Low Brow vs High Brow, Illustration vs Art
mesken
here make a distinction between art and illustration, something that
is illustration is not art. There's also a similar distinction made by
some between so called low brow and high brow art, high brow art being
the real Art, the fine art, while low brow art is illustration.
Webber states that the distinction is made based upon issues raised by
the work and he excludes illustration from art. While Erik doesn't
exclude illustration, he makes the distinction between low brow art
and high brow art and bases this distinction upon mastery although I
don't know exactly what kind of mastery he means.
Personally, my definition of art is such that it doesn't exclude
illustration, so illustration can be art as well (much like Erik).
Also, I do make the distinction between low brow art (illustration)
and high brow art (the fine arts).
To me, "art" is also a quality label. Art being a mix of skill and
ideas. Both should be present in sufficient magnitude and both are
important (this is why I agree on Deli's "No Skill, No Art" paradigm,
any idea should be executed by a sufficient degree of skill). A lot of
skill carrying an idea should be enough to denotate the work as being
art. Ofcourse skill is the server of the idea, it cannot act on its
own, and skill is developed in order to shape certain ideas and thus
can take on many forms (as examplified by John Moore a little while
ago).
But I do make a distinction between low brow and high brow art and
this distinction is made based upon the ideas which are executed.
Low brow art being expressions of scenes, an illustration of a scene.
"A grown man crying", "The Lord of the rings in his dark tower", "The
city of New York in the morning fog" for example :-)
High brow art being expressions of ideas, ideas about emotions,
feelings, justice, chaos, freedom, etc. The work may take on the shape
of a scene but now the scene is a medium which conveys the deeper main
idea. The scene is no longer the subject, only the carrier, unlike in
illustration where the scene _is_ the subject.
So, low brow art like Vargas work shows you exactly what you directly
see: a pretty girl. It's an illustration of something you can actually
encounter, a pure visual thing and only visual ideas are incorporated
in it (like ideas about skin, facial expressions, likeness, body,
visual beauty in female bodies, etc.)
While high brow stuff like the inevitable "scream" of Munch actually
is about "angst" (as opposed to fear, there's no good english
translation of the dutch/german "angst" I know of) even though it also
takes on the shape of a scene but here the scene serves to convey an
idea, the idea of "angst". "Angst" is a non visual idea, it is a high
level concept, only existing in the non visual mental realm. Note that
"the scream" is not meant as a simple scene of some dude in trouble.
Yet, the distinction can be hard to make between illustration and fine
art for illustrators can incorporate high level concepts to enhance
their illustrations, M.C. Escher is hard to put in one of the
categories (I would argue it is fine art but one could just as easily
argue it is illustration). Sometimes fine art can look like
illustrations, Rembrandt's stuff for example could be dismissed as
illustration. It would be wrong ofcourse.
In fine art (the high brow art) the materials of the artist are really
used to communicate about ideas. Symbols may play a big role and
people like Klee used them masterfully (I love his "twittering
machine"). As soon as symbols are being used, culture becomes a very
important component of the work since most symbols are defined within
a culture (even very simple ones like arrows). A lot of old high brow
art is seen as mere illustration since the symbols are no longer
understood, not even recognized: trees for example posed as symbols
long ago but not anymore.
It's not really different of spoken language. Even though spoken
language is sound it's used to communicate about things that have
nothing to do with sound. There's a difference in a good depiction of
a man in fear and a depiction of the idea of fear itself (possibly
depicted by the aid of a man in fear). This IMO is the difference
between illustration and fine art.
But I wouldn't call all illustration art (low brow art that is). This
is also a point of discussion. The illustrations in medical books
often show great skill but I wouldn't call them art for the reason
that these images don't serve to depict a scene but serve to be a tool
in order to learn. The old flow charts used (more or less :-) to
design computer programs are also such an example but these ones don't
show great skill, they're mere diagrams. They do however serve the
very same function as those beautifull medical illustrations. They're
tools. Ofcourse this point can be disputed and I'm ready to receive
the heat ;-)
So? Anyone? Am I completely right as usual or can my points use some
alteration? ;-)
mark webber
(snip)
> Webber states that the distinction is made based upon issues raised by
> the work and he excludes illustration from art.
Hi Paul,
Look, I'll behave myself if you'll not misinterpret my points of view, ok?
This doesn't accurately reflect my feelings on this, and I've gone into
some detail in a reply just now with Brian, so perhaps you'll have a look
and see where I'm coming from.
It isn't very long, so I hope you'll have a look. And I promise to not
bully you for at least a week, ok?
(more snip)
> So? Anyone? Am I completely right as usual or can my points use some
> alteration? ;-)
You aren't doing badly, but you have a way to go.
best,
Mark
Brian Shapiro
> See, you're grasping at intrinsic qualities that would make the
> distinction. Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it. It's just that
> it doesn't explain how a Durer woodcut could be an illustration in one
> way (a page in a book) and sell for 120 grand at Christys on the other.
> Maybe just 'antique value.'
It would seem to me, based on observation, that postmodernists today seem to
treat art in its very definition as a historic artifact which is reflective
of a culture of a certain society. Because postmodernists, in line with
their philosophies of deconstructionism, relativism, and multiculturalism,
have said that there is no more 'value' in Western art then art of other
cultures, the idea that there is such a thing as good art--or a bounds for
the category of art itself--has dissapeared and been replaced with the
concept of 'important art', or art that serves as important milestones in
art history.This would explain why a Durer illustration of a Rhinocerous is
apparently more valuable than any illustration of a Rhinocerous today,
because you can interpret his detailed works of animals to be symbolic of
the new age of learning and science.
Of course, to add a new spin on an old addage---art history is written by
the victors, so by doing this the postmodernists have placed themselves at
the apex of a 'progression' of art over the centuries.
> Now here's an interesting thought. I don't think an Alberto Vargas could
> ever cross the border between High Art and Low Art. Some low brow stuff
> is just that way. Or, I can't imagine the rules of society changing to
> that degree, to create an opening that would allow a pin-up girlie piece
> to be regarded as High Art by any sort of consensus or authority --
> regardless of the technical achievement of the artist.
And although an Alberto Vargas illustration by itself would never be
considered high art, if you were to soak one in blood and put underneath it
the title "Western Enlightenment", you would probably merit a wall in a
Modern Art Museum.
> Not true. The tree is a common symbol for futility. "I talk to the
> trees, but they don't listen to me..."
German romanticism used the tree as a symbol of hope.
Brian Shapiro
> "A grown man crying", "The Lord of the rings in his dark tower", "The
> city of New York in the morning fog" for example :-)
>
> High brow art being expressions of ideas, ideas about emotions,
> feelings, justice, chaos, freedom, etc. The work may take on the shape
> of a scene but now the scene is a medium which conveys the deeper main
> idea. The scene is no longer the subject, only the carrier, unlike in
> illustration where the scene _is_ the subject.
Why do you say that "a grown man crying", "The Lord of the rings in his dark
tower" and "The city of New York in the morning fog" are any less expressive
of ideas than "A man screaming on a bridge" (The Scream, Munch), "A
depiction of the tower of babel" (A Bosch painting), "A French city in the
morning fog", "Painting of haystacks", or "Painting of water lilies"
(Monets.
The simple fact of the matter is that every piece of artwork can be said to
be an expression of higher ideas, as all art can be interpreted to have
connotation, poetry, or figuration. A depiction of 'a grown man crying', for
example, may be said to be a representation of mid-life, a middle point
between two states of non existence where the grown man is lost in the murky
void of the abyss and feels overcome and trapped by the weight of his being.
'The city of New York in the morning fog' may have New York figured as an
allegory of Modernity, as New York is seen to be the modern city--and the
arising sun, alluding to Platonic thought, is meant as a reference to The
Good, or Knowledge. Because the fog surrounds the city and prevents the
waking men within from seeing the sun in its clarity, one could draw the
conclusion that the fog is a reference to how even modern man--even with all
of his advances in understanding the world---still is trapped by his limited
and contextual perceptory capabilities and can only understand knowledge as
a faint glimmer of hope that he percieves to be far away and out of reach.
Of course, in most cases these analyses when applied to a piece of art which
is described by the titles you gave me would be a stretch and it would be
ridiculous to give them any credence. It is of great probability that such
artworks would be purely illustrative. However, there might be cases in
which art by those titles are not meant to be illustrative, but rather more
meaningful figurations. It is at this point that one would ask how would one
be able to tell the difference between those two situations, and it is the
answer to that very question which would allow us to understand the
difference between what may be considered 'low brow' and 'high brow' art.
--Brian Shapiro
Erik A. Mattila
> Yes, it's time again to discuss the definition of art itself. Many
> here make a distinction between art and illustration, something that
> is illustration is not art. There's also a similar distinction made by
> some between so called low brow and high brow art, high brow art being
> the real Art, the fine art, while low brow art is illustration.
>
> Webber states that the distinction is made based upon issues raised by
> the work and he excludes illustration from art. While Erik doesn't
> exclude illustration, he makes the distinction between low brow art
> and high brow art and bases this distinction upon mastery although I
> don't know exactly what kind of mastery he means.
Not me, Paul. If I said that I completely misrepresented myself. I
tried to make a contextual distinction, which is no more than a matter of
'what is considered high brow" at any given time. That's why I mentioned
the possibility of someone at MOMA promoting an illustrator, or anyone
for that matter, as a 'high artist' and pulling it off. Just consider
some of the famouss 'crossovers' such as Beardsley, Dore or Rockwell
Kent. All three are considered 'high art' (I think Kent is still in
transition) by 'society.' Here, take a look at some of their work:
Aubrey Beardsley
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Metro/6437/galleryf.html
Gustav Dore
http://www.stedwards.edu/hum/klawitter/doreindex.htm
Rockwell Kent
http://www.rochester.edu/MAG/kentfrme.htm
Shakespere's Venus & Adonis Illustrations
> Personally, my definition of art is such that it doesn't exclude
> illustration, so illustration can be art as well (much like Erik).
> Also, I do make the distinction between low brow art (illustration)
> and high brow art (the fine arts).
But I also take the position that we should maintain the distinction
between the hi and low. High Art ain't so high if there's nothing that
it out-shines. I'm just claiming that this is all determined by social
consensus, and in fact there are authoritarian structures in place which
legitimize ant or illegitimize art.
I mean you can always take an opposite position. For example, most of us
argee that skill and mastery is a necessary ingredient of high art - or
any production that deserves the rubric 'art.' OK, but imagine an
extremely egalitarian society which finds the idea of skill and mastery
threatening to the concept of 'all are created equal' and suppress such
as an aesthetic value, since it appears somewhat elitist to the members
of that imaginary society. Accessibility to art is the clarion of the
day, which means that the 'high' value is in something that everyone
could do - like paint by numbers.
> To me, "art" is also a quality label. Art being a mix of skill and
> ideas. Both should be present in sufficient magnitude and both are
> important (this is why I agree on Deli's "No Skill, No Art" paradigm,
> any idea should be executed by a sufficient degree of skill). A lot of
> skill carrying an idea should be enough to denotate the work as being
> art. Ofcourse skill is the server of the idea, it cannot act on its
> own, and skill is developed in order to shape certain ideas and thus
> can take on many forms (as examplified by John Moore a little while
> ago).
Agree, but 'art' is such a clunky term. The only thing I will allow it
to mean, in my personal lexicon, is "art is something that I like."
> But I do make a distinction between low brow and high brow art and
> this distinction is made based upon the ideas which are executed.
>
> Low brow art being expressions of scenes, an illustration of a scene.
> "A grown man crying", "The Lord of the rings in his dark tower", "The
> city of New York in the morning fog" for example :-)
So if Hiermonymous Bosch agrees to illustrate the commemorative
republication of "Lord of the Rings" will the end product be art or
illustration, hi brow or low brow? Let's say that the actual
illustrations in the book are photomechanical reproductions of original
oils, just to blur everything. Hey, we could say the 'originals' are
high art, and the reproductions are low art.
