LOOKING AT PAINTINGS WITH BERNARD BERENSON , Harry N. Abrams, NY,
1974.
Here is an excerpt from the intro. by Hanna Keil (the facing plate is a
nice black and white photo of Berenson looking very much the human
mushroom standing in his study backgrounded by the Neroccoi Madonna).
"Space composition, as found in the works of the Central Italian
Renaissance, is described as an essential contribution to the art of the
Renaissance, but also as an emotional experience which reaches beyond the
boundaries of time. He presented it as an experience which, although
having it's source in the ego of the artist, can liberate the viewer from
the thrall of his own ego, and by transporting himself into the
spaciousness of the world represented, permit him for the length of a
blessed moment to feel one with the universe"
(now: whether or not I care for this courting of transcendence is not at
issue: the man was woven deeply into his subject matter and he knew his
subject)
The following is an excerpt I have selected randomly, of Berenson making
erudite remarks , these referring to a drawing used as a study for the
PRESENTATION OF THE VIRGIN fresco, which is contrasted on the next page.
-on TADDEO GADDI(documented since 1334, died no later than 1366: pupil and
assistant to Giotto) ,, drawing, Cabinet Dessins, The Louvre, Paris.
To wit :
(paragraph #2 out of 4)
"The mastery of a Trecento artist revealed itself in the treatment of
draperies, and by their means only, that he attempted to model the figure
and communicate the sense of it's existence. Giotto here attained to a
degree of excellence that has never been surpassed, not even by Massacio
or Michelangelo. But his followers from generation to generation had a
dimmer and dimmer understanding of the reason for such and such and no
other folds, tended more and more to think of them as ready made patterns,
and in obedience with the laws which doom the "successive copying" of a
mere design to a further and further departure from the original, they
ended by doing draperies almost as scrawly and as little expressive of
form as were those of Giotto's uncouth precursors."
...Berenson is talking about a drawing study for a fresco, than on the
next page addresses the fresco itself. He finds differences in form and
execution, rendering, ability in the simple transition between the two
mediums. He is generous at times, hard at others, and in four short
paragraphs (total package, then he moves on) , he gives cursory exegesis
to two works, and a good quarter mile of looking.
Let us consider, for argument's sake, of reducing his usefulness and
achievements down to that of a meager player in the game of spending a
lifetime at being a mere contextualizer and tracker of influences in a
hotbed period of Western pictorial tradition, which is not at all like the
drudgery of sorting beans in the basement. Having the range and insight to
reorder a tradition takes a bit of know how, takes some concentrated
looking, perhaps more intensely than many artists are up for(indeed, the
man's scholarship seems to have been rather respectable...I know...I know:
scholars all are lowlife scum, they don't have that mystical, magic mantle
of immunity that artists enjoy: you wield a stick with hair on it and an
wave it around a few times, a little abra cadabra, huff a little
turpentine, visit the Uffizi once in your life and rag through a book of
misregistered and poorly color corrected repossessed repos and your
opinion and looking abilities, your intrinsic compare-and-contrast and
shear observation abilities far surpass the seasoned vets ). I'm sure if
you sat yourself down with Bernie, bet the house limit ,category:
Renaissance painting--formal innovation--painterly development--lines of
influence, ECTECT., and played your hand, you would be in grisly shape
come 2:00 AM.. Okay, if you brought a partner, anyone living or dead, I
still don't think you would be faring much better. (Careful here: he'd
fleece you not just on the knowledge, but most likely on the betting as
well: the man made a nice little living for himself to boot, have you seen
the Tucson Villa he scored! Dude. The man was a PLAYER, a fuckin'
contender...apparently he set himself up as the right hand adviser to the
MAN, Mafioso or not, that monopolized the trade in Italian paintings. He
certainly wasn't drinking bathwater in that Villa of his! And if he had
occasion to hit the pipe now and again in his private library or garden
you can be sure it was hi-grade action).
I think his pride was a privately assembled library. He was fluent in
numerous languages (German, Russian, Hebrew--these former by the age of
eight, later Arabic, and surely Italian at some point, and got what he
wanted out of Sanskrit and Assyrian, and god knows what else) I'm sure the
guy could pass a not uninteresting afternoon laying down offhand comments
about some obscure painting in some rat's nest of a cloister.
Sounds rather brilliant to me. Have you ever experienced the presence of
someone brilliant? Not just bright or sharp, or smart or witty , but
brilliant? Fucken' AAA, 5 star, hot molten shit mind, burning with an
intense superheated white light? If you ever have occasion to, your quite
fortunate, cause it has been my experience that they are rather very rare
indeed.
By dismissing the likes of a Berenson, who did you have in mind, if you
don't mind my asking?
Draw your saber Drooges, Bernard wants a duel. The man wants to show you
he can cut.
> There is a gray area between represent. and nonrep. art but as we have
little >time and space it cuts through the blather.
Tough shit. Make the space, find the time (I could care two shits about
bandwidth hoggin' nonsense: what the fuck else are we gonna talk about?
Were talkin' Art here. Nothing would make me happier if the entire goddamn
works (and I mean the ENTIRE goddamn works) got clogged up because of the
high octane shit that was getting slung around. And the rest of you lead
butts, you freak show lurkers, sharpen your teeth and jump in, this isn't
a two man show. Crawl out of the woodwork you sun starved spineless
roaches.
Its more than gray.
..and important because my art straddles this 'minor interface' (amongst
others). These terms as well seem less than useful. In an era in which
visually we are surrounded by an 'image environment', the nexus of
re-presentations that are evoked when nonrepresentational and abstract art
is invoked, where even what is called 'abstract art' is a
're-presentation' of abstraction, where representational art functions as
a simulation and hyperreal coding over the 'real', [okay, getting sloppy,
getting tired] where all that is 'natural' is seen rather as a specific
cultural construct....well these different forms of expression also inhere
within each other. That old dichotomy doesn't cut much, it leaves too much
out, and assumes obsolete definitions are still functioning and intact.
