Practical matters - Accurate -vs- realistic vertical perspective
peter nelson
plane relating to art technique.
As a beginning painter I'm always trying different subjects to
learn from and the other night I decided that I wanted to paint a
candle flame close-up to try to render the flame itself and its
reflections off the soft wax. I chose a tall, fat,cylindrical candle
and set it close-up (I'm working in acrylicsso there's less fire risk
than oils!) and below me so I'm drawing it somewhat from above.
After doing the initial study I was struck by how distorted it appeared.
My wife commented on the same thing, but I got some straightedges
and confirmed that it was accurateand I was jusrt seeing the effects of
extremely close perspective.
Any photographer is familiar with this problem. Take a 35mm camera
with a good quality wide-angle lens, say 28mm or 35mm, and go into
the city and find a tallish building, say 10 or 20 stories and get as close
as you can to it whilst still being able to fit it all in your viewfinder
and shoot it.
Examine the pictures when you get them back and they will look weird -
the building will appear to be falling away from you. There's nothing
wrong
with the lens - it's accurately recording what it saw. It's just simple
perspective
- the top of the building is farther away from you and thus "smaller".
Several
camera makers including Nikon and Canon make lenses designed to
compensate for this.
But the interesting this is that our brain is good enough at dealing
with it that when we walk down the street we don't see things this way;
we don't feel like we're surrounded by weird pyramidal architectural
experiements. In fact, even though the above experiment COULD
be performed purely through the viewfinder, without actually making
a print, most people don't notice it until they get the print back because
standing in front of the building they're still "in context".
The mechanism by which our brains handle this is so good that
we seldom notice it except when confronted with optical illusions.
(the moon looking "huge" on the horizon is an example of this
same mechanism gone awry).
BACK TO PAINTING: When confronted with this problem while
painting or drawing I'm always conflicted between drawing it
accurately even if it looks distorted or deliberately distorting
what I draw to conform to way it "should" look. I've been examining
paintings by the masters and they often seem to do the latter.
Most scenes with buildings or columns, even when they are close
enough to the viewer to have noticable perspective distortion
are often still rendered with parallel edges, at least among realist
and classicist painters Which is all the more interesting because
these same artists have no problem doing deep perspective for
things in the horizontal distance. This is especially noticable with
many English Victorian painters because they were fascinated with
Greek themes. Often they'll have a row of columns receding
into the distance - so they get that perspective problem right -
but the nearest column is close enough to touch yet its vertical
sides are parallel!
So my question (FINALLY) is: for those artists here who try to
work realistically, how do you address this topic in your own work?
---peter
Bob C
>
> Any photographer is familiar with this problem. Take a 35mm camera
> with a good quality wide-angle lens, say 28mm or 35mm, and go into
> the city and find a tallish building, say 10 or 20 stories and get as close
> as you can to it whilst still being able to fit it all in your viewfinder
> and shoot it.
> But the interesting this is that our brain is good enough at dealing
> with it that when we walk down the street we don't see things this way;
> we don't feel like we're surrounded by weird pyramidal architectural
> experiements.
With a good view camera you can tilt the plane of the film and make a
photograph which looks much more natural. I would argue that the human
capabilities of dealing with visual information are at least as
sophisticated as that of a good view camera (a good deal more
sophisticated, actually).
> The mechanism by which our brains handle this is so good that
> we seldom notice it except when confronted with optical illusions.
> (the moon looking "huge" on the horizon is an example of this
> same mechanism gone awry).
Actually, I think the mechanism is failing us when the moon looks so
small in the middle of the sky. After all, the moon is pretty darn big.
Our mechanisms only work properly when the moon is on the horizon and we
have some normal context to put it in.
>
> BACK TO PAINTING: When confronted with this problem while
> painting or drawing I'm always conflicted between drawing it
> accurately even if it looks distorted or deliberately distorting
> what I draw to conform to way it "should" look. I've been examining
> paintings by the masters and they often seem to do the latter.
> Most scenes with buildings or columns, even when they are close
> enough to the viewer to have noticable perspective distortion
> are often still rendered with parallel edges, at least among realist
> and classicist painters Which is all the more interesting because
> these same artists have no problem doing deep perspective for
> things in the horizontal distance. This is especially noticable with
> many English Victorian painters because they were fascinated with
> Greek themes. Often they'll have a row of columns receding
> into the distance - so they get that perspective problem right -
> but the nearest column is close enough to touch yet its vertical
> sides are parallel!
Single point perspective will do that. For the beginner or artists not
particularly concerned with that aspect of painting, single point
perspective is an easy way to create something reasonably close to an
optically accurate projection of space. For the experienced artist who
is very concerned with perspective, its just one of many different
perspective systems which may be selected to create the desired
structure of the work. Some of those systems are closer to creating an
optically accurate projection of 3D space onto a 2D surface, but because
the 2D surface cannot imitate reality (except perhaps for a trompe
l'oil), that doesn't necessarily make it any more or less realistic.
>
> So my question (FINALLY) is: for those artists here who try to
> work realistically, how do you address this topic in your own work?
>
In the few works I've done where the viewer is placed in the position of
looking up at parallel verticals, I've consciously made the verticals
parallel rather than accurately copying them from the photographs of the
scene which I was working from. In each case, I was happy with my
decision, but the decision was made independently for each one. I don't
generally do the type of architectural renderings where this really
becomes an issue, though, so I'm sure you can get a much more thorough
discussion of this from some of the other regular posters on this group.
- Bob
mdeli
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
snip
>BACK TO PAINTING: When confronted with this problem while
>painting or drawing I'm always conflicted between drawing it
>accurately even if it looks distorted or deliberately distorting
>what I draw to conform to way it "should" look. I've been examining
>paintings by the masters and they often seem to do the latter.
>Most scenes with buildings or columns, even when they are close
>enough to the viewer to have noticable perspective distortion
>are often still rendered with parallel edges, at least among realist
>and classicist painters
It is an aesthetic decision.
> Which is all the more interesting because
>these same artists have no problem doing deep perspective for
>things in the horizontal distance. This is especially noticable with
>many English Victorian painters because they were fascinated with
>Greek themes. Often they'll have a row of columns receding
>into the distance - so they get that perspective problem right -
>but the nearest column is close enough to touch yet its vertical
>sides are parallel!
>
>So my question (FINALLY) is: for those artists here who try to
>work realistically, how do you address this topic in your own work?
You decide what you want and do it.
If you know how.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments.
at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
TechnoCrate
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>I'd like to get our discussion back onto a more practical
>plane relating to art technique.
>
So would I. Is Blockx amber varnish worth the money? ;-)
>As a beginning painter I'm always trying different subjects to
>learn from and the other night I decided that I wanted to paint a
>candle flame close-up to try to render the flame itself and its
>reflections off the soft wax. I chose a tall, fat,cylindrical candle
>and set it close-up (I'm working in acrylicsso there's less fire risk
>than oils!) and below me so I'm drawing it somewhat from above.
>
>After doing the initial study I was struck by how distorted it appeared.
>My wife commented on the same thing, but I got some straightedges
>and confirmed that it was accurateand I was jusrt seeing the effects of
>extremely close perspective.
>
I think the problem is the following:
The candle is cilindrical so if you look exactly down at its center
with one eye you should only see its top which is a circle. If you
change your viewpoint away from that center then the top will become
an ellipse. If your pupil makes a 30 degree angle with the center of
the top's circle (in the horizontal plane ofcourse) then you will see
an ellips which smallest diameter is half of the widest diameter (sine
of 30 degrees is 0.5). It comes down to some goniometry.
I believe the problem might be in a wrongly shaped top which offers a
cue of the viewing angle, as well as the converging contourlines of
the side of the candle provide a cue to the viewing angle.
If the degree of converging (of the contourlines) is not in match with
the proportions of the ellipse (the circular top of the cilindrical
candle) then we're looking at a distorted image. It will look as if
the top of the candle was cut under an angle or as if the candle's top
is not a circle but an ellipse or as if the candle gets thinner
towards its end. It depends on your ideas about candles and which of
the two cues is the prominent cue for establishing the viewing angle.