> High brow art being expressions of ideas, ideas about emotions,
> feelings, justice, chaos, freedom, etc. The work may take on the shape
> of a scene but now the scene is a medium which conveys the deeper main
> idea. The scene is no longer the subject, only the carrier, unlike in
> illustration where the scene _is_ the subject.
See, you're grasping at intrinsic qualities that would make the
distinction. Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it. It's just that
it doesn't explain how a Durer woodcut could be an illustration in one
way (a page in a book) and sell for 120 grand at Christys on the other.
Maybe just 'antique value.'
> So, low brow art like Vargas work shows you exactly what you directly
> see: a pretty girl. It's an illustration of something you can actually
> encounter, a pure visual thing and only visual ideas are incorporated
> in it (like ideas about skin, facial expressions, likeness, body,
> visual beauty in female bodies, etc.)
Now here's an interesting thought. I don't think an Alberto Vargas could
ever cross the border between High Art and Low Art. Some low brow stuff
is just that way. Or, I can't imagine the rules of society changing to
that degree, to create an opening that would allow a pin-up girlie piece
to be regarded as High Art by any sort of consensus or authority --
regardless of the technical achievement of the artist.
> While high brow stuff like the inevitable "scream" of Munch actually
> is about "angst" (as opposed to fear, there's no good english
> translation of the dutch/german "angst" I know of) even though it also
> takes on the shape of a scene but here the scene serves to convey an
> idea, the idea of "angst". "Angst" is a non visual idea, it is a high
> level concept, only existing in the non visual mental realm. Note that
> "the scream" is not meant as a simple scene of some dude in trouble.
>
> Yet, the distinction can be hard to make between illustration and fine
> art for illustrators can incorporate high level concepts to enhance
> their illustrations, M.C. Escher is hard to put in one of the
> categories (I would argue it is fine art but one could just as easily
> argue it is illustration). Sometimes fine art can look like
> illustrations, Rembrandt's stuff for example could be dismissed as
> illustration. It would be wrong ofcourse.
I can't help thinking that the only meaningful distinction is a matter of
the market and to some degree intended audiance. You have to consider
all the crossovers in art history - originally commissioned works to
'illustrator' a royal mug, a great political event, or what have you, and
then becoming 'art' in the commerce of museums and art dealers.
> In fine art (the high brow art) the materials of the artist are really
> used to communicate about ideas. Symbols may play a big role and
> people like Klee used them masterfully (I love his "twittering
> machine"). As soon as symbols are being used, culture becomes a very
> important component of the work since most symbols are defined within
> a culture (even very simple ones like arrows). A lot of old high brow
> art is seen as mere illustration since the symbols are no longer
> understood, not even recognized: trees for example posed as symbols
> long ago but not anymore.
Not true. The tree is a common symbol for futility. "I talk to the
trees, but they don't listen to me..."
> It's not really different of spoken language. Even though spoken
> language is sound it's used to communicate about things that have
> nothing to do with sound. There's a difference in a good depiction of
> a man in fear and a depiction of the idea of fear itself (possibly
> depicted by the aid of a man in fear). This IMO is the difference
> between illustration and fine art.
I think Mel Brooks did a pretty good job in "High Anxiety."
> But I wouldn't call all illustration art (low brow art that is). This
> is also a point of discussion. The illustrations in medical books
> often show great skill but I wouldn't call them art for the reason
> that these images don't serve to depict a scene but serve to be a tool
> in order to learn. The old flow charts used (more or less :-) to
> design computer programs are also such an example but these ones don't
> show great skill, they're mere diagrams. They do however serve the
> very same function as those beautifull medical illustrations. They're
> tools. Ofcourse this point can be disputed and I'm ready to receive
> the heat ;-)
The only dispute I would have is that medical illustration has followed a
historical style development. True, the point was to convey information,
but if you look at the work from various historical periods you can see a
lot of selection involved, so it wasn't a matter of simply drawing what
you saw. Maybe a parallel example could be found in Audobahn's bird
drawings. They look funny, even kind of klunky to us, since we are used
to seeing another style in wildlife art. But if you look at his works in
their historical context, they are quite normal, a good representation of
the rendering style that was popular in his day.
> So? Anyone? Am I completely right as usual or can my points use some
> alteration? ;-)
Well, I keep thinking of Dante Allegheri. He chose to write the Commedia
in vulgar latin - Mantuan street language - instead of the "High"
academic latin of his day. Obviously he wanted to create a work that
could be understood by the rank and file Italians, rather than restricted
to the educated elite. So I'm wondering how the established academia in
1300 regarded the work. Low Brow, maybe. It's understandable that a
hundred years later, given the spirit of the Renaissance, that the
'native tongue' would be valorized, as all things Italian (as opposed to
Latin) were coming into popularity.
Erik
br...@wralaw.com
Its time to make a distinction between fantasy and reality.
Illustration is mainly used as a cutdown on art that requires
skill -mainly because many artists lack the raw brain power,
to figure out how to paint something. Basically any Abstract
art can be called Design work if we want it to. I would add that
Illustration in art really means that a particular picture is
meant to go along with a story, (like those 3 killaword texts
describing how minimalism finally said nothing!)
> Many
> here make a distinction between art and illustration, something that
> is illustration is not art.
In Duchamps own words he was attempting to make something that wasn't
art. Ultimately you are attempting to describe philosophy and not
art, and Hallucination not Enchanted Reality!
I should add here that +I+ do not put the highest value on Artistic
creation, I however do put a high value on the visionary experience
that is a prerequisite for making great art.
> There's also a similar distinction made by
> some between so called low brow and high brow art,
Finally you are heading for the dictionary...
>high brow art being
> the real Art, the fine art,
Call me a bad reader but my interpretation of high-brow is
snobby.
> while low brow art is illustration.
Low-brow ? There is plenty of snobby illustration...
Illustration means that a picture was done to illustrate some
text, There are plenty of examples of illustrated Manuscripts
particularly illuminations that sell in Places where they dont
allow anyone who doesn't dress a specific way or have a net
worth less than in the millions!
> Personally, my definition of art is such that it doesn't exclude
> illustration, so illustration can be art as well (much like Erik).
> Also, I do make the distinction between low brow art (illustration)
> and high brow art (the fine arts).
> Low brow art being expressions of scenes, an illustration of a scene.
> "A grown man crying", "The Lord of the rings in his dark tower", "The
> city of New York in the morning fog" for example :-)
> High brow art being expressions of ideas, ideas about emotions,
> feelings, justice, chaos, freedom, etc. The work may take on the shape
> of a scene but now the scene is a medium which conveys the deeper main
> idea. The scene is no longer the subject, only the carrier, unlike in
> illustration where the scene _is_ the subject.
Personally I dont like the term low-high brow
> So, low brow art like Vargas work shows you exactly what you directly
> see: a pretty girl. It's an illustration of something you can actually
> encounter, a pure visual thing and only visual ideas are incorporated
> in it (like ideas about skin, facial expressions, likeness, body,
> visual beauty in female bodies, etc.)
>
> While high brow stuff like the inevitable "scream" of Munch actually
> is about "angst" (as opposed to fear, there's no good english
> translation of the dutch/german "angst" I know of) even though it also
> takes on the shape of a scene but here the scene serves to convey an
> idea, the idea of "angst". "Angst" is a non visual idea, it is a high
> level concept, only existing in the non visual mental realm. Note that
> "the scream" is not meant as a simple scene of some dude in trouble.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Erik A. Mattila
> > See, you're grasping at intrinsic qualities that would make the
> > distinction. Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it. It's just that
> > it doesn't explain how a Durer woodcut could be an illustration in one
> > way (a page in a book) and sell for 120 grand at Christys on the other.
> > Maybe just 'antique value.'
>
> It would seem to me, based on observation, that postmodernists today seem to
> treat art in its very definition as a historic artifact which is reflective
> of a culture of a certain society. Because postmodernists, in line with
> their philosophies of deconstructionism, relativism, and multiculturalism,
> have said that there is no more 'value' in Western art then art of other
> cultures, the idea that there is such a thing as good art--or a bounds for
> the category of art itself--has dissapeared and been replaced with the
> concept of 'important art', or art that serves as important milestones in
> art history.This would explain why a Durer illustration of a Rhinocerous is
> apparently more valuable than any illustration of a Rhinocerous today,
> because you can interpret his detailed works of animals to be symbolic of
> the new age of learning and science.
That's utter nonesense. If anything, the category 'art' has been replaced with
the theory of representation. Anyone knows that Durer's rhinocerous has a
higher pricetag than Bateman's because Durer is desired by wealthy collectors,
in many cases for the purposes of investment collateral. That's probably a
subject that we haven't discussed here on raf -- collecting. Without
collecting there would be no 'art world.' Why is collecting so interesting
today? Everything from ice cream sticks to antique space craft is collected
today. Ah, yes, the Franklin Mint manufactures fake collectibles and markets
them on the promise of increasing value to the unwary. Do you think that the
price tag on a piece of art work is unrelated? How many billionaires would
spend 15 million on a painting if they thought it wouldn't be worth 20 million
in a few years, regardless how much they 'loved' the work?
> Of course, to add a new spin on an old addage---art history is written by
> the victors, so by doing this the postmodernists have placed themselves at
> the apex of a 'progression' of art over the centuries.
I was under the impression that art history was written by art historians.
Every book I've ever read on art history was written by an art historian, as a
matter of fact. Those interested in post modern theory, who claim that
position for themselves, are rarely art historians. They are often literary
critics, philosophers, or social scientists. Or are you saying that artists
themselves write art history?
> > Now here's an interesting thought. I don't think an Alberto Vargas could
> > ever cross the border between High Art and Low Art. Some low brow stuff
> > is just that way. Or, I can't imagine the rules of society changing to
> > that degree, to create an opening that would allow a pin-up girlie piece
> > to be regarded as High Art by any sort of consensus or authority --
> > regardless of the technical achievement of the artist.
>
> And although an Alberto Vargas illustration by itself would never be
> considered high art, if you were to soak one in blood and put underneath it
> the title "Western Enlightenment", you would probably merit a wall in a
> Modern Art Museum.
Excellent idea, Brian. You should go for it. Maybe substitute pecker tracks
for blood, however. At least that would be my recommendation. I just can't
see the relationship between Vargas and blood. Symbollically, pecker tracks
and blood are related, anyway.
> > Not true. The tree is a common symbol for futility. "I talk to the
> > trees, but they don't listen to me..."
>
> German romanticism used the tree as a symbol of hope.
Computer programmers use the tree as a symbol of thought. It must be. My
computer tells me all the time "The Btree is corrupted - punt!"
Erik Mattila
Tomi Holmberg
*quality*. or one beign any "better" than other.
"cultural parameters" will make it clear that this schoolyard
gibbering will lead to nowhere as it is pointed quite clearly
already :).
i'd like to compare "finearts" to olympic games. they are quite similar
cultural institutions in fact; study their start and what they are now.
i suppoce you got my point.
what interests me more is the psychological and cultural effects what
causes people to move towards illustration or "fine art". think about
all your art friends; before you saw their works you knew pretty much
what they do, didn't you? isn't it quite obvious to point out what
kinds of stuff someone do as you see him?.
i'd like to see this thread (and many others here) in a way of looking
things without expectations. so, i'd like to see someone's painting
here that he call's as "high art" and compare it to
someone's "illustration" here.
we might even take any vallejo, tim white, dali, dore etc. since they
are all same "soulless technical" illustrators but then we haven't the
artist here.
i doubt we have any "fine-art" canditates here? or do we?
the point was to get rid of all the *'ing faked up resumes, show-lists,
articles and other culture jokes people have sniffed up. then when the
table is clear, we can start to compare the works and what the artists
were after when creating those. this way we can discuss visually, not
only with words...
mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>Brian Shapiro wrote:
>
>> > See, you're grasping at intrinsic qualities that would make the
>> > distinction. Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it. It's just that
>> > it doesn't explain how a Durer woodcut could be an illustration in one
>> > way (a page in a book) and sell for 120 grand at Christys on the other.