Me previously:
> I think if you
> > had a vaster panorama of the formal qualities of all painting, both
> > contemporary and historical, and benefited from the insights of those
> > non-artists, you would be led to understand that much of what you value in
> > your figurative art exists in other art forms as well, and perhaps be led
> > to realize what is perhaps weak and overlooked in your own work, through
> > your own force of habit and limited perspective.
Drooges Countered with:
> We should perhaps quit flinging innuendoes at one another. Your thoughts
> of my "limited perspective" is interesting. As well, your concern of
> my blindness in what is "weak and overlooked" in my work is
> commendable. (I do take criticism very well, if the person giving it
> knows what he/she is talking about and means it in a constructive way.)
Why else would one want to receive criticism than to expand their 'limited
perspectives' [and inflate their market value, ETCECT.] and to perhaps
strengthen the 'weak and overlooked' and to better recognize ones 'forces
of habit', other than an insipid stroking of their ego? It seems that is
how we incorporate criticism which is vital: it seems that is what you are
hungry for (in abundant quality and quantity). Relax Drooges,
relax...I'm assuming anyway that anyone doing anything of worth in the
arts is half mad most of the time anyway, just by dint of living
surrounded by and having to interact with a population of nitwits
,completely and irredeemably full of shit. Your seeking out your world of
peerdom, or your hiding from it , whatever...but knocking down
non-painters, non-artists, non-whatevers for their insights,
CATEGORICALLY, and me as well for alluding to the process is
self-defeating. All these comments are to be further boiled in
frustration, the artists necessary industrial hazard.
...to return to the issue of critics: simply staying on the subject of
form and formalism in art criticism, after dismissing Beresnon as a
non-artist and non-entity, you might as well practice a little scorched
earth policy on dreaded abstract painters. Take those fuckers out as
well, I mean, they only doodle anyway, they will hit the deck like blind
children. Lets dismiss them. If you make me your Lieutenant. I will
advise you to start by dismissing someone like....hummm... Frank Stella,
and by not reading his book WORKING SPACE,[ hold on, it's covered in dust
around here somewhere, one moment....................I'm back] Harvard
University Press, 1986, based on a series of 'scholarly' lectures [doubly
damned, twice dismissed....what was it from Joyce's Wake? Double barreled
names for single paralleled Twixty twins? Or was it Single barreled names
for double paralleled Twixty twins?....]
...disregard this [uncredited] editorial blurb from the book's back cover,
as referring to the irrelevant senile mutterings of an indulgent abstract
paint splatterer:
Two Wit:
"Stella uses the crisis of representational art in sixteenth-century Italy
to illuminate the crisis of abstraction in our time. The artists who
followed Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian searched for new
directions to advance their work from beneath the shadow of these great
painters. Caravaggio pointed the way. So today, Stella believes, the
successors to Picasso, Kandinsky, and Pollack must seek a pictorial space
as potent as the one Carravagio developed at the beginning of the
seventeenth century. Stella sees Carravagio as the pivot on whom painting
turns, his consummate illusionism prompting the advance of a more
flexible, more "real" space that allows painting to move and breathe, to
suggest extension and unrestricted motion. Following Carravagio, Rubens'
broad vision of fullness and active volume gave painting a momentum that
helped propel it into the nineteenth century, where it came to rest in the
genius of Géricult and Manet, themselves the precursors of modern
painting.
Unfortunately both contemporary abstract art and figurative painting have
become trapped by ambiguous pictorial space and by a misguided emphasis on
materiality (pigment for pigment;'s sake). Pictorial qualities have given
way to illustrational techniques. Abstract art has become verbal,
defensive, and critical, caught up in theology masquerading as theory.
Stella asserts that painting must understand it's past, make use of the
lucid realism of seventeenth-century Italy, and absorb a Mediterranean
physicality to reinforce the lean spirituality of northern abstraction
pioneered by Mondrian and Malevich.
Stella offers nontraditional evaluations of the works of giants such as
Raphael, Titian, Michelangelo, Picasso, and Pollock, as well as
lesser-known figures including Annibale Carracci, Paulus Potter, and
Morris Louis. The artist's powers of discernment and the profusion of his
ideas and opinions will provoke discussion and argument among
professionals, amateurs, and students of art."
...and Drooges too, might I add! Drooges too!
(dismiss Stella's researches, he is blabbering idiot)
> To reiterate, non artists talking about art should be accepted only in
> their limited way.
I got your limited point.
Still with us gang? In reference to widebrushed dismissals I wrote:
> > I am going to call you on it here. Sorry, no more GENERIC "average
> > contemprary artists" and "glorified doodling stereotypes". Give me titles.
> > Give me particular paintings, better yet, so as not to diminish the
> > insights by choosing any number of worthless cast-offs secreted by any
> > artist, past or present,... refer to specific paintings in a major musuem
> > collection. No more generalities...>
> We can talk of any number of Pollock's taschist
> works. Or any of Rheinhardt's black works. They can certainly be
> intellectualized to death but I would like your drift on their
> execution, their approach, their color, their dynamics. Just your
> observation as to them as visual works of art. What they do to you
> personally is another matter and another time. I'm on holiday at this
> moment and wouldn't be able to tie up with a particular work so we have
> to be semi-generic. If you don't mind. I'll know what you are talking
> about.
No, you wont know. I'll wait till you have taken the time and effort to
open yourself up to the work, and kissed them with your own eyes (consider
it a kind of demonstration!, a demonstration by Pollock...you like
demonstrations, remember?)
Drooges wrote:
> No, no, no. I don't want to be more confused. I know this is your
> unique way of leading me to enlightenment. I have my own methods thank
> you. Instead of confusion, I like to ponder many things. Some will get
> resolved, others will take a lifetime. Confusion sets in without us
> seeking it.
Get a ton of books, quit your job, look at a ton of works, get confused,
get perplexed, fight your way through it fearlessly to convulse your
painting/drawing/whatever forward.