You can find out by either calculating the whole thing or just try it
out by making two converging lines and try out some tops. A perfect
circle will ofcourse make the picture look distorted .
>BACK TO PAINTING: When confronted with this problem while
>painting or drawing I'm always conflicted between drawing it
>accurately even if it looks distorted or deliberately distorting
>what I draw to conform to way it "should" look. I've been examining
>paintings by the masters and they often seem to do the latter.
>Most scenes with buildings or columns, even when they are close
>enough to the viewer to have noticable perspective distortion
>are often still rendered with parallel edges, at least among realist
>and classicist painters Which is all the more interesting because
>these same artists have no problem doing deep perspective for
>things in the horizontal distance.
This really depends on your viewing angle. In the case of parallel
vertical lines of columns the viewpoint is parallel to the horizontal
plane (looking at the horizon for example). If you look up to the
columns the vertical lines will converge. A realistic painting only
captures a _single_ viewpoint. A rectangle, under whatever viewpoint
will always have four straight edges. If you float closely in front of
a skyscraper and you want to draw the whole thing then you need to
look up and down to see it. If you look down then you will see the
vertical lines converging towards ground level. If you look up then
you will see the lines converging towards the sky. Then, if you would
draw what you have seen you would be combining two viewpoints and the
drawn skyscraper would no longer be a rectangle, it would be a hexagon
with six straight edges (a rare type of hexagon ;-) Thus: don't change
your viewpoint (BTW if you would draw the skyscraper from an infinite
number of viewpoints from your position then you would get nice curves
as straight edges as if the picture was shot with a much too convex
lens).
>So my question (FINALLY) is: for those artists here who try to
>work realistically, how do you address this topic in your own work?
>
It should _look_ realistic. Viewers have certain expectations which
should be satisfied. In New York is a famous building (name deludes me
for the moment) which doesn't have 90 degree corners. People know that
but if you draw such a building (not the famous one but one that is
made up) then people will think you screwed up the perspective.
Personally I avoid certain gestures of the human figure since
particular kinds of foreshortening and unusual angles of joints can
make a painting look weird and wrong (reality however can also be
weird but never wrong, that's one difference between a painting and
reality :-).
peter nelson
TechnoCrate wrote in message <36af90a3...@news.euronet.nl>...
>This really depends on your viewing angle. In the case of parallel
>vertical lines of columns the viewpoint is parallel to the horizontal
>plane (looking at the horizon for example). If you look up to the
>columns the vertical lines will converge. A realistic painting only
>captures a _single_ viewpoint. A rectangle, under whatever viewpoint
>will always have four straight edges.
Not necessarily. If you are 1 foot from the center of a 4 foot
rectangle then BOTH ends of the rectangle are over 2 feet
away - twice as far from your eye as the center it, and therefore
smaller.
> If you float closely in front of a skyscraper and you want to draw
> the whole thing then you need to look up and down to see it.
It depends on how far you are from it and how bad your peripheral
vision is. But as you can see from the above example, things
that can easily be seen from one viewpoint still exhibit a significant
perspective effect.
> you look down then you
will see the
>vertical lines converging towards ground level. If you look up then
>you will see the lines converging towards the sky.
My point is that it is not necessary to look up and down
for this to be true. Take a picture with a good quality lens
of the same scene that you are seeing with your eye and you
can see this effect. That's the whole reason that camera
makers make Perspective Correction lenses!
>
Then, if you would
>draw what you have seen you would be combining two viewpoints and the
>drawn skyscraper would no longer be a rectangle, it would be a hexagon
>with six straight edges (a rare type of hexagon ;-) Thus: don't change
>your viewpoint (BTW if you would draw the skyscraper from an infinite
>number of viewpoints from your position then you would get nice curves
>as straight edges as if the picture was shot with a much too convex
>lens).
My point is that this effect occurs even if you use a good quality
lens with no field curvature distortion. Because it's real. Things
appear smaller as they get farther away. And the effect is very
significant except that our minds compensate for it. A good
example of this is in portraiture. Many portraits are drawn from
a distance where IF they were drawn realistically as they actually
hit the artist's eye, they would look distorted. Fortunately the
artist compensates for this in his rendering, often without even
thinking about it. But the reason why photographers prefer
short telephoto lenses for portraits (typically 105mm for a 35mm
camera) is because the film will record it literally and the longer
lens allows them to get farther away. If they shot from the same
distance that many portraits are painted the nose would look
too big for the face (assuming the subject is facing the artist).
So, getting back to the marble columns in the Victorian classicist
paintings, the base or center (depending on the picture) is often
significantly closer to the viewer than the top, but both the base
and top are visible in the painting. The the top "should" be smaller
i.e., the sides of the column "shouldn't" be parallel. I put these in
quotes because from an aesthetic standpoint they probably
"should" be parallel.
What's really happening is that the painters are adopting a
multi-viewpoint persepective. Which is fine except that, unless
we get up and walk around we see the world from a single
viewpoint.
Thus what's REALLY interesting is that a multi-viewpoint perspective
anticipates cubism although I have no idea if the artists who employed
it ever really though about what they were doing in such analytical terms.
Because I have a background in the mathematics of 3D
computer graphics (I used to write transform code for a
graphics workstation maker) I'm more aware of this than most
people and it drives me nuts when I paint or draw. As I
write this I'm looking at a rectangular floor-to-ceiling post
in my office. I can clearly see the entire post but my eye-level
is about 4 feet up it its side (I'm sitting down). And even though
I know intellectually that its sides are parallel I can clearly see
that the top is "smaller" (because it's farther away).
---peter
peter nelson
Bob C wrote in message <36AF73...@erols.com>...
>peter nelson wrote:
>>
>> BACK TO PAINTING: When confronted with this problem while
>> painting or drawing I'm always conflicted between drawing it
>> accurately even if it looks distorted or deliberately distorting
>> what I draw to conform to way it "should" look. I've been examining
>> paintings by the masters and they often seem to do the latter.
>> Most scenes with buildings or columns, even when they are close
>> enough to the viewer to have noticable perspective distortion
>> are often still rendered with parallel edges, at least among realist
>> and classicist painters Which is all the more interesting because
>> these same artists have no problem doing deep perspective for
>> many English Victorian painters because they were fascinated with
>> Greek themes. Often they'll have a row of columns receding
>> into the distance - so they get that perspective problem right -
>> but the nearest column is close enough to touch yet its vertical
>> sides are parallel!
>
Actually *true* single point persective should nake the tops of the
columns appear smaller because they are farther away from that
single viewpoint.
The only way to make such columns have parallel sides is to
adopt a multi-viewpoint perspective, i.e., if the artist is sitting
4 feet from a 10 foot column he draws the part closest to him
as though he's seeing it from 4 feet away, and he also draws
the top as though he's 4 feet away from *that* part. OR he
draws the floor and figures lying about on it (say it's an Alma
Tadema painting) from a close persective so THEY come out
right and the columns from a more distant viewpoint so
they are essentially drawn using a parallel perspective.
>> So my question (FINALLY) is: for those artists here who try to
>> work realistically, how do you address this topic in your own work?
>>
>
>In the few works I've done where the viewer is placed in the position of
>looking up at parallel verticals, I've consciously made the verticals
>parallel rather than accurately copying them from the photographs of the
>scene which I was working from.
I find it comes up in all kinds of situations. As I write this I'm
sitting in front of a 10 foot post in my office, viewing it from
an eye level of about 4 feet (I'm seated). Even though I'm
close to it I can clearly see the entire post in my field of view.
And I can clearly see that the top is "smaller" (because it's
farther away) than the part that's at eye-level. But intellectually
I "know" that the sides are parallel.