>> > Maybe just 'antique value.'
>>
>> It would seem to me, based on observation, that postmodernists today seem to
>> treat art in its very definition as a historic artifact which is reflective
>> of a culture of a certain society. Because postmodernists, in line with
>> their philosophies of deconstructionism, relativism, and multiculturalism,
>> have said that there is no more 'value' in Western art then art of other
>> cultures, the idea that there is such a thing as good art--or a bounds for
>> the category of art itself--has dissapeared and been replaced with the
>> concept of 'important art', or art that serves as important milestones in
>> art history.This would explain why a Durer illustration of a Rhinocerous is
>> apparently more valuable than any illustration of a Rhinocerous today,
>> because you can interpret his detailed works of animals to be symbolic of
>> the new age of learning and science.
>
>That's utter nonesense. If anything, the category 'art' has been replaced with
>the theory of representation. Anyone knows that Durer's rhinocerous has a
>higher pricetag than Bateman's because Durer is desired by wealthy collectors,
>in many cases for the purposes of investment collateral. That's probably a
>subject that we haven't discussed here on raf -- collecting. Without
>collecting there would be no 'art world.' Why is collecting so interesting
>today? Everything from ice cream sticks to antique space craft is collected
>today. Ah, yes, the Franklin Mint manufactures fake collectibles and markets
>them on the promise of increasing value to the unwary. Do you think that the
>price tag on a piece of art work is unrelated? How many billionaires would
>spend 15 million on a painting if they thought it wouldn't be worth 20 million
>in a few years, regardless how much they 'loved' the work?
>
Yes, collecting is indeed a very interesting thing. It's always been a
human trait however. Nothing like making paintings in a serie. "Woman
#1 of 3", "Woman #2 of 3" and "Woman #3 of 3". The true collector
would pay any price to get the missing "Woman" of his collection of 2
"Women" :-)
I still have to get my Picasso collection complete ;-)
>> > Not true. The tree is a common symbol for futility. "I talk to the
>> > trees, but they don't listen to me..."
>>
>> German romanticism used the tree as a symbol of hope.
>
>Computer programmers use the tree as a symbol of thought. It must be. My
>computer tells me all the time "The Btree is corrupted - punt!"
>
Hehe, not really. The "tree" of programmers is the name used for data
which is organized in a "branching" way. One piece of data being a
"child" of another piece of data.
Anyway, I was refering to the old celtic and german tree symbols.
Symbol of wisdom, tree of life, apples of youth, Ygdrassil, etc. I
wonder if maybe the tree in "talking to the trees" is a remnant of
these symbols ;-)
>Erik Mattila
>
mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>mesken wrote:
>
>> High brow art being expressions of ideas, ideas about emotions,
>> feelings, justice, chaos, freedom, etc. The work may take on the shape
>> of a scene but now the scene is a medium which conveys the deeper main
>> idea. The scene is no longer the subject, only the carrier, unlike in
>> illustration where the scene _is_ the subject.
>
>See, you're grasping at intrinsic qualities that would make the
>distinction. Nothing wrong with that, on the face of it. It's just that
>it doesn't explain how a Durer woodcut could be an illustration in one
>way (a page in a book) and sell for 120 grand at Christys on the other.
>Maybe just 'antique value.'
>
Well, collectors look at the artist, not the work. R.Crumbs got paid
in full in France (when he had left the U.S. because of tax problems)
for one of his sketch books. Sketches of Rembrandt pop up now and then
in art shows in the Netherlands ("My God! It's a Rembrandt!" :-)
No longer will it merely be an illustration or even a sketch but a
work done by an artist who has made great art, it is this which will
add value.
Most of what Rockwell did was illustration but he also made some stuff
which could be considered high brow art. Nevertheless: few people
would call it high brow because Rockwell was known as an illustrator.
>> So, low brow art like Vargas work shows you exactly what you directly
>> see: a pretty girl. It's an illustration of something you can actually
>> encounter, a pure visual thing and only visual ideas are incorporated
>> in it (like ideas about skin, facial expressions, likeness, body,
>> visual beauty in female bodies, etc.)
>
>Now here's an interesting thought. I don't think an Alberto Vargas could
>ever cross the border between High Art and Low Art. Some low brow stuff
>is just that way. Or, I can't imagine the rules of society changing to
>that degree, to create an opening that would allow a pin-up girlie piece
>to be regarded as High Art by any sort of consensus or authority --
>regardless of the technical achievement of the artist.
>
Well, unfortunately you're right. It is indeed a group of authorities
which tell people what is art and what isn't art. There're lists
publiced in art magazines about the "most influential people in the
art scene" (which are mostly important curators, collectors, art
historians and critics). These are people who are well educated, have
power and enough rhetoric skills to convince people that their opinion
is the right opinion.
This doesn't mean people are not at the same time trying to define art
detached from these authorities (about every book about art tries to
define art).
It might be quite hard to convince people that painting X isn't art at
all when painting X is actually hanging in the Guggenheim. Such is the
power of important curators. The curators of the Guggenheim can make
Vargas' work into great art and I even believe they're strong enough
to take the Flak of critics (BTW "Flak" is german and means "Flugzeug
Abwehr Kanone", something like "anti aircraft gun" :-)
Anyway, what I'm looking for is a loose defintion which will
distinguish between low brow and high brow art. Indeed based on
intrinsic qualities (although it still has to qualify as art before it
can be one of those categories).
"Illustration" might not be the proper word to use for low brow art
(which I also stated: not all illustration is art, it isn't allowed to
be a tool and it must be a depiction of a scene).
>> It's not really different of spoken language. Even though spoken
>> language is sound it's used to communicate about things that have
>> nothing to do with sound. There's a difference in a good depiction of
>> a man in fear and a depiction of the idea of fear itself (possibly
>> depicted by the aid of a man in fear). This IMO is the difference
>> between illustration and fine art.
>
>I think Mel Brooks did a pretty good job in "High Anxiety."
>
Ah yes, Mel Brooks might be perceived as the Dali of movies. An artist
with a high quality bad taste ;-)
mesken
wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, mesken wrote:
>
>(snip)
>> Webber states that the distinction is made based upon issues raised by
>> the work and he excludes illustration from art.
>
>Hi Paul,
>
>Look, I'll behave myself if you'll not misinterpret my points of view, ok?
>This doesn't accurately reflect my feelings on this, and I've gone into
>some detail in a reply just now with Brian, so perhaps you'll have a look
>and see where I'm coming from.
>
Ah yes, the sensibility stuff again. Not the subject matter, I thought
you had an interesting point with "... it's about issues raised..."
Anyway, you ofcourse realize that this will enable you to call some
illustrations great art because they can also be great expressions of
sensibility?
>It isn't very long, so I hope you'll have a look. And I promise to not
>bully you for at least a week, ok?
>
Hehe, I can easily take anything you throw at me. I was actually
gearing up for a great battle between us but the slightest frown on my
side got you uttering excuses all the way down. Don't feel ashamed, I
have that effect (grown men weeping like babies etc. :-)
Anyway, you have your hands full with Alison now so I don't think you
even got the time to "bully" me ;-)
Tomi Holmberg
> Anyway, you have your hands full with Alison now so I don't think you
> even got the time to "bully" me ;-)
this sucks!
the discussion has been on very low level lately, and hurted too many.
like me, when i see my friends getting shit that doesn't belong here.
mark webber
> >(snip)
> >> Webber states that the distinction is made based upon issues raised by
> >> the work and he excludes illustration from art.
> >
> >Hi Paul,
> >
> >Look, I'll behave myself if you'll not misinterpret my points of view, ok?
> >This doesn't accurately reflect my feelings on this, and I've gone into
> >some detail in a reply just now with Brian, so perhaps you'll have a look
> >and see where I'm coming from.
> >
> Ah yes, the sensibility stuff again.
No, not the sensibility stuff - that's not what I meant. I was just
trying to point out that for me there is a useful distinction between
*fine* art and illustration. And I also see a useful distinction between
the ideas of *art* and *fine art*.
For me, it is important to pick one or the other and stick with it. I was
saying illustration is not *fine art*, and I think I explained why I feel
that way in the post to Brian - let me know if I'm wrong.
Again, I didn't invent this distinction - I do subscribe to it, though.
> Not the subject matter, I thought
> you had an interesting point with "... it's about issues raised..."
Thanks. Yes, I feel that any work of art - including illustration - raises
issues. I think this is part of the communicative nature of art.
I also think that some issues have, within our culture, become linked
to fine art, and some are linked to something more akin to entertainment.
>
> Anyway, you ofcourse realize that this will enable you to call some
> illustrations great art because they can also be great expressions of
> sensibility?
No not really, because a great expression of sensibility isn't necessarily
great art. Expression of sensibility isn't *automaticly* art. (It is as
soon as one calls it art - but not until.)
I can express my sensibility by saying "what an ugly picture!" but I'm not
calling that remark art or fine art.
>
> >It isn't very long, so I hope you'll have a look. And I promise to not
> >bully you for at least a week, ok?
> >
> Hehe, I can easily take anything you throw at me. I was actually
> gearing up for a great battle between us but the slightest frown on my
> side got you uttering excuses all the way down. Don't feel ashamed, I
> have that effect (grown men weeping like babies etc. :-)
Huh? Oh no, not another pissing contest... look, you can decide. If you
want me to rude, I'll be rude. But when I was rude, you did a little more
than frown. You quit talking about art and started whining about
arrogance. But if that was all you had to offer I wouldn't come back for
more. Let's just stick to art stuff.
One reason I directed you to deja.com is that I think there is a pretty
healthy record there of me *not* getting entangled in personal piss.
Some posting histories there consist mostly of blow-job invites, personal
harangues and insisting that everyone is "on my side". Have you heard
about alt.brallen? This sort of thing is to me pretty tiresome. But
that's what some people are actually here for, believe it or not.
And "gearing up for battle" really isn't necessary. If you make salient
points, I'll respect them, and if you misunderstand me I'll scold you. But
I won't start attacking your work or weight problem or the people you
associate with. Really.
>
> Anyway, you have your hands full with Alison now so I don't think you
> even got the time to "bully" me ;-)
Thanks for understanding, but I've made it clear in my one post to Alison
that I won't play her game in the public forum. This is her only real
interest, you see, pissing contests, and I'm only the most recent in a
long line of her obsessions. I've said all I need to say to her
and now I delete her posts without reading them. She's Mani *without* the
art. If she wants to address anything I wrote - and I doubt she will - she
can email me if she wants it read, and she knows that.
But speaking of email, I know of only one person, just one, who has ever
received harsh email from me.
Anyway, my sense of it has been that you'd like to tussle with esthetic
questions and if that's the case, great, I'm with you. But if you want to
have a pissing contest you know how to reach Alison.
best,
Mark
mesken
wrote:
>
>> Anyway, you have your hands full with Alison now so I don't think you
>> even got the time to "bully" me ;-)
>
>this sucks!
>the discussion has been on very low level lately, and hurted too many.
>like me, when i see my friends getting shit that doesn't belong here.
>
Oh my, I thought this was a nice on topic thread I started, meant to
discuss the distinction that is made between low brow and high brow
art, illustration and art
mesken
wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, mesken wrote:
>> Not the subject matter, I thought
>> you had an interesting point with "... it's about issues raised..."
>
>Thanks. Yes, I feel that any work of art - including illustration - raises
>issues. I think this is part of the communicative nature of art.
>
>I also think that some issues have, within our culture, become linked
>to fine art, and some are linked to something more akin to entertainment.
>
This is indeed interesting. Somewhat compatible with my notions about
low brow and high brow art.