Again, only a recommendation.
Drooges:
> We both know at this
> point that we are in quite different worlds. Both legit for sure. We
> probably differ in movies and types of spagetti. But picking brains is
> good for the soul and mind if the participants allow these differences.
> Thank you for your reply. H.B.
Cheers,
-N
P.S. .somewhere in the cavernous inaccuracies of my unconscious, I started
to refer to you as 'Drooges', I realize now that it is 'Drookes', my
apologies. Tell me nothing further of your identity, gender, age, etc...I
have aquatinted and aquianted myself to you in mystery, mind to mind.
-----------------------------------------
Neal Weiss
Founder: L' Ecole De Fromage.
Originator of a Greater Shoe of Mud.
Finder of the Country Blue Squeak-Out.
drookes
are a select few that are fiercely good.) I am talking of the actual
> > act of painting itself. Sir Clark of England is another good example of
drookes
Neal says: Get out the bandages...he cuts.
> I mentioned Bereson because I thought that he would be closer to what I
> was assuming to be your artistic models(according to what I was gleaning
> through a cursory visit through your posts) than some of the other
> sources.
HB says: Neal, First, I'm H.B. holidaying at D Rookes residence.
I see you are in for the long haul. Fine. I'm two thousand miles
from home, without my library handy for archival backup, but will forge
ahead because I do see the whites of your eyes. Incidentally, good
idea of yours to invite one and all to this friendly Donnybrook.
Although it accomplishes less that we hope, there is always something
learned from the learned.
I though you had understood from my Berenson comments that he has his
place. A large place it is in the context of art history. As I
mentioned he is a brilliant writer of things aesthetic. But to
reiterate, we were talking of critiques I believe. Critiques of art are
somewhat different than comments. He was able to summarize many of the
great movements of art through history and give them their meaning in
the general sense. Important. A critique on the other hand is when one
is able to analyze the guts of a painting. Not just its formal
appearance. But not just analyze, also give, at times helpful appraisal
as to where it is going and perhaps a few ideas as to how to get there.
When I go to the Julliard to study piano, I certainly don't want to get
mixed up with a theorizing author; give me an accomplished, performing
pianist.
(Neal) Let us consider, for argument's sake, of reducing his usefulness
and
> achievements down to that of a meager player in the game of spending a
> lifetime at being a mere contextualizer and tracker of influences in a
> hotbed period of Western pictorial tradition, which is not at all like the
> drudgery of sorting beans in the basement. Having the range and insight to
> reorder a tradition takes a bit of know how, takes some concentrated
> looking, perhaps more intensely than many artists are up for(indeed, the
> man's scholarship seems to have been rather respectable...I know...I know:
> scholars all are lowlife scum, they don't have that mystical, magic mantle
> of immunity that artists enjoy: you wield a stick with hair on it and an
> wave it around a few times, a little abra cadabra, huff a little
> turpentine, visit the Uffizi once in your life and rag through a book of
> misregistered and poorly color corrected repossessed repos and your
> opinion and looking abilities, your intrinsic compare-and-contrast and
> shear observation abilities far surpass the seasoned vets ). I'm sure if
> you sat yourself down with Bernie, bet the house limit ,category:
> Renaissance painting--formal innovation--painterly development--lines of
> influence, ECTECT., and played your hand, you would be in grisly shape
(HB)Yes, yes, Berenson could write and write well about his subject.
Again, this is not what we were discussing. So your many words and
quotes are valuable perhaps at some other time. Not here.
(Neal) > By dismissing the likes of a Berenson, who did you have in
mind, if you
> don't mind my asking?
(HB)As mentioned about Berenson, oh, but I'm beginning to repeat
myself.......
I'm speaking of artist/writers such as Robert Henri, Hawthorne, Joseph
Pennell, W.M. Chase, J.M.Whistler, Reynolds, da Vinci.
(Neal, piqued) Tough shit. Make the space, find the time (I could care
two shits about
> bandwidth hoggin' nonsense: what the fuck else are we gonna talk about?
> Were talkin' Art here. Nothing would make me happier if the entire goddamn
> works (and I mean the ENTIRE goddamn works) got clogged up because of the
> high octane shit that was getting slung around. And the rest of you lead
> butts, you freak show lurkers, sharpen your teeth and jump in, this isn't
> a two man show. Crawl out of the woodwork you sun starved spineless
> roaches.
(HB diplomatically) Hey, Neal, cool it! You're giving yourself a good
case of angst. I enjoy your presence and want you to last. At least as
long as I'm here. After I take my leave, you are on your own, with my
compliments in advance.
(Neal)> Its more than gray.
> ..and important because my art straddles this 'minor interface' (amongst
> others). These terms as well seem less than useful. In an era in which
> visually we are surrounded by an 'image environment', the nexus of
> re-presentations that are evoked when nonrepresentational and abstract art
> is invoked, where even what is called 'abstract art' is a
> 're-presentation' of abstraction, where representational art functions as
> a simulation and hyperreal coding over the 'real', [okay, getting sloppy,
> getting tired] where all that is 'natural' is seen rather as a specific
> cultural construct....well these different forms of expression also inhere
> within each other. That old dichotomy doesn't cut much, it leaves too much
> out, and assumes obsolete definitions are still functioning and intact.
(HB) My apologies, as I had no idea you were in the "gray" area. It's
been years since I've been to college and this paragraph has me
perplexed. Do you mean it as a riddle to unravel or are you trying to
weigh me down in "stream of thought" wordology. Still and all, you know
where I'm coming from and I needn't go over old representational (and
not allowing myself the great warming influence of all the other
options) ground. Old fuddy that I am, you keep kicking me around with
relish at my seeming bull-headedness. But, let's sally
forth.....................