I also run into it all the time in still-lifes, which are often drawn
from a close perspective to get details of the subject. Say, a
bowl of fruit is flanked by two candle-sticks. If you're as close to
the bowl as is implied by the composition then the two candle
sticks probably diverge or converge, depending on the
viewpoint, but most artists draw them in parallel because
that's what looks right.
A big part of art, I think, is knowing when to "cheat". For instance
if I'm drawing the figure where he has his hand outstretched
towards me I "know" the hand is not bigger than the head but
due to perspective that's how it looks. And I better draw it that
way because if I draw it smaller than the head, as it really is,
it will look weird. But the OPPOSITE applies to the columns and
candlesticks - there I get the best effect from drawing it the way
I intellectually know it to be (parallel) because if I draw them the
way they're shaped by perspective it looks weird.
---peter
TechnoCrate
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>TechnoCrate wrote in message <36af90a3...@news.euronet.nl>...
>>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:43:33 -0500, "peter nelson"
>><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>>This really depends on your viewing angle. In the case of parallel
>>vertical lines of columns the viewpoint is parallel to the horizontal
>>plane (looking at the horizon for example). If you look up to the
>>columns the vertical lines will converge. A realistic painting only
>>captures a _single_ viewpoint. A rectangle, under whatever viewpoint
>>will always have four straight edges.
>
>Not necessarily. If you are 1 foot from the center of a 4 foot
>rectangle then BOTH ends of the rectangle are over 2 feet
>away - twice as far from your eye as the center it, and therefore
>smaller.
>
Yes, and if you draw it like that it will look distorted or having an
overexaggerated perspective (this type of drawings are also used in
animation movies, for example: a vertical travelling over a
skyscraper). A realistic painting is like a photograph, having only
one viewpoint and shot with a proper lens.
Our visual resolution is not equally distributed over our entire
visual field (towards the borders we only have motion detection, in
the 2 degree center (fovea) we have full blown details and only color
vision, outside of that luminance perception becomes more dominant and
colors fade, etc.).
However: if we look at a "photographic realistic" painting we expect
to see everything of the whole painting as if the whole painting would
fit in our 2 degree center vision, a thumbnail picture at arm's reach
(our eyes travel over the painting to scrutinize details). Or as if
our fovea was a flat surface big enough to capture the whole scene
without the aid of lenses.
Vision is a matter of visual perception. A mental representation is
built from the cues our eyes provide and from what the memory tells us
we see. We expect to see the mental representation, not the raw data
from our moving eyes. Computer manufactured pictures of what really is
in the visual field in a single eye fixation look very distorted apart
from what is in the center (R. Solso's "Cognition and the visual arts"
contains a nice example). They don't look realistic although it is
_exactly_ what our eyes see.
peter nelson
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 10:32:43 -0500, "peter nelson"
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>TechnoCrate wrote in message <36af90a3...@news.euronet.nl>...
>>>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:43:33 -0500, "peter nelson"
>>><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>This really depends on your viewing angle. In the case of parallel
>>>vertical lines of columns the viewpoint is parallel to the horizontal
>>>plane (looking at the horizon for example). If you look up to the
>>>columns the vertical lines will converge. A realistic painting only
>>>captures a _single_ viewpoint. A rectangle, under whatever viewpoint
>>>will always have four straight edges.
>>
>>Not necessarily. If you are 1 foot from the center of a 4 foot
>>rectangle then BOTH ends of the rectangle are over 2 feet
>>away - twice as far from your eye as the center it, and therefore
>>smaller.
>>
>Yes, and if you draw it like that it will look distorted or having an
>overexaggerated perspective (this type of drawings are also used in
>animation movies, for example: a vertical travelling over a
>skyscraper). A realistic painting is like a photograph, having only
>one viewpoint and shot with a proper lens.
But a photograph taken from the perspective described above,
even with a perfect lens will also look "distorted" because of the
perspective problem.
>Vision is a matter of visual perception. A mental representation is
>built from the cues our eyes provide and from what the memory tells us
>we see. We expect to see the mental representation, not the raw data
>from our moving eyes. Computer manufactured pictures of what really is
>in the visual field in a single eye fixation look very distorted apart
>from what is in the center (R. Solso's "Cognition and the visual arts"
>contains a nice example). They don't look realistic although it is
>_exactly_ what our eyes see.
Exactly. But sometimes the raw data is exactly what we want to
draw, as in the example I mentioned to someone here of the figure
with a hand outstretched toward the artist. The hand is much
closer to the artist and so is much bigger - bigger than the
head in angular diameter. But a mistake beginning drawing students
often make is to draw the hand too small because they "know" that a
hand is not bigger than a head. In general beginners have this problem
with deep perspective because they draw what they "know", not what
they actually see.
The trick in creating drawings which "read" correctly (i.e., look
natural) is apparently to know when to draw what we know and
when to draw what we see.
---peter
TechnoCrate
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
Yes, indeed there is this problem between drawing what we know and
drawing what we see. Gombrich already argued that we can't draw what
we see since we perceive rather than see but drawing from memory
results in the "normalizing" problems you pointed out. I believe that
we're facing a trade off between the raw data of the eyes and the
mental representation made from it.
However: the beginners errors are a result of violating the "rules" of
the visual perceptual system which are used to make a representation
of the cues provided by the eyes. Making the closer hand as big as it
would be if placed next to the face is violating the rule that things
that are closer appear to be bigger. There are lots of heuristics
which are used by our visual system. One can ofcourse violate them for
the effect. Klee and Escher provide us with nice examples how the
rules concerning lines can be abused to make impossible images.
You're right about the columns which in real life have no parallel
edges but the painting of them is not real life. The perspective
system which was so popular in the renaissance seems to satisfy our
expectations about how a representation of depth should look like
(there are many systems of perspective, even ones that are inverted).
One can wonder, looking at really old or other-culture works of art,
if the expectations we have about representations (the heuristics of
the perceptual system) are cultural and/or temporal defined. For this
moment and culture I can only say what I already said: it should
_look_ realistic and IMHO this results in flat goniometry.
>The trick in creating drawings which "read" correctly (i.e., look
>natural) is apparently to know when to draw what we know and
>when to draw what we see.
>
I second that
peter nelson
viewpoint perspective is that prior to about the 15th century
(Brunelleschi, Masaccio, et al) European artists had no
real grasp of perspective and used to draw scenes where
different objects were shown from different viewpoints. The
result often had a jumbled or visually disturbing quality to them
But then for the next 4 centuries or so the newly discovered
"vanishing point" and "rational" perspective model dominated the
art world. It really wasn't until artists in the last century or so
(Cezanne
to some extent, and Picasso in a more radical way) began to deliberately
experiment with, and undermine, conventional ideas about perspective
that we broke free from this. But interestingly, to me at least, many
of their experiments "read" a bit like the pre-perspective art of the
14th century.
---peter
mdeli
snip
>But then for the next 4 centuries or so the newly discovered
>"vanishing point" and "rational" perspective model dominated the
>art world. It really wasn't until artists in the last century or so
>(Cezanne
>to some extent, and Picasso in a more radical way) began to deliberately
>experiment with, and undermine, conventional ideas about perspective
>that we broke free from this.
Picasso and certainly Cezanne don't show any evidence of having known
perspective.
> But interestingly, to me at least, many
>of their experiments "read" a bit like the pre-perspective art of the
Like where?
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Note: There was an address error in former messages
The above address is correct. Please try again.
mike...@my-dejanews.com
> It really wasn't until artists in the last century or so (Cezanne
> to some extent, and Picasso in a more radical way) began to deliberately
> experiment with, and undermine, conventional ideas about perspective
> that we broke free from this. But interestingly, to me at least, many
> of their experiments "read" a bit like the pre-perspective art of the
> 14th century.