So, what you're actually saying is that some art is meant to entertain
(like the funny pictures of Rockwell or the beautifull girls of
Vargas), art that is directed by desire or made in order to invoke
desirable responses (the powerfull renderings of Bisley showing
grotesque spectacles and invoking awe)
Ofcourse such art gets its strength from supranormal stimuli,
overexaggerations. Art meant as entertainment indeed shows us a lot of
overexaggerations of visual stimuli.
Other art raises issues of ideas, like "growing up", "fear", "lust",
etc. More conceptual stuff. Stuff that's actually about an issue.
Interesting indeed, care to elaborate on this topic?
>> Anyway, you ofcourse realize that this will enable you to call some
>> illustrations great art because they can also be great expressions of
>> sensibility?
>
>No not really, because a great expression of sensibility isn't necessarily
>great art. Expression of sensibility isn't *automaticly* art. (It is as
>soon as one calls it art - but not until.)
>
Ah, now I start to grasp your definition of art. But if it's not
necessarily the quality of the expression of sensibility that makes
great art then the question arises: when should a great expression of
sensibility be called great art?
Now my take on this was (I called it high brow art) that great art
hasn't got a scene as subject but an idea of the mental realm (the
more conceptual stuff I addressed above). A concept like "hunger" for
instance is not visual at all, yet the artist who attempts to depict
it visually is attempting to make great art or high brow art. Now,
such an artist should think about "food", "need for food", "abscence
of food" and "suffering". These are concepts which have a visual
component in them and which can serve to communicate about "hunger".
>> >It isn't very long, so I hope you'll have a look. And I promise to not
>> >bully you for at least a week, ok?
>> >
>> Hehe, I can easily take anything you throw at me. I was actually
>> gearing up for a great battle between us but the slightest frown on my
>> side got you uttering excuses all the way down. Don't feel ashamed, I
>> have that effect (grown men weeping like babies etc. :-)
>
>Huh? Oh no, not another pissing contest... look, you can decide. If you
>want me to rude, I'll be rude. But when I was rude, you did a little more
>than frown. You quit talking about art and started whining about
>arrogance. But if that was all you had to offer I wouldn't come back for
>more. Let's just stick to art stuff.
>
Oooh! I was fighting the tears, grinding my teeth and hishing
"arrogant bastard" through my quivering lips when you dismissed my
list. For days I couldn't sleep and was biting my pillow pretending it
was you ;-)
Yeah right
WebberWebberWebber, most men will not admit defeat, it's a macho
thing. Saying "Let's just return to the topic" or stop replying is the
only sign one gets of victory.
It's really simple. If you really wouldn't mind then you would never
had made such creative responses (like the suggestions about Haber, I
loved it :-) But now you see defeat glooming at the horizon and you
want to bail out undamaged by stating "Hell! I'm a grown ups and wise,
I forget about the whole thing, I forgive the others even though I
could have crushed them"
Yeah right
He, I just love flame wars. They bring so much live in discussions :-)
>Anyway, my sense of it has been that you'd like to tussle with esthetic
>questions and if that's the case, great, I'm with you. But if you want to
>have a pissing contest you know how to reach Alison.
>
Teehee, even though I'm a sadistic megalomaniac, I do follow simple
lines of logic. Always piss in the same direction as Alison does or
don't piss at all. Hell! I'm too young to die! ;-)
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>>
>Teehee, even though I'm a sadistic megalomaniac, I do follow simple
>lines of logic. Always piss in the same direction as Alison does or
>don't piss at all. Hell! I'm too young to die! ;-)
>
Such power ! such an aphrodisiac ;-)
Oliver Gili
mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:Cu9wOAmMKWrbhk...@4ax.com...
> Yes, it's time again to discuss the definition of art itself. Many
> here make a distinction between art and illustration, something that
> is illustration is not art. There's also a similar distinction made by
> some between so called low brow and high brow art, high brow art being
> the real Art, the fine art, while low brow art is illustration.
>
> Webber states that the distinction is made based upon issues raised by
> the work and he excludes illustration from art. While Erik doesn't
> exclude illustration, he makes the distinction between low brow art
> and high brow art and bases this distinction upon mastery although I
> don't know exactly what kind of mastery he means.
from my BA.... :-)
my favorite definition of what high art is was from the english champion of
Cezanne and the post impressionists (if only I could remember his name) as
his definition of high art was that it gave one an aesthetic emotion, and
his defintion of an aesthetic emotion was that it was an emotion produced by
looking at high art.....
>
> Personally, my definition of art is such that it doesn't exclude
> illustration, so illustration can be art as well (much like Erik).
> Also, I do make the distinction between low brow art (illustration)
> and high brow art (the fine arts).
>
> To me, "art" is also a quality label. Art being a mix of skill and
> ideas. Both should be present in sufficient magnitude and both are
> important (this is why I agree on Deli's "No Skill, No Art" paradigm,
> any idea should be executed by a sufficient degree of skill). A lot of
> skill carrying an idea should be enough to denotate the work as being
> art. Ofcourse skill is the server of the idea, it cannot act on its
> own, and skill is developed in order to shape certain ideas and thus
> can take on many forms (as examplified by John Moore a little while
> ago).
>
> But I do make a distinction between low brow and high brow art and
> this distinction is made based upon the ideas which are executed.
>
> Low brow art being expressions of scenes, an illustration of a scene.
> "A grown man crying", "The Lord of the rings in his dark tower", "The
> city of New York in the morning fog" for example :-)
>
> High brow art being expressions of ideas, ideas about emotions,
> feelings, justice, chaos, freedom, etc. The work may take on the shape
> of a scene but now the scene is a medium which conveys the deeper main
> idea. The scene is no longer the subject, only the carrier, unlike in
> illustration where the scene _is_ the subject.
experimenting with ways of displaying what they saw... the scene was the
subject, but it was how they depicted it that was important
>
> So, low brow art like Vargas work shows you exactly what you directly
> see: a pretty girl. It's an illustration of something you can actually
> encounter, a pure visual thing and only visual ideas are incorporated
> in it (like ideas about skin, facial expressions, likeness, body,
> visual beauty in female bodies, etc.)
>
> While high brow stuff like the inevitable "scream" of Munch actually
> is about "angst" (as opposed to fear, there's no good english
> translation of the dutch/german "angst" I know of) even though it also
> takes on the shape of a scene but here the scene serves to convey an
> idea, the idea of "angst". "Angst" is a non visual idea, it is a high
> level concept, only existing in the non visual mental realm. Note that
> "the scream" is not meant as a simple scene of some dude in trouble.
Obviously but it also could be seen depicting mental illness etc. The main
problem with intellectualizing is that really we can only theorise over the
meaning of a piece of art. Really the meaning of a painting exists only
between the viewer and the painting. What the artist "means" or is "trying
to say" is actually impossible to exactly pin down.
>
> Yet, the distinction can be hard to make between illustration and fine
> art for illustrators can incorporate high level concepts to enhance
> their illustrations, M.C. Escher is hard to put in one of the
> categories (I would argue it is fine art but one could just as easily
> argue it is illustration). Sometimes fine art can look like
> illustrations, Rembrandt's stuff for example could be dismissed as
> illustration. It would be wrong ofcourse.
>
> In fine art (the high brow art) the materials of the artist are really
> used to communicate about ideas. Symbols may play a big role and
> people like Klee used them masterfully (I love his "twittering
> machine"). As soon as symbols are being used, culture becomes a very
> important component of the work since most symbols are defined within
> a culture (even very simple ones like arrows). A lot of old high brow
> art is seen as mere illustration since the symbols are no longer
> understood, not even recognized: trees for example posed as symbols
> long ago but not anymore.
>
> It's not really different of spoken language. Even though spoken
> language is sound it's used to communicate about things that have
> nothing to do with sound. There's a difference in a good depiction of
> a man in fear and a depiction of the idea of fear itself (possibly
> depicted by the aid of a man in fear). This IMO is the difference
> between illustration and fine art.
I think the disctintion between fine art and illustration (in the modern age
anyway) is that the illustrator is given problems to solve, i.e. illustrate
this story, create an image to fit this magazine piece. etc, while an artist
creates and solves their own visual problems... it doesnt matter if these
are purely visual rather than intellelectual problems
>
> But I wouldn't call all illustration art (low brow art that is). This
> is also a point of discussion. The illustrations in medical books
> often show great skill but I wouldn't call them art for the reason
> that these images don't serve to depict a scene but serve to be a tool
> in order to learn. The old flow charts used (more or less :-) to
> design computer programs are also such an example but these ones don't
> show great skill, they're mere diagrams. They do however serve the
> very same function as those beautifull medical illustrations. They're
> tools. Ofcourse this point can be disputed and I'm ready to receive
> the heat ;-)
>
> So? Anyone? Am I completely right as usual or can my points use some
> alteration? ;-)
some altertation, as NO-ONE is completely right :-) but good discussion
point... this one ought to run and run, as we as a species havent worked out
what is "art" yet and we've being discussing it for thousands of years...
perhaps its more important to create art, than talk about it
Oliver GIli
all spelling mistakes, and errors in the English language are copyright my
dyslexia 2000
br...@wralaw.com
Tomi Holmberg <tomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> yes, it's quite snobbish to compare "high" and "low" art in terms of
> *quality*. or one beign any "better" than other.
> "cultural parameters" will make it clear that this schoolyard
> gibbering will lead to nowhere as it is pointed quite clearly
> already :).
Well high-brow/low-brow only means snobbery. As I proved in my other
post neither is exclusive to design(abstract) or illustrated(realism)
nor does snobbery provide evidence of anything enlightened.
To be quite honest I have dealt plenty with social climbers, crack-
heads, and punks of many different colors. My own opinion is that
most of these people are on Ego trips, and rarely offer anything
of real Value, and are merely pretending that their own acts of
exclusion make them interesting. In fact the mere act of exclusion
has the psychological effect of making things seem desireable to
people who have no volution to form their own Judgements, or to
people who suffer from low self esteem.
> i'd like to compare "finearts" to olympic games. they are quite
similar
> cultural institutions in fact; study their start and what they are
now.
> i suppoce you got my point.
You suppoce right!
> what interests me more is the psychological and cultural effects what
> causes people to move towards illustration or "fine art". think about
> all your art friends; before you saw their works you knew pretty much
> what they do, didn't you?
No Absolutely not!
>sn't it quite obvious to point out what
> kinds of stuff someone do as you see him?.
> i'd like to see this thread (and many others here) in a way of looking
> things without expectations. so, i'd like to see someone's painting
> here that he call's as "high art" and compare it to
> someone's "illustration" here.
I consider my work "high-art"
> we might even take any vallejo, tim white, dali, dore etc. since they
> are all same "soulless technical" illustrators but then we haven't the
> artist here.
None of these people are souless technical Illustrators,
> i doubt we have any "fine-art" canditates here? or do we?
"Fine-art" Fine means that there are small pieces, intricate
details.
> the point was to get rid of all the *'ing faked up resumes, show-
lists,
> articles and other culture jokes people have sniffed up. then when the
> table is clear, we can start to compare the works and what the artists
> were after when creating those. this way we can discuss visually, not
> only with words...
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Bryn Ayers
mesken
<Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:Cu9wOAmMKWrbhk...@4ax.com...
>my favorite definition of what high art is was from the english champion of
>Cezanne and the post impressionists (if only I could remember his name) as
>his definition of high art was that it gave one an aesthetic emotion, and
>his defintion of an aesthetic emotion was that it was an emotion produced by
>looking at high art.....
Hehe, the book of light has opened right before my eyes ;-)
>> High brow art being expressions of ideas, ideas about emotions,
>> feelings, justice, chaos, freedom, etc. The work may take on the shape
>> of a scene but now the scene is a medium which conveys the deeper main
>> idea. The scene is no longer the subject, only the carrier, unlike in
>> illustration where the scene _is_ the subject.