(Neal)> Why else would one want to receive criticism than to expand
their 'limited
> perspectives' [and inflate their market value, ETCECT.] and to perhaps
> strengthen the 'weak and overlooked' and to better recognize ones 'forces
> of habit', other than an insipid stroking of their ego? It seems that is
> how we incorporate criticism which is vital: it seems that is what you are
> hungry for (in abundant quality and quantity). Relax Drooges,
> relax...I'm assuming anyway that anyone doing anything of worth in the
> arts is half mad most of the time anyway, just by dint of living
> surrounded by and having to interact with a population of nitwits
> ,completely and irredeemably full of shit. Your seeking out your world of
> peerdom, or your hiding from it , whatever...but knocking down
> non-painters, non-artists, non-whatevers for their insights,
> CATEGORICALLY, and me as well for alluding to the process is
> self-defeating. All these comments are to be further boiled in
> frustration, the artists necessary industrial hazards.
(HB) Well, of course criticism has its purpose and I'm in full
accordance with it; this was never the problem. The problem is
critiqued by whom. But then again, I repeat myself again. For the
record, some of my best friends are in the "Non-artist" category that
you are flinging around. And yes, I love to hear their thoughts about
art as well as say, Who do the New York Yankees think they are anyway,
or fishing rights between Canada and the U.S.A. But again that is not
the point, or have I already said........
(Neal) > ...to return to the issue of critics: simply staying on the
subject of
> form and formalism in art criticism, after dismissing Beresnon as a
> non-artist and non-entity, you might as well practice a little scorched
> earth policy on dreaded abstract painters. If you make me your Lieutenant. I will advise you to start by dismissing someone like....hummm... Frank Stella,
> and by not reading his book WORKING SPACE,[ hold on, it's covered in dust
> around here somewhere, one moment........
(HB) Now, someone like Stella would be a fun and very informative read.
(Instead of reminding you as to "where I'm coming from" I will
henceforth call it Postulation #1 or pos #1 for short. So, re: Stella,
pos #1.
(Neal) Stella sees Carravagio as the pivot on whom painting
> turns, his consummate illusionism prompting the advance of a more
> flexible, more "real" space that allows painting to move and breathe, to
> suggest extension and unrestricted motion. Following Carravagio, Rubens'
> broad vision of fullness and active volume gave painting a momentum that
> helped propel it into the nineteenth century, where it came to rest in the
> genius of Géricult and Manet, themselves the precursors of modern
> painting.
> Unfortunately both contemporary abstract art and figurative painting have
> become trapped by ambiguous pictorial space and by a misguided emphasis on
> materiality (pigment for pigment;'s sake). Pictorial qualities have given
> way to illustrational techniques. Abstract art has become verbal,
> defensive, and critical, caught up in theology masquerading as theory.
> Stella asserts that painting must understand it's past, make use of the
> lucid realism of seventeenth-century Italy, and absorb a Mediterranean
> physicality to reinforce the lean spirituality of northern abstraction
> pioneered by Mondrian and Malevich.
> Stella offers nontraditional evaluations of the works of giants such as
> Raphael, Titian, Michelangelo, Picasso, and Pollock, as well as
> lesser-known figures including Annibale Carracci, Paulus Potter, and
> Morris Louis. The artist's powers of discernment and the profusion of his
> ideas and opinions will provoke discussion and argument among
> professionals, amateurs, and students of art."
(HB) Stella offers much delicious food for thought and I would pick at
it as a Raven would pick at a dead groundhog: looking for the good
morsels. Who said artists couldn't write about art!!!!! By the way,
remember Brando calling for Stella in "Streetcar Named Desire?" And we
thought Brando was an ignorant slob.
(Neal) > Still with us gang? In reference to wide brushed dismissals I
wrote:
> > > I am going to call you on it here. Sorry, no more GENERIC "average
> > > contemprary artists" and "glorified doodling stereotypes". Give me titles.
(HB) Well, you have me here, Neal. I don't have my library handy. I
know a Rothko when I see one, as well as Tobey, Klee, Chagall, Riley,
and so on. The generalities, for the time being are to give me a
comment on a Pollock (for example). A work of your own choosing. Or
Rothko. Go at it with an in-depth analysis of its visual content.
That's all I ask. I'm not trying to trick you or pull a verbal fast one
here.. Just interested.
( Neal)> No, you wont know. I'll wait till you have taken the time and
effort to
> open yourself up to the work, and kissed them with your own eyes (consider
> it a kind of demonstration!, a demonstration by Pollock...you like
> demonstrations, remember?)
(HB) Here again, so as to acquaint ourselves with a specific work, you
will have to wait 'till we can coordinate same. But in the meantime,
etc pos #1.
(Neal) > Get a ton of books, quit your job, look at a ton of works, get
confused,
> get perplexed, fight your way through it fearlessly to convulse your
> painting/drawing/whatever forward.
> Again, only a recommendation.
(HB) Thanks for the advice, Neal, but I shan't quit my job.
And I've spent decades of confusion with mighty dollops of perplexity.
I have tried to muddle through bravely as you suggest. Yes, and where
has it gotten me? Here with you, getting some "deja vu" on the cheap.
Good therapy. For you as well I'm sure.
What better way to end the banner year of '96 than to have this jolly
discussion with you. You wish to know little of me and I will honor
that request. I will be the ubiquitous HB. I will try my mightiest to
be open minded for a few more days so that you and I can get to the
mother lode aesthetics. Or
whatever.
Cordially, your friend, HB.
(end of act two)
drookes
as Roshomon with various people having various perspectives; how novel
<g>. But we should retain a mental-lite attitude for these last few
days of a grand old year. As Scarlette said "after all, '97 is another
year. In the meantime, I'm sending you an edition of One out of one
piece that accompanies this note. You will get the only copy and all
the rest are to be destroyed; mine included. Until next we chat. H.B.
drookes
As the great sage Gertrude Stein finally had to admit: a urinal is a
urinal is a urinal. It's also an ashtray. An a gas oven is an
execution chamber. And everything and everybody is what we want it or
them to be.
At best it is great fodder to chew upon at late night cultural
gatherings. You know, stuff like, when is a "fly" a "walk"; when it
loses its wings. "What is art" and "What is truth?"