I was at Carl's Jr (not a place where you usually go to view fine art) today
and hanging on the walls were a bunch of prints by an artist who, as you say,
has "broken free" from perspective. I found myself wondering, does the artist
purposely paint without perspective, or does he just do it tha way because he
isn't talented enough to paint with perspective? In any event, the end result
is that his pictures look more like the work of child than that of a
professional, adult artist.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
zi...@interport.net
Dear peter,
I am afriad I believe that some of your trouble with the kinds of
perspective used by pre15th century artists is based on thinking
formalistically and not metaphorically. If you look at any of the
paintings on the back of Duccio's Maesta, I would claim that all of
the perspective "errors" serve the function of carrying the story,
emphasizing important points and heightenoing our awareness of mystery
[and miracle]. In the story of Jesus from the Entry into Jerusalem
through Jesus appearance in limbo and before doubting Thomas. The most
peculiar space of all occurs in the two panels where Jesus is before
Caiphas and Pter is denying him down below in the courtyard for the
third time. rt is the appropriate for a completely irrational and
broken space, and it has one. In the three Marys at the tomb, the
tomb is painted in preAlbertian one point perspective, the lid is
floating above it in a sort of isometrish position and on it sits an
angel. The convention in painting in Duccio's time was to underpaint
every figure with green. He breaks that convention for the angel, who
is underpainted in red. He glows. Could he possibly not be aware of
the action of his perspective deviations. I think not. Also, of
course Albertian perspective is a metaphoric system. And the first
painter to use it successfully [Masaccio], used it in a apinting in
which the vanishing point was immediately behind Jesus' head. That
was metaphoric too!
Unfortunately you will have to look at old photos of those paintings
before their "restoration" [read destruction]. There is hardly
anything left worth looking at.
Gabriel
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:24:18 -0500, "peter nelson"
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>An interesting aside on this question of single- and multi-
>viewpoint perspective is that prior to about the 15th century
>(Brunelleschi, Masaccio, et al) European artists had no
>real grasp of perspective and used to draw scenes where
>different objects were shown from different viewpoints. The
>result often had a jumbled or visually disturbing quality to them
>
>But then for the next 4 centuries or so the newly discovered
>"vanishing point" and "rational" perspective model dominated the
>art world. It really wasn't until artists in the last century or so
>(Cezanne
>to some extent, and Picasso in a more radical way) began to deliberately
>experiment with, and undermine, conventional ideas about perspective
>that we broke free from this. But interestingly, to me at least, many
>of their experiments "read" a bit like the pre-perspective art of the
>14th century.
>
>---peter
>
>
>ic,
zi...@interport.net
That may be true of the pianitngs hanging onthe walls of you watering
place, but if that is meant to someho touch Cezanne some thing is
wrong with yopur experience. Have you seen a large Cezanne show?
The last one was in Philadelphia. There is not way I can look at those
paintings and say to myself. He painted like that because he couldn't
draw. He neverwas any good at perspective. It would have a
verystrange sound in my head. Also I know where he learned it. It was
a apth which Pissarro almost took but din't tkae. And he was painting
towards it when Cezanne studied with him. There is a pissarro of
exactly that sort, about 30 by 24 hanging in the Brooklyn museum. It
shows two openings into space, one up a pathe [to thexright, and
theother through the foliage into a valley. The calculated
disagreement sets up a space almost where Cezanne went after he was
painting on his own. So Cezanne AND Pissarro got it wrong. But
Pissarro at the beginning of impressionsim was the fdinest painter of
the batch, and theclosest to Corot. He did, demonstrably know how to
paint perspectivally. And he showed it again in his paintings of city
scenes in Paris painted in his last years.
Is it possible that there is something about non-perspectival painting
that you could learn?
Did you know this. In the early Renaissance when the painters [from
Masaccio through the Pollaiuolo brothers] painted in one point
perspective, the figures were never drawn in perspective, but always
out of perspective as though they were in the center of the cone of
vision. Isn't that a violation of perspective?
Gabriel
On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 01:40:50 GMT, mike...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
>> It really wasn't until artists in the last century or so (Cezanne
>> to some extent, and Picasso in a more radical way) began to deliberately
>> experiment with, and undermine, conventional ideas about perspective
>> that we broke free from this. But interestingly, to me at least, many
>> of their experiments "read" a bit like the pre-perspective art of the
>> 14th century.
>
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> An interesting aside on this question of single- and multi-
> viewpoint perspective is that prior to about the 15th century
> (Brunelleschi, Masaccio, et al) European artists had no
> real grasp of perspective and used to draw scenes where
> different objects were shown from different viewpoints. The
> result often had a jumbled or visually disturbing quality to them
>
> But then for the next 4 centuries or so the newly discovered
> "vanishing point" and "rational" perspective model dominated the
> (Cezanne
> to some extent, and Picasso in a more radical way) began to deliberately
> experiment with, and undermine, conventional ideas about perspective
> that we broke free from this. But interestingly, to me at least, many
> of their experiments "read" a bit like the pre-perspective art of the
> 14th century.
>
>
I did come across an 18th C. French critique of Italian Renaissance
perspective. The basis of the critique was that the Italians did not really
achieve 'realism' with one and two point perspective because the actual human
experience of vision involved both time and movement -- in other words the
stationary view was extremely unnatural.
By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's Theory,
as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms. In some ways
it is tempting to believe that Cezanne anticipated Einstein -- but that's an
argument I don't care to make. Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality Einstein
defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a terrific
read on this.
But I have to say something about another response to your ' Interesting
Aside" posted elswhere on this thread, Peter. I've read tons of words about
art in my life, and about the most imbecilic statement I have evern
encountered is that "Cezanne and Picasso new nothing about perspective." I
can't believe that anyone could even imagine that to be the case.
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Interesting. There's also atmospheric perspective, distributional
perspective, and even Chinese perspective.
When I first started looking at Wayne Thibaud's San Francisco paintings I
caught a bit of nostalgia. Ever since I was a small child my typical anxiety
dreams involved the fright of steep hills, like driving a car up a hill and
worrying about it falling over backwards, or driving around SF trying to
avoid going down a hill that was so steep it was terrifying. I was born in
San Francisco. Somehow Thibaud caught that anxiety. When I talked about this
with Thibaud he said he used Chinese perspective. ??? Well, it seems the
Chinese decided that objects in the distance grew larger, and lines converged
towards the viewer.
I remembered as a child driving through the Canadian Rockies, and staring out
the back window of my father's car. I was amazed that the distant mountains,
behind closer mountains, grew larger as we drove further away from them. It
was like an animated movie, the mountains growing larger and larger as they
receded into the distance.
peter nelson
>In article <78sga9$nrg$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>,
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> An interesting aside on this question of single- and multi-
>> viewpoint perspective is that prior to about the 15th century
>> (Brunelleschi, Masaccio, et al) European artists had no
>> real grasp of perspective and used to draw scenes where
>> different objects were shown from different viewpoints. The
>> result often had a jumbled or visually disturbing quality to them
>>
>> But then for the next 4 centuries or so the newly discovered
>> "vanishing point" and "rational" perspective model dominated the
>> art world. It really wasn't until artists in the last century or so
>> (Cezanne
>> to some extent, and Picasso in a more radical way) began to deliberately
>> experiment with, and undermine, conventional ideas about perspective
>> that we broke free from this. But interestingly, to me at least, many
>> of their experiments "read" a bit like the pre-perspective art of the
>> 14th century.
>But I have to say something about another response to your ' Interesting
>Aside" posted elswhere on this thread, Peter. I've read tons of words
about
>art in my life, and about the most imbecilic statement I have evern
>encountered is that "Cezanne and Picasso new nothing about perspective." I
>can't believe that anyone could even imagine that to be the case.
Yes, that was from our resident curmudgeon, mdeli. Clearly Picasso
understood perspective, since we can see this in his earlier works.
He just chose to ignore it in order to experiment. If there is one
thing this thread has clearly shown, photographically-accurate
perspective is seldom employed even by the best artists, and
aesthetically is probably not ever desirable in many cases. And
once we open that Pandora's Box then there really isn't any TECH-
NICAL difference between what Picasso did via cubism and what
Alma Tadema did in painting close-up columns with parallel
sides - they both violate geometrically correct perspective. The
differences can only be debated on aesthetic grounds.