>
>Right so then most of the Impressionists were illustrators because they were
>experimenting with ways of displaying what they saw... the scene was the
>subject, but it was how they depicted it that was important
Oops, didn't think of that one. Indeed much of the impressionist stuff
would be called illustration according to my definition but it is high
art.
Very interesting. What if Vargas would have depicted his nudes with
the pointillist method? I begin to favour Webber's definition over my
own. Low brow art meant to be entertainment. Certainly the technique
on its own can't justify something being high or low brow art.
>> So, low brow art like Vargas work shows you exactly what you directly
>> see: a pretty girl. It's an illustration of something you can actually
>> encounter, a pure visual thing and only visual ideas are incorporated
>> in it (like ideas about skin, facial expressions, likeness, body,
>> visual beauty in female bodies, etc.)
>
>>
>> While high brow stuff like the inevitable "scream" of Munch actually
>> is about "angst" (as opposed to fear, there's no good english
>> translation of the dutch/german "angst" I know of) even though it also
>> takes on the shape of a scene but here the scene serves to convey an
>> idea, the idea of "angst". "Angst" is a non visual idea, it is a high
>> level concept, only existing in the non visual mental realm. Note that
>> "the scream" is not meant as a simple scene of some dude in trouble.
>
>Obviously but it also could be seen depicting mental illness etc. The main
>problem with intellectualizing is that really we can only theorise over the
>meaning of a piece of art. Really the meaning of a painting exists only
>between the viewer and the painting. What the artist "means" or is "trying
>to say" is actually impossible to exactly pin down.
Yes, this is indeed a great problem with my definition. It's actually
quite easy to make a work of art look like it is carrying some grande
idea (the whole composition looking like a symbol for example by only
implementing the visual properties by which we recognize symbols)
J.R.R.Tolkien once responded to a psychologist that he made "The Lord
Of The Rings" merely to amuse people while the psychologist had just
given a lecture about deep and symbolic ideas which he thought were
incorporated in the story. Obviously the deep and symbolic ideas were
only in the mind of the psychologist.
There's also a funny story about (do I sound like Erik now? ;-)
Corneille, a painter belonging to the CoBrA movement. He was in Africa
and admired a wood sculpture made by an artist there. Corneille said
to the artist "It's so beautifull, there must be something very
special in it" upon which the artist said "No, really, it's made of
solid wood only"
Well, it seems my ideas are even more shaky than I previously thought
>I think the disctintion between fine art and illustration (in the modern age
>anyway) is that the illustrator is given problems to solve, i.e. illustrate
>this story, create an image to fit this magazine piece. etc, while an artist
>creates and solves their own visual problems... it doesnt matter if these
>are purely visual rather than intellelectual problems
>
Ah, but this statement also runs into trouble. How about portrait
painters like Rembrandt? (that's probably why you mentioned: "in the
modern age anyway")
Now I come to believe that the definition of art (or high art) is
excessively chaotic.
Is it at all possible to define art? If it is the art elite (important
curators, collectors, critics and art historians) who decides what is
art then the personal taste and ideas of this group incorporates the
very definition of art. But this would make it a very useless
definition since it's nothing but fashion, not having real authority.
"This color field stuff is high art" Yeah but perhaps not anymore
after 10 years when it no longer fits the ideas of art. Perhaps
Rembrandt was seen in his days as a very good illustrator while now
he's seen as the aphex of Baroque art.
It might be so that the definition of art is a highly dynamic and
cultural one. One that is completely chaotic (and therefor not a real
formal definition but more some kind of opinion) because there are
many factors that make the definition.
>> So? Anyone? Am I completely right as usual or can my points use some
>> alteration? ;-)
>some altertation, as NO-ONE is completely right :-) but good discussion
>point... this one ought to run and run, as we as a species havent worked out
>what is "art" yet and we've being discussing it for thousands of years...
>perhaps its more important to create art, than talk about it
>
Yes, you're right. When I'm showing work in progress to (a selected
few ;-) people then I normally hear such things like: the skin color
is a tad on the yellow side, the horizon is too low, her arm is too
short, etc. After what you've said I believe art is actually only
about aesthetics. It doesn't really matter what the subject is or what
technique is being used. It just needs to achieve some kind of
perfection, live up to some innate expectations like the expectations
we have about a piece of music (only some notes are considered
beautifull in succession else it will sound false).
Well, this really takes a burden from my shoulders. Now I can do those
pin up paintings without feeling guilty about the fact that they're
actually mere entertainment. It's still art when it's executed good
enough :-)
Oliver Gili
peice of
'high art' will provoke thought which to the 'high brow' is an entertaining
thing to do with one's brain
> >> So, low brow art like Vargas work shows you exactly what you directly
> >> see: a pretty girl. It's an illustration of something you can actually
> >> encounter, a pure visual thing and only visual ideas are incorporated
> >> in it (like ideas about skin, facial expressions, likeness, body,
> >> visual beauty in female bodies, etc.)
having just thought about it how does one know that he is not trying to
depict the
male, hetrosexual gaze by his pictures of pretty girls
> >
> >>
> >> While high brow stuff like the inevitable "scream" of Munch actually
> >> is about "angst" (as opposed to fear, there's no good english
> >> translation of the dutch/german "angst" I know of) even though it also
> >> takes on the shape of a scene but here the scene serves to convey an
> >> idea, the idea of "angst". "Angst" is a non visual idea, it is a high
> >> level concept, only existing in the non visual mental realm. Note that
> >> "the scream" is not meant as a simple scene of some dude in trouble.
> >
> >Obviously but it also could be seen depicting mental illness etc. The
main
> >problem with intellectualizing is that really we can only theorise over
the
> >meaning of a piece of art. Really the meaning of a painting exists only
> >between the viewer and the painting. What the artist "means" or is
"trying
> >to say" is actually impossible to exactly pin down.
>
> Yes, this is indeed a great problem with my definition. It's actually
> quite easy to make a work of art look like it is carrying some grande
> idea (the whole composition looking like a symbol for example by only
> implementing the visual properties by which we recognize symbols)
>
> J.R.R.Tolkien once responded to a psychologist that he made "The Lord
> Of The Rings" merely to amuse people while the psychologist had just
> given a lecture about deep and symbolic ideas which he thought were
> incorporated in the story. Obviously the deep and symbolic ideas were
> only in the mind of the psychologist.
I often think that the creator can't see the full implications of his/her
work, which in a
way illuminate more about the talker than the creator
>
> There's also a funny story about (do I sound like Erik now? ;-)
> Corneille, a painter belonging to the CoBrA movement. He was in Africa
> and admired a wood sculpture made by an artist there. Corneille said
> to the artist "It's so beautifull, there must be something very
> special in it" upon which the artist said "No, really, it's made of
> solid wood only"
:-)
>
> Well, it seems my ideas are even more shaky than I previously thought
>
> >I think the disctintion between fine art and illustration (in the modern
age
> >anyway) is that the illustrator is given problems to solve, i.e.
illustrate
> >this story, create an image to fit this magazine piece. etc, while an
artist
> >creates and solves their own visual problems... it doesnt matter if these
> >are purely visual rather than intellelectual problems
> >
> Ah, but this statement also runs into trouble. How about portrait
> painters like Rembrandt? (that's probably why you mentioned: "in the
> modern age anyway")
that thought had crossed my mind which is exactly why I locked the
definition into the modern age,
and as my mother is an illustrator, and my uncle an 'artist', its one of the
first differences I noticed.
interesting... I think (steps out on a limb) that art should be about visual
imagery first and intellectual
idea second, as I think that in for example conceptual art that often the
explanation of the piece is a better work of
'art' than the piece itself...and if art work is not about imagery/raw
aesthetics what is?
as for perfection, it is unobtainable but the struggle for it produces good
art/music/etc
>
> Well, this really takes a burden from my shoulders. Now I can do those
> pin up paintings without feeling guilty about the fact that they're
> actually mere entertainment. It's still art when it's executed good
> enough :-)
>
>
oooh irony.... :-) but I think art should express visual ideas, which are
not nessialily explainable by words...
hense the need for art, for if all human ideas were explainable by words,
then we'd all be writing philosophical tracts rather than painting, drawing,
sculpting etc. The dyslexic brain is an interesting case in point. It is
differently wired in that the visual cortex is more developed..... but at
the expense of the language cortext. As a dyslexic I know that when I paint
things look wrong or right, and while I can take time to put the
'correctness' into words, it still is an initial wordless judgement...
the only definition of art which actually holds water and is invunerable to
any critism is that art is the objects that people hang the tag of art upon,
and likewise
Oliver
Dyslexics of the world rule K.O.
one night I stayed up late pondering the presence of Dog
etc
etc
mark webber
(snip to the good stuff)
> I think art should express visual ideas, which are
> not nessialily explainable by words...
I think as long as you are willing to modify that with *visual* art or
*fine* art, I think you've nailed it nicely. Unfortunately, the very
notion of "visual ideas" has little credence here. For many people, the
concept of "issues" or "issues raised" isn't translated to visual
concepts.
best,
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
> On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Oliver Gili wrote:
>
> (snip to the good stuff)
>
> > I think art should express visual ideas, which are
> > not nessialily explainable by words...
>
> I think as long as you are willing to modify that with *visual* art or
> *fine* art, I think you've nailed it nicely. Unfortunately, the very
> notion of "visual ideas" has little credence here. For many people, the
> concept of "issues" or "issues raised" isn't translated to visual
> concepts.
>
> best,
>
> Mark
I'm not quite grasping what you mean here, Mark. Using myself as the
guinea pig, are you saying that since I am apt to argue for a cultural
basis for aesthetic ideas, that I could not distinguish a 'visual concept'
from a - say, "social science concept?" Anyway, I don't want to put words
in your mouth (it's been quite unsuccessful in the past) but if you would
be so kind as to elaborate a bit I could comment on it.
But as to the rest of the thread (and the following is just general ideas
about the subject, not aimed at a particular post) I have a few comments.
Number one is that I'm having trouble considering the issues "Hi vs. Low"
and "Illustration vs. Art" as aspects of the same creature. The history
is, as I recall, that Paul was talking with you about "Illustration vs.
Art" and I added, addressing a sub-string of the discussion, that you may
actually be talking about "Hi and Low." Then Paul initiated this thread
under the duel title which I am now questioning.
I see the term "illustration" being used in two ways in the subsequent
discussion. One is to describe works of art (or more neutrally - visual
representations) in a context of production criteria, namely, an
'illustration' is commissioned, intended to enhance a text, and purposeful
in the sense that the artist is not free to do whatever occurs to
her/him. The other use of the terms appears to me to be just another way
of saying that something is 'less than 'art,' or 'other than art.' I know
I have had to keep the distinction of these two meanings clearly in mind
while reading the various posts on this thread.
But "Hi vs. Low" is another matter entirely. Low brow art forms can be
produced without commission, without the intention of a illustration, and
without the same sort of purposefulness we see with the first sense
(above) of the term, "illustration." As to the second sense, "something
less than art," this falls apart simply because it was never anything more
that a declaration of personal taste in the first place. In other words,
one who is likely to say "this isn't art, it's illustration" is also
likely to say "this isn't hi art, it's low art."
I think the best model to use for thinking about the Hi vs. the Low is
Burlesque. In the US, Burlesque was the 'low brow' entertainment par
excellance between 1830 and 1870, and it only digressed into the "girlie
show" afterwards due to a great economic depression, when the rank and
file had little money to spend on low brow theatre. The reason it is such
a good model is because it directly assaulted, via very sophisticated,
well articulated satire, high brow theatre. High brow theatre was
virtually inaccessable to the masses for several reasons - education and
literacy, the cost of admission, the 'dress code' (you couldn't buy a
ticket unless you dressed-up) and so on. So Burlesque came to be - and it
is actually quite ancient, especially in Europe where it goes back to the
middle ages. But all in all, it was very good theatre. Unfortunately
many of the original scripts didn't survive, but the few that did, and the
many newspaper reviews that survived, show a very wonderful art form. And
people loved it, and the typical audiance was dressed in their work
clothes - butchers in bloody aprons, ditch diggers in dust dungarees, and
the guys at the fish market - whew.