I for one, will not be played like a puppet to very, very, very bright
people who love mind games. Taking common objects and placing them out
of context is old "modern" hat. So many people don't want to look at
themselves or appear to be mental inferiors. Particularly those who
have invested many years as true believers. To think that all this time
has been wasted; the psychological baggage is massive.
Often the more obscure a "work of art" the more some seize upon its so
called significance. Mostly for that reason alone. To "read" into the
twists and swirles simply enhances the moment. They will be somewhat
proud of this accomplishment; ahh! and eurika, they have been able to
define the undefinable.
And a nebulous industry continues to thrive. H.B.
wsparker
drookes wrote:
>
> As the great sage Gertrude Stein finally had to admit: a urinal is a
> urinal is a urinal. It's also an ashtray. An a gas oven is an
> execution chamber. And everything and everybody is what we want it or
> them to be.
Yes, it is either psychosis or poetry you describe. Sometimes it is one
and sometimes the other.
It is category shifting, metaphor making, describing one thing AS IF IT
WERE something else. That is the basis of human language/thought.
BTW I don't deal much with the art of the insane. Just a few of
reasons: there's not enough compelling structure and subtlety; there are
no viable, sustainable and interesting enough references to other art,
it lacks coherence.
> At best it is great fodder to chew upon at late night cultural
> gatherings. You know, stuff like, when is a "fly" a "walk"; when it
> loses its wings. "What is art" and "What is truth?"
Surprisingly perhaps, I find such cultural situations (i.e. drinking,
discussing the opera, partying?) very unproductive yet entertaining to a
point! Kinda like I am finding this newsgroup!
Discussing the basis for art and the implications of a major artist
Marcel Duchamp, won't occur in such situations! Too technical and
specialized!
BTW, Here do all you people realise Duchamp's work extends way beyond
"Fountain?" I mean do you realise the magnitude of his work? "Fountain"
is only one of about a hundred brilliant gestures in his total lifetime
of ART! Not to mention the hundreds of aesthetic objects some of you
"nonconceptualists" might have fun learning about. But don't come into
this house unless you leave your willfullness for ignorance outside!
Otherwise, Please go to the museum of "real" art. Like a "real" man?
>
> I for one, will not be played like a puppet to very, very, very bright
> people who love mind games.
No problem, you may just be lapsing a bit, no one is playing you! Just
stay out of the room! That's all. If you find it interesting c'mon
inside. It has happened/is happening, deal with it!
> Taking common objects and placing them out
> of context is old "modern" hat.
Wrong, it WAS modern NEW HAT when it happened in 1917. Whatever
happened after that is too complicated to say here. But let us take it
on a case by case basis lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> So many people don't want to look at
> themselves or appear to be mental inferiors. Particularly those who
> have invested many years as true believers. To think that all this time
> has been wasted; the psychological baggage is massive.
Here's a wild guess: Are you refering to Duchamp's phrase "as stupid as
a painter?"
Who are you talking about here? Or nevermind just let your posting
dangle like most other posters: I am asking you to clarify what you mean
here, but the nature of this beast is people just say what they think
and feel no further responsibility.
>
> Often the more obscure a "work of art" the more some seize upon its so
> called significance. Mostly for that reason alone. To "read" into the
> twists and swirles simply enhances the moment. They will be somewhat
> proud of this accomplishment; ahh! and eurika, they have been able to
> define the undefinable.
You are not talking about the "Fountain" here because it is by no means
"obscure," right?
You are a doubter, a skeptic I see. You don't trust professionals is
that it? You want certainty? Or, what? What is it? What are you saying?
>
> And a nebulous industry continues to thrive.
What would that be? What is nebulous about a huge bulking art world? Is
it that you don't understand, won't understand, can't understand? All
you have to do is investigate for yourself. There are no hari krishnas
here to annoy you. There's no pressure.
But you insist you have your say about what you think at the moment and
expect that alone to be enough? Just spouting off? What are you trying
to accomplish? Do you want to share ideas? Ostensibly, yes.
BUT WHY WOULD I for example want to share my ideas with someone who is
closed off to what I am considering! They have spent ten minutes
thinking about it and want to blow off a whole incredible series of
events in art history!
I am considering it and have been doing so for thirty years. Let's
discuss the issues, sure, but how about doing some homework first.
We know what you think. And we're interested in how you arrived at
thinking that. Then we find out you just read an article somewhere and
it was so influential it created a monster: you keep going around
declaring "it isn't art!, it isn't art!"
What is even worse for you is that you've fallen into the company of
others who have also read "one little thing that makes a whole lot of
sense" and the rest follows; we all know how powerful peer pressure can
be!!
drookes
Mr. Parker
(you)> Surprisingly perhaps, I find such cultural situations (i.e.
drinking,
> discussing the opera, partying?) very unproductive yet entertaining to a
> point! Kinda like I am finding this newsgroup!
(me)Point well taken; I took a second look at my thought at this point
and it was smug to say the least. Now let's continue.
(you)BTW, Here do all you people realise Duchamp's work extends way
beyond
> "Fountain?" I mean do you realise the magnitude of his work? "Fountain"
> is only one of about a hundred brilliant gestures in his total lifetime
> of ART! Not to mention the hundreds of aesthetic objects some of you
> "nonconceptualists" might have fun learning about. But don't come into
> this house unless you leave your willfullness for ignorance outside!
> Otherwise, Please go to the museum of "real" art. Like a "real" man?
(me)The point here is not to generalize, ( for which our buddy Neal took
me to task) but to grab on to a specific and belabor it. Sometimes
thoughts on one product of an artist slops over to another of his
works. You are assuming plenty in your last couple of sentences. I
gather that you are the the straw-boss around here; giving a heads up to
all who dare enter?
(you) > No problem, you may just be lapsing a bit, no one is playing
you! Just
> stay out of the room! That's all. If you find it interesting c'mon
> inside. It has happened/is happening, deal with it!