---peter
mdeli
>By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's Theory,
>as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
>intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms.
Total nonsense. I doubt that these painters even knew algebra.
> In some ways
>it is tempting to believe that Cezanne anticipated Einstein -- but that's an
>argument I don't care to make.
I'm sure this sort of stupidity has tempted you
>Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
>drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality Einstein
>defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a terrific
>read on this.
>
This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
dimension.
>But I have to say something about another response to your ' Interesting
>Aside" posted elswhere on this thread, Peter. I've read tons of words about
>art in my life, and about the most imbecilic statement I have evern
>encountered is that "Cezanne and Picasso new nothing about perspective." I
Right. Now just point to some evidence.
A good example of Picasso's lack of knowledge is his curtain for
Parade and his academic style work.
As to Cezanne, everything is cockeyed. He drew in axanometric to the
extent he could figure it out.
>can't believe that anyone could even imagine that to be the case.
You must know a lot about perspective.
Frederic Goudal
> >By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's Theory,
> >as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
> >intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms.
>
> Total nonsense. I doubt that these painters even knew algebra.
Hum hum...you have not read carefully, in this time (this is shown in
every relativity history) there has been a lot of fanstams about
Einstein's Theory, so there is no reason painters were not like the others.
>
> >Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
> >drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality Einstein
> >defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a terrific
> >read on this.
> >
> This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
> dimension.
Relativity deals with x,y,z and the time t, if you count well (let's
help you x 1, y 2, z 3, t 4)it's a four dimension world.
Once again you're wrong.
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
R/L Davis
>
> ... If there is one
> thing this thread has clearly shown, photographically-accurate
> perspective is seldom employed even by the best artists, and
> aesthetically is probably not ever desirable in many cases. And
> once we open that Pandora's Box then there really isn't any TECH-
> NICAL difference between what Picasso did via cubism and what
> Alma Tadema did in painting close-up columns with parallel
> sides - they both violate geometrically correct perspective. The
> differences can only be debated on aesthetic grounds.
>
> ---peter
Peter,
I guess I have to jump in here. I'm not sure what
"photographically-accurate" perspective is, but linear perspective, as
used by artists since the Renaissance, is essentially the same as the
perspective we _usually_ see in photography. When the camera is level
and the film is held vertical (the camera is not pointing up or down),
the "perspective" that the camera captures is much the same as that
derived from linear perspective where the picture plane is assumed to be
vertical, this includes all vertical lines appearing vertical. I say
"usually" because we have all seen photographs taken with a fish-eye
lens where vertical and horizontal lines are not only not straight but
also curved. That is a special case however, and most cameras (like
most paintings, but not all) show vertical and horizontal lines as being
straight.
As well, if our camera (film) is tilted from vertical, as would be the
case if we were taking a photograph looking down from above (as down
into a city from a tall building), we get the same effect as a drawing
of the same subject where the picture plane is assumed to be at the same
angle. In other words, we can draw the same image using linear
perspective and get the same results as that from our camera.
Assuming the columns you are talking about above actually have parallel
sides (many don't) and that they are actually vertical (many aren't) I
don't believe we are that far from the mark (not as far as cubism
anyway!) when representing these close up column's with parallel sides,
or sides that are parallel to the sides of the painting if that is what
you are describing. The picture plane represents the sides of our
painting, and is meant to represent the "window" we are looking
through. If we imagine standing before an actual window looking across
the street to our perfect row of (parallel and vertical) columns, we
will notice that the edges of the columns _are_ parallel to the edges of
our window. This is true no matter how close or far our window is from
these columns.
What is even more interesting to me, however, is that the rules of
perspective create some distortions that are the same as those a normal
camera will capture, and that are not far off from what we actually see
out of the corner of our eye. One clear example of this is the problem
of an ellipse in the corner of our image. If we carefully plot out an
ellipse near the corner of a drawing we find that the ellipse will want
to tilt toward the corner, this is increasingly true as our image
becomes more wide angle. This is exactly the same effect that a camera
will capture (very noticeable with a wide angle lens). But this is also
what we see out of the corner of our eye. An ellipse created by a
circle that is lying on a level surface, such as a plate on a table or a
manhole on a street, always has a perfectly horizontal axis when we look
at them straight on, but when seen out of the corner of our eye are
sliding off to the corners of our vision. The tops or bottoms of your
columns if lined up along the edge of our window, or along the edge of
our drawing or photograph, will show this problem quite well. Artists
often have to go to great pains to "fix" such distortion, a photographer
is often at a loss and has to accept this distortion.
Another example where linear perspective and a camera will see the same
distortion is that your columns, when lined up parallel to the picture
plane (when the camera is pointed straight at the row of columns, not
looking down the row), will appear to get _bigger_ as they go off to the
sides. This is true in both photography and a perspective drawing (but
we don't "see" this effect out of the corner of our eye as with the
tilted ellipse above).
Making actual vertical lines appear vertical in paintings is not an
absolute rule, but surprisingly few artists stray from this practice.
Even the Photorealists seldom made their vertical lines less than true.
Yvonne Jacquette with her views looking up at the angles of city
buildings is one who did, Robert Cottingham is another. More recently,
Catherine Murphy is another, with images looking down and out windows.
One contemporary figurative artist that is straying quite dramatically
from the norm is Antonio Lopez-Garcia. Garcia not only does not make
his vertical lines vertical, he makes them more or less curved as well,
along the lines of the fish-eye lens mentioned above. This is somewhat
disconcerting when he uses it to an extreme but quite effective when
used to a lesser degree.
Getting back to your original question, it's hard to say what your
perspective problem could be, looking slightly down on the candle and
flame. It could be that you just didn't get the perspective quite
right, or that the edge of the candle was distorted from melting in an
odd way and that this conflicted with the perspective; or perhaps you
just needed some clues that the candle is seen from above rather than
simply being held on an angle (the flame would obviously appear
differently depending on which were true). Using a candle and flame is
probably an unfortunate subject to discuss such a perspective problem, a
fire cracker with a fuse sticking out the end, a straw sticking out of a
pop can, or some such thing, would be easier subjects for deciding the
nature of your problem.
For what it's worth,
Richard
mdeli
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>Yes, that was from our resident curmudgeon, mdeli. Clearly Picasso
>understood perspective, since we can see this in his earlier works.
>He just chose to ignore it in order to experiment.
He had no choice but to ignore it.
As one of our many resident technical nitwits here perhaps you could
name three Picasso paintings that demonstrate this knowledge.
.
BTW in cubism in spite of claims, the design is based on axanometric
draftsmanship not perspective in the true sense. Its as far as the
knowledge of drawing the solid got in the middle ages.
> If there is one
>thing this thread has clearly shown, photographically-accurate
>perspective is seldom employed even by the best artists, and
>aesthetically is probably not ever desirable in many cases.
There is no such thing as one photographically- accurate perspective.
the image differers with different lenses and focal plane positioning
etc. The only constant is the mathematics it involves.
> And
>once we open that Pandora's Box then there really isn't any TECH-
>NICAL difference between what Picasso did via cubism and what
>Alma Tadema did in painting close-up columns with parallel
>sides - they both violate geometrically correct perspective. The
>differences can only be debated on aesthetic grounds.
No difference?
Technique, subject matter, draftmanship don't count. Except to
curmudgeons.
I guess according to this reasoning even Rothko used perspective. Of
course many artzy fartzy critics claim his work was fourth
dimensional, And some idiot here even pointed out that Cezanne
anticipated Einstein. I'm sure Gabriel believes this, as he once
stated that C. had great influence on all 20th century history. When I
asked for some direct evidence he blew a gasket and left the conferece
and took six months to recover.
By this reasoning I would suggest that Jesus was well versed in
technologically advanced quantum mechanics. After all it is said he
came back after his execution and ascended.