Many of the Burlesque superstars were British imports, which shows that
the tradition was also very strong in England. In the 40 years of
Burlesque's heyday, some major genres devloped. The 'play' was the
initial genre, which directly satirized the plays that were currently
being showcased in hi brow theatre. Then came the "Extravaganza" which
was a very eclectic performance, including the 'play' but added to this
was musical numbers, dancing, slap-stick comedy etc. Another was the
"Local Play" which was very political, addressing popular topics going on
in the city at the time, often based on rumors - a Mayoral election, labor
union issues, and so on. Then the "Minstrel Show," implicitly racist, but
enjoyed by the mass. A late development was Vaudeville, which became the
model for our present day stand-up comedy.
Another interesting side-line to Burlesque was the low brow museum. Many
of the major theatres had huge displays of curious under glass, almost a
satire of the 'private art collection' or even the older European
'wunderkammern' of the wealthy Barons and Dukes. Displayed was an array
of the most outrageous things - like a circus sideshow - such as mummified
mermaids, faked leprechans, and that sort of stuff. (the Sutro Baths in
San Francisco had these kinds of displays - unfortunately it burnt to the
ground in 1963 and all these things were lost. I remember seeing a large
display of Tom Thumb's clothing there, as well as a mummified mermaid.)
So Burlesque set the stage (pun) for low brow culture in the US. Related
forms are the Amusement Park, the form the Circus took, and of course, the
comic strip. If you look at the early comic strip (1895) you will see the
recapitualtion of the Burlesque genres. The famous "Yellow Kid" that
appeared in Pulitzer's newspapers was in fact a "Local Play" and when you
analyze the plot forms of other early stips, you see the various Burlesque
forms remounted into another media.
I'll leave it at that. What I'm talking about here is the foundation of
popular culture forms which we enjoy today. One theme that has carried
through in the various manifestations has been the ridcule of the rich and
hi brow culture generally. Look at MacManus' "Bringing Up Father" -
extremely well drawn, by the way - I learned to draw hands well by copying
MacManus - but the plot is that Jiggs, an Irish bricklayer, wins the
sweepstakes and become a millionaire. Maggie want's to play the role of
the newly landed aristrocrat, but Jiggs wants to hang out at Dinty Moore's
with the guys. It's really superb - but definitely 'low brow' art, in
spite of it's excellence. It's low brow simply because it is accessible
to the masses. My argument would be that it is no less sophisticated,
clever, or meaningful than any hi brow form. But I wouldn't say that all
low brow art is that well developed. I'm just saying that the categorical
distinction addresses issue of audiance and accessibility.
I remember one time when I was in Austin Texas with a group of "Danzantes"
from Mexico. These were all young men from various Indian tribes in
Mexico. We had some time to kill, and since a week or so before they had
taken me to the Museum of Anthopology in Mexico City, I said "let's go
check out that art gallery over there." But the staff at the art gallery
saw us coming, and stood by the door and wouldn't let us in - telling us
that the gallery was open 'by appointment only.' Ha ha ha. So much for
the hi brow - which I think Bryn has rightly called 'snobbery.'
Erik
mark webber
Hi Erik,
(snip)
> > I think as long as you are willing to modify that with *visual* art or
> > *fine* art, I think you've nailed it nicely. Unfortunately, the very
> > notion of "visual ideas" has little credence here. For many people, the
> > concept of "issues" or "issues raised" isn't translated to visual
> > concepts.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Mark
>
> I'm not quite grasping what you mean here, Mark. Using myself as the
> guinea pig, are you saying that since I am apt to argue for a cultural
> basis for aesthetic ideas, that I could not distinguish a 'visual concept'
> from a - say, "social science concept?"
There are a great deal of frayed feelings in here these days, and I'm
happy to take partial credit for it, but I wasn't exactly thinking of you.
First, I was thinking of another poster's misunderstanding what I meant by
"issues" when he was citing examples like eroticism and I think it was
growth or maturity - I don't really remember, and I'm not even how sure
how serious I can take him. (At this point, I'm embarrassed to say, I'm
not sure I have all the players straight. We have a couple of newcomers
and some other folks who've apparantly been around but I haven't read
them because I associate them with the alt.brallen stuff and I've been
stumbling through a bunch of Mani look-a-likes with eye-opening
hostilities.) But the "issues" he was pointing to were content issues.
He was apparantly trying to distinguish between high and low or art and
illustration by some sort of distinction *between* content issues - a
guaging process I would find daunting - rather than opposing content and
form issues - form issues including "visual ideas" and "visual play, for
example.
But back to your own self examination: I don't think that a point of view
championing a cultural reading automaticly *excludes* a visual or formal
reading, nor would it mean you can't distinguish between content,
cultural, visual, etc.
What I mean is I don't think these appreciations are mutually exclusive.
I think determined focus on one can mitigate against appreciation of
another - which is probably why I don't foster a deep love of issues such
as gender or populist sorts of issues. And it also might explain the
shortcomings of others here (and formerly here) - or maybe they're just
stupid. I don't know.
Seems natural, don't it?
So anyway, I don't think of it as any sort of indictment of your views.
> Number one is that I'm having trouble considering the issues "Hi vs. Low"
> and "Illustration vs. Art" as aspects of the same creature.
I don't think they are identical, but I think they wind up being related.
(snip about 800 words about burlesque, which you've obviously been dying
to talk about for days and I'm glad you found a way to include it in the
discussion)
> I'll leave it at that.
THANKS!
Somewhere in all that you used the phrase "and some burlesques were
actually quite good art" or something to that effect. (It seems like weeks
since I actually read that paragraph way back there and I can't find it
now.)
Is that distinction - that some burlesques were better than others - an
expression of personal taste? (Yours, you highbrow?) or something that all
the lowbrows would agree on?
(more extensive cutting)
> I remember one time when I was
(whoops - more snip)
> Ha ha ha. So much for
> the hi brow - which I think Bryn has rightly called 'snobbery.'
>
> Erik
I think there is a difference between highbrow and high art. I think the
phrases evoke quite different things.
Anyway, as they say in the usenet, hope this helps!
(By the way, no Limmerick Award of the Week for me? Three stanzas, even!)
best,
Mark
mark webber
This may be the phrase that caught my attention in your tome on burly-q:
"But all in all, it was very good theatre."
So do you mean *all* of it was good? And was all of it equally good?
Did everybody laugh the same amount? At every show?
All the scripts were of equal artistic value - lowbrow as they were?
And were some performances weaker than others of the same script?
And were all the actors of equal SKILL?
in warm friendship,
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
> Hi again Erik,
>
> This may be the phrase that caught my attention in your tome on burly-q:
>
> "But all in all, it was very good theatre."
>
> So do you mean *all* of it was good? And was all of it equally good?
>
> Did everybody laugh the same amount? At every show?
In my lexicon, 'all in all' means 'generally.'
> All the scripts were of equal artistic value - lowbrow as they were?
>
> And were some performances weaker than others of the same script?
>
> And were all the actors of equal SKILL?
No to all. Some was better'n others. But this is just to say there is a
range of achievment involved, just as we find in 'high art.' And how is
the measured? I suppose by laugh meters or something like that. Ticket
sales.
It's like "Krazy Kat" is better than "Apartment 3G" or "Seinfield" is
better than "Hee Haw." How so? I think you can make a measure, but you
would first have to agree things to measure. It's a big project. But the
best of low brow approaches hi brow, that's all.
Erk
>
>
> in warm friendship,
>
> Mark
Erik A. Mattila
> There are a great deal of frayed feelings in here these days, and I'm
> happy to take partial credit for it, but I wasn't exactly thinking of you.
I don't mind being the sacrifical lamb, as long as the agenda goes forward.
> First, I was thinking of another poster's misunderstanding what I meant by
> "issues" when he was citing examples like eroticism and I think it was
> growth or maturity - I don't really remember, and I'm not even how sure
> how serious I can take him. (At this point, I'm embarrassed to say, I'm
> not sure I have all the players straight. We have a couple of newcomers
> and some other folks who've apparantly been around but I haven't read
> them because I associate them with the alt.brallen stuff and I've been
> stumbling through a bunch of Mani look-a-likes with eye-opening
> hostilities.) But the "issues" he was pointing to were content issues.
Obviously, we all have our unique vocabularies. But that's why we have
dictionaries - to call forth the dictators of meaning. But you know how it is
with the 'scholarly paper' -- define your terms. There's no reason why each of
us shouldn't do that, for the sake of communication.
> He was apparantly trying to distinguish between high and low or art and
> illustration by some sort of distinction *between* content issues - a
> guaging process I would find daunting - rather than opposing content and
> form issues - form issues including "visual ideas" and "visual play, for
> example.
Yes, I caught that. Personally, I would define the hi vs. low as a distinct in
context issues, regardless of content. Look at "Classic Comics." Even though
it's a Robert Louis Stevenson novel, it is still a comic book.
> But back to your own self examination: I don't think that a point of view
> championing a cultural reading automaticly *excludes* a visual or formal
> reading, nor would it mean you can't distinguish between content,
> cultural, visual, etc.
>
> What I mean is I don't think these appreciations are mutually exclusive.
Agreed.
> I think determined focus on one can mitigate against appreciation of
> another - which is probably why I don't foster a deep love of issues such
> as gender or populist sorts of issues. And it also might explain the
> shortcomings of others here (and formerly here) - or maybe they're just
> stupid. I don't know.
>
> Seems natural, don't it?
Not for me, Mark. That's why I'm in favor of maintaining the distinction
between the hi and low, since to a large extent the high is defined by the
presence of the low. Otherwise, it's all one, ohmmmm. But that was the gist
of Benjamin's essay, in the thirties he predicted that the boundaries between
the high and low would blur do to the advent of mass media and mechanical
reproduction.
> So anyway, I don't think of it as any sort of indictment of your views.
Bullshit, all my views are indictable. What's the purpose of sedition if
everything is acceptable (smile).
> (snip about 800 words about burlesque, which you've obviously been dying
> to talk about for days and I'm glad you found a way to include it in the
> discussion)
Heheehe. It might interest you to know that relating the early comic strip to
burlesque is an original idea. I was working on this for my MA thesis, and the
idea doesn't appear anywhere in the literature. The way I got to it was this
-- the "Yellow Kid" was immediately popular, which defies everything that is
known about 'popularity.' There had to be a form that the public was already
quite familiar with, so I went looking for it. When I began studying Burlesque
(there's very little literature on the subject) I discovered that the early
comic strips mimiced the Burlesque genres. Too bad I never wrote the thesis.
Maybe some day.
> > I'll leave it at that.
>
> THANKS!
>
> Somewhere in all that you used the phrase "and some burlesques were
> actually quite good art" or something to that effect. (It seems like weeks
> since I actually read that paragraph way back there and I can't find it
> now.)
>
> Is that distinction - that some burlesques were better than others - an
> expression of personal taste? (Yours, you highbrow?) or something that all
> the lowbrows would agree on?
I doubt it (that all low brows would agree on). I think the distinction could
be made by comparison with the high brow forms, where you see the material
elements of the art form being indistinguishable for it's loftier cousin.
But here's something to think about. I like Sting, but I saw a TV show where
Sting was performing with the Big 3 Tenors. In that context poor Sting sounded
like a frog with laryngitis - next to Pavarotti, Carrereas and Domingo. So
what are we looking at - voice control, the products of academic training,
classical music education? The tenors all were wearing tuxedos, and Sting was
dressed in stage casual.
>
>
> (more extensive cutting)
>
> > I remember one time when I was
>
> (whoops - more snip)
>
> > Ha ha ha. So much for
> > the hi brow - which I think Bryn has rightly called 'snobbery.'