(me)Good grief, must I "deal with it." Still and all, I have entered
the room and am new here. Am I not saying things just so; is there a
certain decorum we must abide by? If I want to be cynical, callous,
gently rude, base or just plain stupid, you deal with it.
(you)> > Taking common objects and placing them out
> > of context is old "modern" hat.
>
> Wrong, it WAS modern NEW HAT when it happened in 1917. Whatever
> happened after that is too complicated to say here. But let us take it
> on a case by case basis lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(me)Now you want to be specific and not throw all of Marcel D's works
together. Fine. In my "old hat" statement, I am speaking of the
contemporary use of putting common objects in "out of context"
situations.
(you)> > So many people don't want to look at
> > themselves or appear to be mental inferiors. Particularly those who
> > have invested many years as true believers. To think that all this time
> > has been wasted; the psychological baggage is massive.
>
> Here's a wild guess: Are you refering to Duchamp's phrase "as stupid as
> a painter?"
>
>
> Who are you talking about here? Or nevermind just let your posting
> dangle like most other posters: I am asking you to clarify what you mean
> here, but the nature of this beast is people just say what they think
> and feel no further responsibility.
(me)Certainly I'll clarify if you don't understand. (Even though I
don't personally feel responsible for your misconceptions.) Many an
artist's ego steps in and holds him from making too many course changes
even if the artist seemingly has an extremely wide range of interests
and indugences. I'm not here to debate a point that I have observed with
regularity. If you are a lucky one who has made good choices and feels
there will be no regrets then here's a high five. (More explaining will
be forthcoming if needed.)
(you)> > Often the more obscure a "work of art" the more some seize upon
its so
> > called significance. Mostly for that reason alone. To "read" into the
> > twists and swirles simply enhances the moment. They will be somewhat
> > proud of this accomplishment; ahh! and eurika, they have been able to
> > define the undefinable.
>
> You are not talking about the "Fountain" here because it is by no means
> "obscure," right?
(me)The fountain is indeed obscure. Is it a fountain just because M.D
sez so. Are all urinals to be "fountains." I don't think I want to
play his game. You, and many, are more than willing, which is your
right. I'll be the odd man out. In the broad scheme of things in this
here "modern" art world, this makes me rather unique doesn't it.
Yes, I left myself open on this one but so often I doen't cover my
ass.
(you) > You are a doubter, a skeptic I see. You don't trust
professionals is
> that it? You want certainty? Or, what? What is it? What are you saying?
(me)Actually, what are you saying? But yes, I am a doubter and a
skeptic. This much you have right about me. Such insight!!!
(me) And a nebulous industry continues to thrive.
>
(you)What would that be? What is nebulous about a huge bulking art
world? Is
> it that you don't understand, won't understand, can't understand.
(me)You don't think this hulking art world is nebulous, formless? Oh,
yes, I do understand. The strange beauty of the art world is that it
can't be described. Again, you didn't quite get my meaning. The art
industry has many, many vested interests. From Johns to Castelli to
Hughs to the NY Times to the Institute in Chigago to the High Minded
Buyer.
(you) But you insist you have your say about what you think at the
moment and
> expect that alone to be enough? Just spouting off? What are you trying
> to accomplish? Do you want to share ideas? Ostensibly, yes.
(me)Yes, and it was fun to have my "say at what I think at this
moment." Any problems with that. As YOU are allowed YOUR "say!"
(you) > BUT WHY WOULD I for example want to share my ideas with someone
who is
> closed off to what I am considering! They have spent ten minutes
> thinking about it and want to blow off a whole incredible series of
> events in art history!
(me)If you don't wish to, please don't share your ideas. Are they that
precious that you wish them not to be kicked about as you may have a
habit of doing? Yes, I could write a 50 page diatribe on some such
subject but I have too much pity on the reader. Your dander is up and
your ready for some meaningful give and take. Fine, but first take that
two by four off your shoulder and just allow other people to walk and
talk as they damned well like.
(you)> What is even worse for you is that you've fallen into the company
of
> others who have also read "one little thing that makes a whole lot of
> sense" and the rest follows; we all know how powerful peer pressure can
> be!!
(me)I'm afraid I haven't read that article. You are just going to have
to, if willing, put up with straight from the shoulders stuff. Now, I
want you to keep the level of this discussion on a high plain, your
"peers" will be watching. Such pressure indeed. Cordially,
H.B.
wsparker
drookes wrote:
>
>
> Now let's continue.
Actually I am quite embarassed but in this place it is hard to control
yourself. Also I forget, can't keep good track of, what the people say
in their other postings so all I have is the posting I am deaing with.
Also, this place is kinds like guerrila debate club, there's always
someone who comes along and reduces it all to nothing. I do feel bad
(later, adsurd huh? ) about having to be so declarative and unforgiving.
I guess we all write for effect here, there are no hand gestures, facial
expressions, no remembering the nice guy you had face to face coffee
with, etc. I'm sorry for sounding gruff.
>
> > BTW, Here do all you people realise Duchamp's work extends way
> > beyond
> > "Fountain?" I mean do you realise the magnitude of his work? "Fountain"
> > is only one of about a hundred brilliant gestures in his total lifetime
> > of ART! Not to mention the hundreds of aesthetic objects some of you
> > "nonconceptualists" might have fun learning about. But don't come into
> > this house unless you leave your willfullness for ignorance outside!
> > Otherwise, Please go to the museum of "real" art. Like a "real" man?
>
> The point here is not to generalize, ( for which our buddy Neal took
> me to task) but to grab on to a specific and belabor it. Sometimes
> thoughts on one product of an artist slops over to another of his
> works. You are assuming plenty in your last couple of sentences. I
> gather that you are the the straw-boss around here; giving a heads up to
> all who dare enter?