Only curmudgeons have doubts about this.
peter nelson
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:22:47 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
>> >By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's
Theory,
>> >as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
>> >intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms.
>>
>> Total nonsense. I doubt that these painters even knew algebra.
>
>Hum hum...you have not read carefully, in this time (this is shown in
>every relativity history) there has been a lot of fanstams about
>Einstein's Theory, so there is no reason painters were not like the others.
Your English is not very good, so I'm not entirely sure what
you're trying to say, but the fact that the General Theory of
relativity was reported in the news does not mean that the
painters had any idea what it meant.
>
>>
>> >Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
>> >drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality
Einstein
>> >defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a
terrific
>> >read on this.
>> >
>> This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
>> dimension.
>
>
>Relativity deals with x,y,z and the time t, if you count well (let's
>help you x 1, y 2, z 3, t 4)it's a four dimension world.
So what? Any art involving or attempting to suggest motion
"deals with" x,y,z and t. If an artist motion-blurs some moving
water he has introduced the element of time into his composition.
This doesn't mean he has any concept of relativity.
Shortly after the United States began a program of hydrogen
bomb tests at Bikini Atoll French fashion designers named their
latest teeny-weeny 2-piece bathing suit the "bikini" . This doesn't
mean that they had any concept of nuclear fusion.
---peter
peter nelson
>peter nelson wrote:
>
>>
>> ... If there is one
>> thing this thread has clearly shown, photographically-accurate
>> perspective is seldom employed even by the best artists, and
>> aesthetically is probably not ever desirable in many cases. And
>> once we open that Pandora's Box then there really isn't any TECH-
>> NICAL difference between what Picasso did via cubism and what
>> Alma Tadema did in painting close-up columns with parallel
>> sides - they both violate geometrically correct perspective. The
>> differences can only be debated on aesthetic grounds.
>I guess I have to jump in here. I'm not sure what
>"photographically-accurate" perspective is, but linear perspective, as
>used by artists since the Renaissance, is essentially the same as the
>perspective we _usually_ see in photography. When the camera is level
>and the film is held vertical (the camera is not pointing up or down),
>the "perspective" that the camera captures is much the same as that
>derived from linear perspective where the picture plane is assumed to be
>vertical, this includes all vertical lines appearing vertical. I say
>"usually" because we have all seen photographs taken with a fish-eye
>lens where vertical and horizontal lines are not only not straight but
>also curved.
This is incorrect. I have a considerable background in
photography and optics amd I can assure you that the
reason why Nikon, Canon, et al, manufacture Perspective
Correction lenses is *NOT* because of barrel or pincushion
distortion in their other optics!
It is because when you are standing close to any vertical
column (a building, a light standard, pillars, etc) the part that
is closest to the camera will be larger, and therefore the sides
will NOT be parallel. This is simple, single-viewpoint geometry
which has nothing to do with any distortions in the lens. The
effect can be quite severe and disturbing which is why
serious photographers are willing to shell out the thousand or
so dollars that a perspective correction lens costs.
> That is a special case however, and most cameras (like
>most paintings, but not all) show vertical and horizontal lines as
> being straight.
These are not special cases. I used to do newspaper photography
shooting things like riots and strikes and in many outdoor or crowd
scenes I saw this problem.
. . .
>As well, if our camera (film) is tilted from vertical, as would be the
>case if we were taking a photograph looking down from above (as down
>into a city from a tall building), we get the same effect as a drawing
>of the same subject where the picture plane is assumed to be at the same
>angle. In other words, we can draw the same image using linear
>perspective and get the same results as that from our camera.
>
>Assuming the columns you are talking about above actually have parallel
>sides (many don't) and that they are actually vertical (many aren't) I
>don't believe we are that far from the mark (not as far as cubism
>anyway!) when representing these close up column's with parallel sides,
I'm not saying they're as far from reality as cubism, just that both
cubism and the more subtle multipoint perspective in Alma Tadema's
(and some other English classicists) are BOTH departures from
literal geometric correctness. Therefore if we are going to
criticize Picasso on that basis we should criticize others who
do it, too.
>or sides that are parallel to the sides of the painting if that is what
>you are describing. The picture plane represents the sides of our
>painting, and is meant to represent the "window" we are looking
>through. If we imagine standing before an actual window looking across
>the street to our perfect row of (parallel and vertical) columns, we
>will notice that the edges of the columns _are_ parallel to the edges of
>our window. This is true no matter how close or far our window is from
>these columns.
Not exactly, because if you are close enough to the window,
then you are closer to *some* part of the window than some
*other* part, and the part you are closer to will be BIGGER.
(i.e., the window will appear wider) at that point. And noticably so.
It's especially a problem if the windows have "divided lights" (a
grid of multiple panes) in them because the grid will be distorted.
For example, as I sit here in my studio I have my camera with a
35mm f/2 Nikkor set up in front of one of my 7' tall windows and
the effect is QUITE noticable. If there were a row of light
standards outside they would look parallel to each other, but
NOT to the window, even though they are in reality.
---peter
peter nelson
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:08:12 -0800, "peter nelson"
><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, that was from our resident curmudgeon, mdeli. Clearly Picasso
>>understood perspective, since we can see this in his earlier works.
>>He just chose to ignore it in order to experiment.
>
>He had no choice but to ignore it.
>As one of our many resident technical nitwits here perhaps you could
>name three Picasso paintings that demonstrate this knowledge.
Most of his earlier work, from about 1892 to 1900, when he was a
student showed a perfectly adequate grasp of perspective.
>BTW in cubism in spite of claims, the design is based on axanometric
>draftsmanship not perspective in the true sense. Its as far as the
>knowledge of drawing the solid got in the middle ages.
>
>> If there is one
>>thing this thread has clearly shown, photographically-accurate
>>perspective is seldom employed even by the best artists, and
>>aesthetically is probably not ever desirable in many cases.
>
>There is no such thing as one photographically- accurate perspective.
>the image differers with different lenses and focal plane positioning
>etc. The only constant is the mathematics it involves.
By photographically-accurate I mean geometrically accurate
single-viewpoint perspective. And this does not vary
with lenses or focal lengths assuming the lens doesn't
introduce any optical distortions, and the camera is in the
same location. The fact that a wide angle lens takes in more
doesn't change the perspective, even though it does make
the effect more apparent.
>> And
>>once we open that Pandora's Box then there really isn't any TECH-
>>NICAL difference between what Picasso did via cubism and what
>>Alma Tadema did in painting close-up columns with parallel
>>sides - they both violate geometrically correct perspective. The
>>differences can only be debated on aesthetic grounds.
>
>No difference?
>Technique, subject matter, draftmanship don't count. Except to
>curmudgeons.
Technique, subject matter and draftsmanship are irrelevent to the
question at hand, which is, as I noted, that both Alma Tadema
and Picasso departed from geometrically correct perspective.
That's all we're discussing here.
---peter
R/L Davis
>
> R/L Davis wrote in message <36B6183F...@tallships.ca>...
> >peter nelson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> perspective is seldom employed even by the best artists, and
> >> aesthetically is probably not ever desirable in many cases. And
> >> once we open that Pandora's Box then there really isn't any TECH-
> >> NICAL difference between what Picasso did via cubism and what
> >> Alma Tadema did in painting close-up columns with parallel
> >> sides - they both violate geometrically correct perspective. The
> >> differences can only be debated on aesthetic grounds.
>
> >"photographically-accurate" perspective is, but linear perspective, as
> >used by artists since the Renaissance, is essentially the same as the
> >perspective we _usually_ see in photography. When the camera is level
> >and the film is held vertical (the camera is not pointing up or down),
> >the "perspective" that the camera captures is much the same as that
> >derived from linear perspective where the picture plane is assumed to be
> >vertical, this includes all vertical lines appearing vertical. I say
> >"usually" because we have all seen photographs taken with a fish-eye
> >lens where vertical and horizontal lines are not only not straight but
> >also curved.