> >
> > Erik
>
> I think there is a difference between highbrow and high art. I think the
> phrases evoke quite different things.
And what would that be? Are you talking about something other than the
audiance?
> Anyway, as they say in the usenet, hope this helps!
>
> (By the way, no Limmerick Award of the Week for me? Three stanzas, even!)
Oh, yes, the Limmerick Internet Motivational Prize (LIMP) is yours.
Best, Erik
Tomi Holmberg
i think my idea failed. i'd like to see for example Mark (as his views
of hi/low are pretty black'n'white) discuss his stuff against for
example mine (i do retty mega low-brow generally/ ultra hi-brow for
myself). you won't fit for this visual game as you are neutral fo
hi/low =)
but guys like mark want to be where they are. they doesnt need to
explain anything, they stay in their superstitious level. in fact, do
they might fear their stuff getting ridiculated or their level of
crackpotness is too deep.. ? all they need is their cultural relative
status.
--
Art Suxors!!
www.sci.fi/~tomppa1
mark webber
> >
> > Did everybody laugh the same amount? At every show?
>
> In my lexicon, 'all in all' means 'generally.'
Fair enough. But it t'weren't all equal.
>
> > All the scripts were of equal artistic value - lowbrow as they were?
> >
> > And were some performances weaker than others of the same script?
> >
> > And were all the actors of equal SKILL?
>
> No to all. Some was better'n others. But this is just to say there is a
> range of achievment involved, just as we find in 'high art.' And how is
> the measured? I suppose by laugh meters or something like that. Ticket
> sales.
Well, I'll bet you that you appreciate some burly-q stuff that the
lowbrows didn't get, and I'll bet your cultural milieu allows for a more
expanded reading of the content - and form - of the various scripts and
performances.
In short, I'll bet your guage works differently than the commoners'.
And I not only support that, I'm addicted to it.
By the way, Bob's brilliant little piece on the Stooges has me drooling to
see them again. Way to go Bob! Excellent analogy.
>
> It's like "Krazy Kat" is better than "Apartment 3G" or "Seinfield" is
> better than "Hee Haw." How so? I think you can make a measure, but you
> would first have to agree things to measure. It's a big project. But the
> best of low brow approaches hi brow, that's all.
>
> Erk
One hundred percent agreement, Erk!
Mrk
mark webber
>
> I don't mind being the sacrifical lamb, as long as the agenda goes forward.
If I slaughter everyone there is no one with whom to gloat.
Besides, you never go ad hominum. You're clean, baby.
> Obviously, we all have our unique vocabularies. But that's why we have
> dictionaries - to call forth the dictators of meaning. But you know how it is
> with the 'scholarly paper' -- define your terms. There's no reason why each of
> us shouldn't do that, for the sake of communication.
I'm all for it.
> > I think determined focus on one can mitigate against appreciation of
> > another - which is probably why I don't foster a deep love of issues such
> > as gender or populist sorts of issues. And it also might explain the
> > shortcomings of others here (and formerly here) - or maybe they're just
> > stupid. I don't know.
> >
> > Seems natural, don't it?
>
> Not for me, Mark. That's why I'm in favor of maintaining the distinction
> between the hi and low, since to a large extent the high is defined by the
> presence of the low. Otherwise, it's all one, ohmmmm.
Oh, I'm in favor of it too. I'm in favor of it the way I'm in favor of the
distinction between hot and cold. We know there are relative degrees - but
we've also seen water freeze and boil.
Anyone who would like to argue that because temperature is relative we
should try to rise above our cultural programming and stop calling frozen
water cold is welcome to do so. But for my part, the distinctions are
obvious. I prefer to work within them because I don't know how *not* to be
part of a culture.
I guess here I'm really addressing the notion that I'm seen as black/white
on issues of quality while I feel I'm not at all. But in a way, this
applies to those who argue that cold and warm are personal taste, too. If
they haven't actually "seen" water boil how can they believe a guage
should exist?
>
> > So anyway, I don't think of it as any sort of indictment of your views.
>
> Bullshit, all my views are indictable. What's the purpose of sedition if
> everything is acceptable (smile).
I love it when people spell emoticons. It's evidence of evolution, isn't
it? Only a few winking punctuations left these days. And when was the last
time you saw that moronic/masonic ROTFLMAO here? Pretty cool, huh?
Passwords go out of style quicker than post-painterly abstraction.
Anyway, all I meant was, you get no argument from me.
>
> > (snip about 800 words about burlesque, which you've obviously been dying
> > to talk about for days and I'm glad you found a way to include it in the
> > discussion)
>
> Heheehe. It might interest you to know that relating the early comic strip to
> burlesque is an original idea. I was working on this for my MA thesis, and the
> idea doesn't appear anywhere in the literature.
If you like I can offer you some supplementary material - no kidding - tap
dance. (I'm sure you see how it's related, and beyond the kitsch aspect)
I'd be willing to bet that tap dancing is the synthesis of syncopated
African dance with non-syncopated Irish jigs, formed on Irish plantations
in the South. Never researched it, but you're welcome to it.
But I'm pretty sure that tap dance was part of a rural, minstral theatre
that impacted urban burlesque.
> The way I got to it was this
> -- the "Yellow Kid" was immediately popular, which defies everything that is
> known about 'popularity.' There had to be a form that the public was already
> quite familiar with, so I went looking for it. When I began studying Burlesque
> (there's very little literature on the subject) I discovered that the early
> comic strips mimiced the Burlesque genres. Too bad I never wrote the thesis.
> Maybe some day.
That is nice. Yes, too bad.
> > Is that distinction - that some burlesques were better than others - an
> > expression of personal taste? (Yours, you highbrow?) or something that all
> > the lowbrows would agree on?
>
> I doubt it (that all low brows would agree on). I think the distinction could
> be made by comparison with the high brow forms, where you see the material
> elements of the art form being indistinguishable for it's loftier cousin.
Well, then, you aren't the same audience, are you? There is a whole
different meaning for you than for the original audience. I think that
significantly changes the way we should think about your descriptions and
assessments of burlesque.
Maybe *none* of it was even good theatre!
You know, when I look at a room full of Greek vases, I'm aware that some
of them were crafted as low, functional art - some of which are decorated
nicely and some not as well - and still others were signed by
celebrated ceramicists and painters. The distinction between what,
at that time, was merely functional and highly praised isn't always made
clear in the galleries. Rarely, in fact. But boy, when you see one by the
Berlin Painter or Euphronius there is no mistaking it: High Art. Great
High Art.
>
> But here's something to think about. I like Sting, but I saw a TV show where
> Sting was performing with the Big 3 Tenors. In that context poor Sting sounded
> like a frog with laryngitis - next to Pavarotti, Carrereas and Domingo. So
> what are we looking at - voice control, the products of academic training,
> classical music education? The tenors all were wearing tuxedos, and Sting was
> dressed in stage casual.
The tenors, as wonderful as they are, define themselves with context:
whether they chum with Sting or not, they are kitsch-mongers when they
make appearances like this. They are making art when they *perFORM* from
the pre-existing composition. Not when they do fundraisers for PBS.
> > I think there is a difference between highbrow and high art. I think the
> > phrases evoke quite different things.
>
> And what would that be? Are you talking about something other than the
> audiance?
I think the terms are or should be used differently. Highbrow evokes a
sourgrape lack of appreciation and high art evokes the apex of creativity.
I mean, of course, in non-humorous discourse.
LIMP, huh? Here's an acronym for you: Erik Remembers Every Cute Thing
and Perpetually Elucidates Non-wIth-Standing.
Don't ever go limp,
Mark
br...@wralaw.com
"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
You might shave off your eyebrows so you can see more clearly.
> The simple fact of the matter is that every piece of artwork can be
said to
> be an expression of higher ideas, as all art can be interpreted to
have
> connotation, poetry, or figuration. A depiction of 'a grown man
crying', for
> example, may be said to be a representation of mid-life, a middle
point
> between two states of non existence where the grown man is lost in
the murky
> void of the abyss and feels overcome and trapped by the weight of his
being.
> 'The city of New York in the morning fog' may have New York figured
as an
> allegory of Modernity, as New York is seen to be the modern city--and
the
> arising sun, alluding to Platonic thought, is meant as a reference to
The
> Good, or Knowledge. Because the fog surrounds the city and prevents
the
> waking men within from seeing the sun in its clarity, one could draw
the
> conclusion that the fog is a reference to how even modern man--even
with all
> of his advances in understanding the world---still is trapped by his
limited
> and contextual perceptory capabilities and can only understand
knowledge as
> a faint glimmer of hope that he percieves to be far away and out of
reach.
>
> Of course, in most cases these analyses when applied to a piece of
art which
> is described by the titles you gave me would be a stretch and it
would be
> ridiculous to give them any credence. It is of great probability that
such
> artworks would be purely illustrative. However, there might be cases
in
> which art by those titles are not meant to be illustrative, but
rather more
> meaningful figurations. It is at this point that one would ask how
would one
> be able to tell the difference between those two situations, and it
is the
> answer to that very question which would allow us to understand the
> difference between what may be considered 'low brow' and 'high brow'
> art.
What makes this a waste of time is that one might argue that art
that has no meaning is therefore unique and thusly profound. I
think the distinction between "what you mean" by low eyebrows
high eyebrows(both are ugly and cause wrinkles), is that high
"eyebrows" art has people arguing that no matter what the piece
is it is profound, low eyebrows is that the same people argue
that another work of art no matter what it is is trite and
completely meaningless.
What it mainly comes down to is I l-l-like it or not usually.
I would also add that I generally don't consider "what you mean"
as low or high brow art as really really fine art, or art indicitive
of Genius or profundity.
Generally high-brow art is monolithic, cheap large-scale, dadaism
not fine art but Junque(refined intellectualized accidents).
Conversly low-brow often oversentimentalizes what are really
negative circumstances or average circumstances (though I do
believe there is a real power in everyday experience if one
chooses to posses a divine will), -I guess what I mean is that
""so called"" Kitsch often tries to communicate that Universally
child-birth or Marriage is a good thing rather than the reality
of conditionality of human experience, Museum art usually
communicates nothing but anger at the art establishment or
blind conformity to it...
The way I see it a truth seeker has no love of either.
Bryn Ayers
> --Brian Shapiro
br...@wralaw.com
Tomi Holmberg <tomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> i think my idea failed. i'd like to see for example Mark (as his views
> of hi/low are pretty black'n'white) discuss his stuff against for
> example mine (i do retty mega low-brow generally/ ultra hi-brow for
> myself). you won't fit for this visual game as you are neutral fo
> hi/low =)
Well I'd like to do something like that, I think Mark has posted
his work on the internet before, if we could get two artists,
one representing "a-abstraction" and "i-representational"
to compare the modes of expression (perhaps on opposing, and
identical criteria) it would certainly be interesting.
> but guys like mark want to be where they are. they doesnt need to
> explain anything, they stay in their superstitious level. in fact, do
> they might fear their stuff getting ridiculated or their level of
> crackpotness is too deep.. ? all they need is their cultural relative
> status.
> Art Suxors!!
> www.sci.fi/~tomppa1
Bryn Ayers
mdeli
word illustration in reference to artwork.
Painting whose subject matter refers to an occurrence is sometimes
called illustration.
Illustration is also the term used for artwork done to be reproduced
in other media for various purposes.
And lastly as a derogatory term, illustration is used as a label by
the modern art critic wants to pan a picture which doesn't conformity
to the precepts of Modern Art theology. In this sense the word
illustration means blasphemy (kitsch and commercial are also terms
carry the same stigma). More often than not this also means "bad art
end of discussion."
Art teachers often say what amounts to "We teach Art here not
illustration." This is usually a tip off that they can't draw and
don't know technique. The result is that most art students are
totally ignorant of the commercial aspects of art along with 3/4 of
the best 20th century artwork. As a consequence art schools produce
large crops of disgruntled failures.