Yes, I guess so. I have never encountered such hostility in writing and
am trying to straighten it out by saying, don't bother people trying to
discuss what they believe in, if you are just trying to blow them out of
the water. ALSO, I haven't seen any semblence of educated, cogent,
discourse that poses the otherside (anti-Duchampian if you will). It is
all fluff and opinion and people seemingly quite happy with their cause.
So,I say great, just stay out of it, don't be a nusiance.
>
> > No problem, you may just be lapsing a bit, no one is playing
> > you! Just
> > stay out of the room! That's all. If you find it interesting c'mon
> > inside. It has happened/is happening, deal with it!
>
> (me)Good grief, must I "deal with it." Still and all, I have entered
> the room and am new here. Am I not saying things just so; is there a
> certain decorum we must abide by? If I want to be cynical, callous,
> gently rude, base or just plain stupid, you deal with it.
Rude is rude and politeness never goes out of style. I don't think it
gets anywhere when people just jump in with negativity of any form (I
don't mean you).
Where I come from, if you disagree you can do so and respectfully. You
will be assessed as to how well your facts are in order and if you don't
have them in order for a few times in a row, no one hears you anymore.
If you are rude you are as good as dead unless you make ammends and
don't do it anymore. Who needs bad behavior!?
> Now you want to be specific and not throw all of Marcel D's works
> together. Fine. In my "old hat" statement, I am speaking of the
> contemporary use of putting common objects in "out of context"
> situations.
I may have missed something here. But that's all we have,
re-contextualizing stuff that is around us. That is how language works,
creating metahpors, looking at somethign AS IF it were something else,
crossing categories.
>
> Certainly I'll clarify if you don't understand. Many an
> artist's ego steps in and holds him from making too many course changes
> even if the artist seemingly has an extremely wide range of interests
> and indugences. I'm not here to debate a point that I have observed with
> regularity.
That's when money and physical security step in? Right? I'm just asking.
I think the ego is the biggest illusion, but a stubborn one. It can be a
dangerous little pecker too.
> The fountain is indeed obscure. Is it a fountain just because M.D
> sez so. Are all urinals to be "fountains." I don't think I want to
> play his game. You, and many, are more than willing, which is your
> right. I'll be the odd man out. In the broad scheme of things in this
> here "modern" art world, this makes me rather unique doesn't it.
You can play it and stop. I'm not saying that MD's work is my only focus
in my professional life. I was fascinated by it. It has so manyu
connections tto other things. You never stop seeing new things in his
work; ther connections it has to practically everything that follows.
YOu get to know it and it stays with you for a lifetime and always keeps
you amazed when you come back to it. That's why it is so much genius. I
am interested in alot of stuff and Duchamp's is one of that stuff. I'm
very lucky to have had the time to study it over the years. It is just
an issue here, now. I'm rather surprised at the vehement rejection of,
what? Do they really undersatd his work or is it jumping on a bandwagon
of sorts. I think it is peer pressure or something.
I think it has more to do with people defining themselves and willing to
fight to the death over it! It is/is not art!? What a waste of perfectly
good mental energy! Face it: If you (not you specifically) want to
reject something in the vast art world, make a cogent, informed
educated, argument! If you can't do that, either do more research while
you sit tight, or stay the hell out of the faces of people haven't
rejected it.
You'd never have this kind of behavior in real life. I can stand on the
corner all afternoon listening to some religious person (trying to save
the world) all afternoon. He will listen and respond but you know the
outcome if you've ever done this. Nothing will change you will be tired
out.
Here that religious guy stays right in your face! Makes you want to shut
the computer down!
>
> You don't think this hulking art world is nebulous, formless? Oh,
> yes, I do understand. The strange beauty of the art world is that it
> can't be described. Again, you didn't quite get my meaning. The art
> industry has many, many vested interests. From Johns to Castelli to
> Hughs to the NY Times to the Institute in Chigago to the High Minded
> Buyer.
>
Yes there are clear parts in it, like the amateur painter who keeps at
it, the art that sells, the university professors who are stuck, the
young people who will work for peanuts at colleges art depts, I am
making my point, There are hundereds of little pieces. Okay it is
nebulous and it has little solar systems in it.
BTW, interestingly, Castelli himself has said in a major interview he
believes it is all over. It being modernism, painting, art market,
significant art. He was glad to be there when it was all happening, now
he, and many others have seen that it is over! Postmodernism is the
response to the bankruptcy of modernism. The Soviet Union wan't the only
thing to dissolve in the 90s.
>
> (me)Yes, and it was fun to have my "say at what I think at this
> moment." Any problems with that. As YOU are allowed YOUR "say!"
Yes, but I don't think you (not you specifically) would want to burst
into a room and disrupt people earnestly quietly discussing what they
are excited about and announce they are all full of shit talking about
stuff that makes no sense to anybody.
>
> > BUT WHY WOULD I for example want to share my ideas with someone
> > who is
> > closed off to what I am considering! They have spent ten minutes
> > thinking about it and want to blow off a whole incredible series of
> > events in art history!
>
> If you don't wish to, please don't share your ideas. Are they that
> precious that you wish them not to be kicked about as you may have a
> habit of doing?
Of the ideas I hold dear, many are probably not my own ideas. They are
the result of decades of work by some very fine minds, much finer than
my own. When some asshole (not you by anymeans) comes along and trashes
it they are a nusiance, a disruption like a belch.
Also I don't know if extended conversation happens here. There is so
much effort spent trying to define the terms and it doesn't get much
beyond that. Afterall, "doing/thinking" art and a keyboard is not a
teriffic combination.
It's different in other cases where someone is trying to come to grips
with a set of ideas by making terribly unhealthy assumptions, I as a
professor, I have the habit of kicking undeveloped ideas out and about,
sorry.
> Yes, I could write a 50 page diatribe on some such
> subject but I have too much pity on the reader. Your dander is up and
> your ready for some meaningful give and take. Fine, but first take that
> two by four off your shoulder and just allow other people to walk and
> talk as they damned well like.
Let'em! But please, use the honor system and stay within the boundaries.