>
> photography and optics amd I can assure you that the
> reason why Nikon, Canon, et al, manufacture Perspective
> Correction lenses is *NOT* because of barrel or pincushion
> distortion in their other optics!
>
> It is because when you are standing close to any vertical
> column (a building, a light standard, pillars, etc) the part that
> is closest to the camera will be larger, and therefore the sides
> will NOT be parallel.
In other words, the tops of our row of columns (as well as the bottoms)
are farther from our camera so the distance between them should appear
farther apart than the distance between the middles, am I understanding
you?
> This is simple, single-viewpoint geometry
> which has nothing to do with any distortions in the lens. The
> effect can be quite severe and disturbing which is why
> serious photographers are willing to shell out the thousand or
> so dollars that a perspective correction lens costs.
> > That is a special case however, and most cameras (like
> >most paintings, but not all) show vertical and horizontal lines as
> > being straight.
>
> These are not special cases. I used to do newspaper photography
> shooting things like riots and strikes and in many outdoor or crowd
> scenes I saw this problem.
Are you saying that many cameras show a degree of barrel distortion?
> . . .
> >As well, if our camera (film) is tilted from vertical, as would be the
> >case if we were taking a photograph looking down from above (as down
> >into a city from a tall building), we get the same effect as a drawing
> >of the same subject where the picture plane is assumed to be at the same
> >angle. In other words, we can draw the same image using linear
> >perspective and get the same results as that from our camera.
> >
> >Assuming the columns you are talking about above actually have parallel
> >sides (many don't) and that they are actually vertical (many aren't) I
> >don't believe we are that far from the mark (not as far as cubism
> >anyway!) when representing these close up column's with parallel sides,
>
> I'm not saying they're as far from reality as cubism, just that both
> cubism and the more subtle multipoint perspective in Alma Tadema's
> (and some other English classicists) are BOTH departures from
> literal geometric correctness...
(Can you tell me what Alma Tadema you are referring to?)
> >or sides that are parallel to the sides of the painting if that is what
> >you are describing. The picture plane represents the sides of our
> >painting, and is meant to represent the "window" we are looking
> >through. If we imagine standing before an actual window looking across
> >the street to our perfect row of (parallel and vertical) columns, we
> >will notice that the edges of the columns _are_ parallel to the edges of
> >our window. This is true no matter how close or far our window is from
> >these columns.
>
> Not exactly, because if you are close enough to the window,
> then you are closer to *some* part of the window than some
> *other* part, and the part you are closer to will be BIGGER.
> (i.e., the window will appear wider) at that point. And noticably so.
> It's especially a problem if the windows have "divided lights" (a
> grid of multiple panes) in them because the grid will be distorted.
It seems to me that it hardly matters how far you are from the window.
A horizontal line across it that is nearest to our camera (or eye) will
be closer to any other horizontal line through the window, so will
(should) appear wider (bigger). But this is also true of the edge of
our painting of this window, as well as the row of columns across the
street. So they will all appear parallel, or, if we are using a camera
with a barrel distortion, equally distorted.
> For example, as I sit here in my studio I have my camera with a
> 35mm f/2 Nikkor set up in front of one of my 7' tall windows and
> the effect is QUITE noticable. If there were a row of light
> standards outside they would look parallel to each other, but
> NOT to the window, even though they are in reality.
If the row of light standards ran all the way across your view, they
would become increasingly barreled as they got closer to the window, at
which time they would perfectly line up. I popped a 50mm lens on my
Hasselblad and this is the effect I saw (though with very little barrel
distortion :-).
It seems like you are talking largely about barrel distortion (correct
me if I am wrong). My first statement was that the type of perspective
we _usually_ see in a photograph is _essentially_ the same as that from
linear perspective, I stand by that. Barrel distortion may be one
exception, seen largely in wide angle lens' and less expensive lens',
but you point out that camera makers go to great extremes to make lens'
that don't exhibit this perspective "distortion". Are you then
suggesting that this is not in fact a distortion but
"photographically-accurate perspective"?
The other distortions I mentioned in my first post seen in both linear
perspective and a photograph are more problematic in any case. There
_are_ perspectival problems, no doubt about it. Artists and
photographers have to deal with them as best they can. Linear
perspective is not a perfect system but it is a remarkably good one for
representing the 3D world on a 2D surface, don't you agree? far better
to my mind than cubism anyway.
Richard
emat...@tomatoweb.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:22:47 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> >By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's Theory,
> >as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
> >intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms.
>
> Total nonsense. I doubt that these painters even knew algebra.
As I said, Mani, thinking is a skill too.
>
> > In some ways
> >it is tempting to believe that Cezanne anticipated Einstein -- but that's an
> >argument I don't care to make.
>
> I'm sure this sort of stupidity has tempted you
But I just said it tempted me, Mani. And I think I implied it was a stupid
argument. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
>
> >Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
> >drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality Einstein
> >defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a terrific
> >read on this.
> >
> This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
> dimension.
Are you talking about 'time,' Mani? Then the answer is yea, verily. But I'm
not stupid.
>
> >But I have to say something about another response to your ' Interesting
> >Aside" posted elswhere on this thread, Peter. I've read tons of words about
> >art in my life, and about the most imbecilic statement I have evern
> >encountered is that "Cezanne and Picasso knew nothing about perspective." I
>
> Right. Now just point to some evidence.
Just look at their drawings and painting -- point, point, point.
>
> A good example of Picasso's lack of knowledge is his curtain for
> Parade and his academic style work.
Yes, but did you know that he could paint pidgeon feet with a great deal of
bravura? He started on that project when he was seven or eight.
>
> As to Cezanne, everything is cockeyed. He drew in axanometric to the
> extent he could figure it out.
>
The term you intend is "axonometric" not "axanometric." It wasn't coined
until 1908, so Cezanne may have been anticipating Einstein, eh? But if you
read the definition below, you can see that it's not remotely what Cezanne
was doing, in fact a long way off. Nice term though. If I wasn't so clever,
I might have thought that you actually knew what you were talking about.
--being or prepared by the projection of objects on the drawing surface so
that they appear inclined with three sides showing and with horizontal and
vertical distances drawn to scale but diagonal and curved lines distorted <an
axonometric drawing> (Websters)
> >can't believe that anyone could even imagine that to be the case.
>
> You must know a lot about perspective.
Actually, I do. Would you like to test me? I've even done axonometric
drawings--a convention in technical illustration - you know, the picture that
shows you how to put your Junior Art Easel together.
zi...@interport.net
Perspective was never meant to be photographically accurate. Ther were
no photographs for the next four hundred years Plus [1426 is the date
of the relief by Donatello art the base of his St. George at
Orsanmichele and Daguerre invented the Daguerreotype in 1837].
The big change came about after the Renaissance. D uring the 15th
century perspective was a conceptually consrtructed sytem for making
the world in paintings appear to be as continuous with the space
outside as the artist could make it. But it was always conceptual and
constructed. The artist's had to use their sensibilities gained from
years of drawing from life and working with their masters to make the
essential changes which would keep the thing alive and under control.
Only one artist actually tried to give up earlkier constructional
methods and had a sensubility which allowed him to get away with it.
Masaccio, and primarily in the Carmine itself. But sadly those
paintings are gone, you will have to look at old books to getan idea
of the strangeness of his construction. Another artist of the same
period tried it with little success, Andrea del Castagno. Take a
serious look at his last supper.
Anyhow what photography is like is the kind of perspective which the
Baroque artists did after mannerism destroyed faith in the scientific
truth of perspective. In Bologna in the early 17th century a book was
published called How to do perspective without know ing the
rules.[Come si puo fare la prospettiva senza sapere le regole]
This was visual perspective without the crucial step of plotting the
space inside the rectangle by comparison with the real space out side,
and the forms portrayed as perspectivally identical with the real
forms in that new space at that distance.