There really is no concrete aesthetic distinction between fine art and
illustration. Picasso produced paint on canvas and so did Norman
Rockwell. In the long run viewers assign merits to all varieties of
artwork, regardless of any song and dance, high brow distinctions,
illustration labels, long winded definitions, or Modern Art theology.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
act
expert here, but I would like to start out by saying that
the separation of illustration from fine art seems a little
pointless to me. While not all fine art is illustration,
good illustration should be considered to be fine art as
well. There IS bad illustration out there, and there IS bad
fine art, and I don't think that it's reasonable to dismiss
bad fine art as illustration.
Illustration, as far as I have been able to tell, is
generally art that is created to compliment text, or to
portray a particular concept or person. Most illustration
out there, though, is created particularly to add another
dimension to the printed word. Apart from that, I don't see
why there should be any distinctions between illustration
and fine art.
Granted, illustration is, at many times, a problem-solving
process. An illustrator has a concept or story created by
someone else, and cannot, for most commissioned work, claim
total responsibility for the subject matter, and somehow
that illustrator has to figure out how to make each image
their own somehow. It's a different kind of challenge, and
often, the impetus to create the work at all is
pretty much a financial one. A good illustrator is able to
take each new idea, transcend the limitations posed on him
by the job, and create art. Yes, ART. Mediocre illustration
isn't just mediocre illustration, it's mediocre ART.
However, I think that most people will agree that there's a
lot of fine art out there that's not terribly original.
So that's my two cents. I'm still trying to figure out why
people say that Dali was an illustrator (I've heard that a
couple of times now.) I don't like his work, I never have,
but he wasn't really an illustrator, that I can tell. That
one still confuses me.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Jaxart
mtrueN...@fcc.net.invalid says...
>
>OK, I'm not even going to try to pass myself off as an
>expert here, but I would like to start out by saying that
>the separation of illustration from fine art seems a little
>pointless to me.
And to most of us as well who do 'illustrative' kind
of art. I think you can draw the line where the
person doing the art work says it should be drawn.
Some illustrators make no pretension at calling themself
fine artist, while fine artists deny they are illustrators.
So, like Duchamp, art is what the artist says it is,
and so also illustration... my take.
Jaxart
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.artistnation.com/members/paris/jaxart/index.html
Marilyn Welch
> In article <15efa2ac...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com>,
> mtrueN...@fcc.net.invalid says...
> >
> >OK, I'm not even going to try to pass myself off as an
> >expert here, but I would like to start out by saying that
> >the separation of illustration from fine art seems a little
> >pointless to me.
>
> And to most of us as well who do 'illustrative' kind
> of art. I think you can draw the line where the
> person doing the art work says it should be drawn.
> Some illustrators make no pretension at calling themself
> fine artist, while fine artists deny they are illustrators.
> So, like Duchamp, art is what the artist says it is,
> and so also illustration... my take.
>
> Jaxart
>
I have the opposite view in that the artist makes the work
and puts it out there and has no control over the interpretation
and that's the beauty of it. Anyone is free to interpret, and
we should cherish that freedom. The novice or the layman
might lean on the advice of experts, seek out what critics
say, but after a few years of viewing art, can then come
to her own conclusions - more informed conclusions but still
uniquely hers.
To illustrate is to copy from the visual in the external world
-to make art is to express your own vision.
It's an arguement which dates back to the Renaissance.
Marilyn
act
myself creating is often inspired by the written word (I
read a lot) and many times also incorporates text within the
image, because I think text itself is an interesting image.
Would my work be considered illustration, or fine art?
Kay
"act" <mtrueN...@fcc.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:010b13aa...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com...
: OK, so just for the sake of argument- the art that I find
: myself creating is often inspired by the written word (I
: read a lot) and many times also incorporates text within the
: image, because I think text itself is an interesting image.
: Would my work be considered illustration, or fine art?
When it is inspired by the written word, then it is either called
"Narrative" or else "Literary-based"
When incorporating text within the actual work of art, it is called
"Textuvisual"
Kay
Jaxart
mtrueN...@fcc.net.invalid says...
>
>OK, so just for the sake of argument- the art that I find
>myself creating is often inspired by the written word (I
>read a lot) and many times also incorporates text within the
>image, because I think text itself is an interesting image.
>Would my work be considered illustration, or fine art?
Falling back on my argument, I'd ask you what YOU call it.
Some 'fine artists' use nothing but text as the art element.
If you're given a script and asked to illustrate it you
become an illustrator by that definition. If your work
finds it's way onto a magazine cover by way of being commissioned,
you are an illustrator by industry definitions. There is
a very broad fuzzy shifting line between art and illustration
and there have been any number of endless threads on the
subject in this forum, none of which ever resolved the issue.
I believe it remains unresolvable -- just as defining
what is art and what isn't will remain.
Jaxart
wq...@victoria.tc.ca says...
>I have the opposite view in that the artist makes the work
>and puts it out there and has no control over the interpretation
>and that's the beauty of it.
No argument from me on your interpretation. See my
other reply to 'act' on the subject.
Erik A. Mattila
Part of speech: noun
Syllables: il-lus-tra-tion
Pronunciation: I lE stre shEn
Definition: 1. a picture or drawing used to illustrate a book or other
work, or such pictures collectively.
Synonyms: artwork (1)
Similar Words: drawing, picture, portrayal, portrait, representation,
design, frontispiece, vignette, depiction {depict}, illumination, plate
Definition: 2. the art of making such pictures.
Similar Words: design, drawing, art
Definition: 3. something that clarifies; example:
Synonyms: example (1), demonstration (3), representation (1), case1
(1), exemplar (2)
Similar Words: instance, clarification {clarify (vt)}, illumination,
elucidation {elucidate (vt)},exhibition, presentation, picture,
portrayal
Example: written illustrations of dictionary meanings.
Source: Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary-Thesaurus
Here's a good one, from "Glossary of American English Hacker
Theocratese" (I like the second part).
ILLUSTRATION
"A means of teaching or communicating an idea by a verbal picture or
comparison. There are many types of illustrations, e.g., metaphors:
<<Come, you people, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah>> (Isa
2:3), similies: <<The kingdom of the heavens is like a mustard grain>>
(Mat 13:31), proverbial sayings: <<You will certainly become like one
lying down in the heart of the sea, even like one lying down at the top
of a mast.>> (Pro 23:34), allegorical stories: <<Jesus' illustration of
the prodigal son>>, hyperbole: <<It is easier for a camel to get through
a needle's eye>>, and life experiences. The Bible says that Jesus would
not speak without an illustration. (Mat 13:34) Illustrations are such an
important part of teaching that an entire chapter of the School
Guidebook is devoted to their use. ([sg] chapter 34)
NOTE: The purpose of an illustration is to create memorable mental
pictures that help to drive home scriptural points. No illustration
matches the reality it illustrates perfectly. For instance, Jesus
compared Christians to sheep. In some ways this is true, but sheep are
also stupid. Jesus did not mean that Christians are stupid. If
Christians were exactly like sheep in every respect, then they would
actually be sheep, instead of being like sheep, and Jesus' comparison
would no longer be an illustration.[106] "
Oxford New English Dictionary
ILLUSTRATON
noun - a picture illustrating a book, newspaper, etc.: an illustration
of a yacht.
an example serving to clarify or prove something: this accident is a
graphic illustration of the disaster that's waiting to happen.
[MASS NOUN] the action or fact of illustrating something, either
pictorially or by exemplification: by way of illustration, I refer to
the following case.
優ERIVATIVES
illustrational adjective.
涌RIGIN late Middle English (in the sense 'illumination; spiritual or
intellectual enlightenment'): via Old French from Latin illustratio(n-),
from
the verb illustrare (see ILLUSTRATE).
Also from Oxford--
NARRATIVE
noun a spoken or written account of connected events; a story: the hero
of his modest narrative.
[MASS NOUN] the narrated part or parts of a literary work, as distinct
from dialogue. n [MASS NOUN] the practice or art of narration:
traditions of oral narrative.
adjective in the form of or concerned with narration: a narrative poem |
narrative technique.
優ERIVATIVES
narratively adverb.
涌RIGIN late Middle English (as an adjective): from French narratif,
-ive, from late Latin narrativus 'telling a story', from the verb
narrare
(see NARRATE).
From the Art Lexicon --
ILLUSTRATION- A design or picture in a book, magazine or other print or
electronic medium that explains the text or shows what happens in a
story.
Examples:
Charles Dana Gibson (American, 1867-1944), A Daughter of the South,
1909, ink on paper, 30 x 25 inches (76.2 x 63.5 cm), Library of
Congress, Washington, D.C. This is fairly typical of illustrator Charles
Dana Gibson's idealized American woman, introduced by him in the 1890s
and popularly known as the "Gibson Girl."
But Kay, 'narrative' art isn't always ispired by the 'written word.' I
maen you could make a 'history painting' if you were at the Battle of
Waterloo and never read about it. In the strictist sense, (in
narratology) a narrative involves time and sequencial events. So a
still life isn't a narative, but a painting that shows an artist going
to the store to buy apples and setting the apples on a table and then
painting it, it would be a narrative. There don't need to be no wirds.
But I just put those dictionary defs because someone said that the issue
hasn't been resolved (what is an illustrator?). Of course it's been
resolved. We either accept that words have a conventional meaning, or
we accept that anyone can use a word anyway they like, regardless of its
meaning.
Erik
Kay wrote:
> "act" <mtrueN...@fcc.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:010b13aa...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com...
> : OK, so just for the sake of argument- the art that I find
> : myself creating is often inspired by the written word (I
> : read a lot) and many times also incorporates text within the
> : image, because I think text itself is an interesting image.
> : Would my work be considered illustration, or fine art?
bigfoot
of us are. A true artist creats. Norman Rockwell was
considered an illustator in his lifetime. In the future I
have no doubt he will be considered an artist. It is a
hundred years and more from now when that which we do, IF
it survives, and IF it becomes priceless, then we are a
great artist. An artist is an illustrator illustrating his
own dimension (if he is contemporary) Our work is
important to us and we hope for our greatness in what we
leave behind.
god...@my-deja.com
act <mtrueN...@fcc.net.invalid> wrote:
> ...I would like to start out by saying that
> the separation of illustration from fine art seems a little
> pointless to me.
Fine means small, detailed, high-quality.
> While not all fine art is illustration,
Illustrate, means more or less giving light (lustre)
to! Generally it is assumed that illustration illustrates
a text, like a pomo theory, or a childrens book, or
an event. Illustrate basically means to demonstrate"
except visually -illustrate.
I doubt that most expensive art made by famous painters(or whatever)
meets either the definition of "fine" or "illustrate."
In terms of Modernism illustre -giving light to- is brought
only by a Lucifer -light bringer-, Since modernism thrives
in Mental Darkness, like any Vampire, light is seen as
the enemy and is called +evil+ -but that begs the question
when faced with reality. Darkness has little or no meaning
without light, so "illustration" must be strawmaned and
pigeonholed to only mean a certain subtext of sentamental,
mediocre realist art, and then is used as a sweeping
generalization to dismiss absolutely all +art+ that illustrates
'the light' or any unacedemic art that shows innate talent.
When modernism ends abstraction will und up where it belongs,
-on the floor being walked on like a fine oriental carpet
rather than stuck sentimentally on a wall.
In a few hundred years the anthropologists of art will recognize
Modern era artists as they were with a fuller knowledge of
neurology(which will replace 99% of philosophy postmodern).
And they will know "really" how much intelligence it takes
to produce what sort of artwork. And "you all know who"
will be recognized as the 'artist of the century' and given
status in Museums akin to Da Vinci and Rembrant.
lake
bounds of convention, painting goes beyond them. Norman Rockwell was a
top-notch illustrator, but his intentions were not even remotely
similar to those of Edward Hopper.
Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!