Yeah, right! Wherever they are! Of course this is impossible in an
unmoderated newsgroup and therefore the sharing is very temporary. This
would be a great place if it were an unmoderated newsgroup about diesel
engine mechanics!
I am sorry if I have been tough on you. We are all struggling, no one
has any advantage over anybody else in that regard.
I am sometimes hard-edged because I dearly wish willful ignorance would
die out, but that's not gonna happen!
There's also a bunch of other reasons but that one is probably the only
one that sounds the best, the most honorable.
Neal Weiss
> (me)The fountain is indeed obscure. Is it a fountain just because M.D
> sez so.
And a Ruebens 'painting' is art because you say it is. Again, Duchamp
mentioned using a Rembrant to iron his socks on. A kind of ironing board.
If that is all there is to the issue, then it is matter of how many people
believe for one perception or the other. This is called consensus. Western
culture has formed a consensus about Ruebens' paintings and about Duchamps
Fountain, and included them both in Art and History. Either or both may be
just as easily removed at a future date, based upon future consensus.
Product of Consensus
-N
drookes
Hi again Mr. Parker,
I wanted to save what you had to say in this note because I think
much of it has great merit for those who are interested. It shows a
side of you that was hiding for lo these past few days. Some of the
ranting and raving has taken back seat to good stuff.
For my part, I will be as brief as possible.
My name, H. Brown. I lived in Canada for half a century and have
now been in Arizona for the past few years. Green Card and all.
I have been a "practicing" artist ever since being kicked out of art
college in the early '60s. Then some time at Art Students' League, NY
and a couple of years studying the figure in London, England. I helped
put myself through some of these years by playing the piano in a
brothel. I know, I can hardly believe it myself, but ahem, those were
great times!
In the first few years of adulthood, I was consumed with modern
art. Yet my own work remained representational. I thought at the time,
that my work was very low in the art food chain. Modern was were it was
at.
As the years fled by, I encountered many brilliant mentors who
helped me SEE and UNDERSTAND the great complexities that realist art
contains: tone (greatley misunderstood by most artists), color, yes
drawing, edges, contrasts, design, patterns, forcing areas, relaxing
other areas, well the list goes on and on. These great challenges
thrilled me as they were made evident. The problems are limitless; sort
of: the more you know, the more you don't know.
I have in former years, spent many a night talking of our friend
Duchamp, and Jim Dine and Rauchenburg and Johns and all the rest. Over
and over again we would go back and forth much like this forum.
This is why it brought me back to chat with the people here.
But as you can see, at this point, I have other fish to fry. I'm
certainly not saying I'm right and all others are wrong. Far from it;
because of my history, I can see the credibility of much that is said
here. Yet, much of what I am studying would not fit in with many of the
headings here. But I have found quite a bit more than of passing
interest.
As with many artists, my world is quite solitary. The studio and
the model. I travel extensively and paint people from around the
world. SouthEast Asia, Russia, the Arctic, and particularly Mexico. It
is a full and exciting life and I hope it goes on into my 90s. I wake
each morning and can't believe my good fortune. Quite different than
when I had to sell my stuff door to door. But as with that wonderful
saying, I followed my bliss.
That's about it for now. I'll be parting in a few days. It's been
an inspiring blast. Maybe a few more notes before I go.
I wish you well, Brown.
Mdeli
Drookis wrote:
>> Taking common objects and placing them out
>> of context is old "modern" hat.
Parker answers:
>Wrong, it WAS modern NEW HAT when it happened in 1917. Whatever
>happened after that is too complicated to say here. But let us take it
>on a case by case basis lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Placing real objects, comon or otherwise, in an unreal
context is a classical exercise in both painting and
sculpture (oriental and occidental). A figure holding a
giant odalisque to the imagery in Bosch (an extreme
example ) should counter the notion that this is a
modern gimmick or that there was anything particularly
new or lastingly shocking in Duchamp’s 1917 pisspot.
Even the long since faded shock value and lengthy
discussion which followed has many precedents in art
history and show biz.
Perhaps Parker might do a study of the great artists
who created plaster doo-doos and pooh-pooh cushions
(for homework of course). These apeared long before the
Pisspot Era and were designed to be placed out of
context.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
wsparker
Mdeli wrote:
>
> Placing real objects, comon or otherwise, in an unreal
> context is a classical exercise in both painting and
> sculpture (oriental and occidental). A figure holding a
> giant odalisque to the imagery in Bosch (an extreme
> example ) should counter the notion that this is a
> modern gimmick or that there was anything particularly
> new or lastingly shocking in Duchamp’s 1917 pisspot.
>
I guess then, Duchamp should have cited these precedents, to avoid
charges of plagerism, surely everybody else in the universe was very,
very familiar with this common practice you describe, and
consequently no one was surprised, (not in the least!) when Duchamp
merely repeated an age old formula... .
I'll be damned, gee thanks for the insight.
Bruce Attah
In article <nweiss-3012...@nweiss.tiac.net>, nwe...@tiac.com
(Neal Weiss) wrote:
> In article <32C6C1...@direct.ca>, drookes <dro...@direct.ca> wrote:
>
> And a Ruebens 'painting' is art because you say it is. Again, Duchamp
> mentioned using a Rembrant to iron his socks on. A kind of ironing board.
Only to the same extent that a Mercedes Benz 190C is an automobile because
I say it is.
Bruce Attah
The problem is not one of plagiarism on Duchamp's part (he was clearly not
a plagiarist), but of bad historiography on the part of his fans, who, by
neglecting precedents, exaggerate the artist's originality, and, thereby,
his "greatness".
We had an example of that in this ng, when someone claimed that Duchamp's
bycicle wheel initiated kinetic sculpture. Aside from the fact the moving
sculpture has plenty of eighteenth and nineteenth century precedents, the
claim understates the far greater importance of several twentieth century
figures in this regard.
Bruce Attah.
Neal Weiss
In article
<Bruce.Attah-02...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
Agreed.