It is from visual perspective that the camera Oscura and modern Camera
descend. From non projected perspective. It has little in common with
Alberti's syste,. let alone the rival system of Brunelleschi which
used two crossed vanishing points because of binolcualr vision. Ucello
is thought to have painted some paintings using it. Notably the Flood
and a lunette with a virgin and child which is now gone, but whose
sinopia [drawing underneath fresco] is still around.
Gabriel
On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 21:10:46 GMT, R/L Davis <dav...@tallships.ca>
wrote:
mike...@my-dejanews.com
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> That may be true of the pianitngs hanging onthe walls of you watering
> place, but if that is meant to someho touch Cezanne some thing is
> wrong with yopur experience
Actually, Carl's Jr. is a fast food hamburger place, like on the order of a
McDonalds, but just a little bit classier. I don't really go there to view
the art.
I don't think I mentioned Cezanne anywhere in my post. But I have to say that
I like Monet's works a lot better.
peter nelson
>peter nelson wrote:>> >I guess I have to jump in here. I'm not sure what
>> >"photographically-accurate" perspective is, but linear perspective, as
>> >used by artists since the Renaissance, is essentially the same as the
>> >perspective we _usually_ see in photography. When the camera is level
>> >and the film is held vertical (the camera is not pointing up or down),
>> >the "perspective" that the camera captures is much the same as that
>> >derived from linear perspective where the picture plane is assumed to be
>> >vertical, this includes all vertical lines appearing vertical. I say
>> >"usually" because we have all seen photographs taken with a fish-eye
>> >lens where vertical and horizontal lines are not only not straight but
>> >also curved.
>>
>> This is incorrect. I have a considerable background in
>> photography and optics amd I can assure you that the
>> reason why Nikon, Canon, et al, manufacture Perspective
>> Correction lenses is *NOT* because of barrel or pincushion
>> distortion in their other optics!
>>
>> It is because when you are standing close to any vertical
>> column (a building, a light standard, pillars, etc) the part that
>> is closest to the camera will be larger, and therefore the sides
>> will NOT be parallel.
>
>In other words, the tops of our row of columns (as well as the bottoms)
>are farther from our camera so the distance between them should appear
>farther apart than the distance between the middles, am I understanding
>you?
For any given column, it should appear narrower toward the
top because things which are farther away appear smaller.
Here's an example of the general problem . . .
http://www.dl-c.com/before2.jpg
>> This is simple, single-viewpoint geometry
>> which has nothing to do with any distortions in the lens. The
>> effect can be quite severe and disturbing which is why
>> serious photographers are willing to shell out the thousand or
>> so dollars that a perspective correction lens costs.
>
>> > That is a special case however, and most cameras (like
>> >most paintings, but not all) show vertical and horizontal lines as
>> > being straight.
>>
>> These are not special cases. I used to do newspaper photography
>> shooting things like riots and strikes and in many outdoor or crowd
>> scenes I saw this problem.
>
>Are you saying that many cameras show a degree of barrel distortion?
It is NOT optical distortion. As I said, professional photographers
use Perspective Correction lenses because even their optically
perfect $1200 Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 cannot magically avaoid the
laws of geometry.
---peter
R/L Davis
>
> R/L Davis wrote in message <36B687A8...@tallships.ca>...
> >> >... When the camera is level
> >> >and the film is held vertical (the camera is not pointing up or down),
> >> >the "perspective" that the camera captures is much the same as that
> >> >derived from linear perspective where the picture plane is assumed to be
> >> >vertical, this includes all vertical lines appearing vertical. I say
> >> >"usually" because we have all seen photographs taken with a fish-eye
> >> >lens where vertical and horizontal lines are not only not straight but
> >> >also curved.
> >>
> >>
> >> It is because when you are standing close to any vertical
> >> column (a building, a light standard, pillars, etc) the part that
> >> is closest to the camera will be larger, and therefore the sides
> >> will NOT be parallel.
> >
> >In other words, the tops of our row of columns (as well as the bottoms)
> >are farther from our camera so the distance between them should appear
> >farther apart than the distance between the middles, am I understanding
> >you?
>
> top because things which are farther away appear smaller.
>
> Here's an example of the general problem . . .
> http://www.dl-c.com/before2.jpg
Peter,
Your example is a photograph where the film is not held vertical, the
camera is pointing up. This example does not contradict what I said
above. It's similar to my example of looking down into a city from a
tall building, only here we are looking up. If we stand in front of a
building and look up we see the same effect, vertical lines converging
at a vanishing point high above (or if we look down at a candle we see
the vertical lines converging down below the candle).
Richard
-N.
> > As to Cezanne, everything is cockeyed. He drew in axanometric to the
> > extent he could figure it out.
> >
>
> The term you intend is "axonometric" not "axanometric." It wasn't coined
> until 1908, so Cezanne may have been anticipating Einstein, eh? But if you
> read the definition below, you can see that it's not remotely what Cezanne
> was doing, in fact a long way off. Nice term though. If I wasn't so clever,
> I might have thought that you actually knew what you were talking about.
That is what he is counting on to further his demagoguery: ignorance. The
stock and trade of his 'criticism'.
Press him to the next level, where your point is irrefutably proven, and
he will either 1)Insult you, 2)crawl sideways like the crab, 3)change the
subject, 4) misrepresent information and facts and when pressed, will not
provide references or 4)disappear...until he sees another opportunity to
practice no skill 'criticism'.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
peter nelson
R/L Davis wrote in message <36B76CCD...@tallships.ca>...
>peter nelson wrote:
>>
>> R/L Davis wrote in message <36B687A8...@tallships.ca>...
>> >> >... When the camera is level
>> >> >and the film is held vertical (the camera is not pointing up or
down),
>> >> >the "perspective" that the camera captures is much the same as that
>> >> >derived from linear perspective where the picture plane is assumed to
be
>> >> >vertical, this includes all vertical lines appearing vertical. I say
>> >> >"usually" because we have all seen photographs taken with a fish-eye
>> >> >lens where vertical and horizontal lines are not only not straight
but
>> >> >also curved.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It is because when you are standing close to any vertical
>> >> column (a building, a light standard, pillars, etc) the part that
>> >> is closest to the camera will be larger, and therefore the sides
>> >> will NOT be parallel.
>> >
>> >In other words, the tops of our row of columns (as well as the bottoms)
>> >are farther from our camera so the distance between them should appear
>> >farther apart than the distance between the middles, am I understanding
>> >you?
>>
>> top because things which are farther away appear smaller.
>>
>> Here's an example of the general problem . . .
>> http://www.dl-c.com/before2.jpg
>
>Peter,
>
>Your example is a photograph where the film is not held vertical, the
>camera is pointing up.
Once again you are wrong. The film plane is perfectly vertical.
The top of the building is simply farther from the lens than the
center of the building.
I've made numerous references to Perspective Correction lenses
and theur utility in these matters and you have made no comment about
them, which suggests that you have no understanding of this issue.
This is a common problem in structural photography.
If we stand in front of a
>building and look up we see the same effect, vertical lines converging
>at a vanishing point high above (or if we look down at a candle we see
>the vertical lines converging down below the candle).
ALL lenses are looking "up" and "down" because all lenses
have a field-of-view greater than zero degrees. It has
nothing to do with the angle of the film plane.
---peter
R/L Davis
>
>
> Once again you are wrong. The film plane is perfectly vertical.
> The top of the building is simply farther from the lens than the
> center of the building.
Peter,
Is this an entire image or is the bottom cropped? Was it taken with a
35mm, what camera?
Richard
mdeli
>In article <36b4cc49...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:22:47 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>>
>> >By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's Theory,
>> >as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
>> >intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms.
>>
>> Total nonsense. I doubt that these painters even knew algebra.
>
>As I said, Mani, thinking is a skill too.
Keep saying it. to yourself, it doesn't refute the point.
>>
>> > In some ways
>> >it is tempting to believe that Cezanne anticipated Einstein -- but that's an
>> >argument I don't care to make.
>>
>> I'm sure this sort of stupidity has tempted you
>
>But I just said it tempted me, Mani. And I think I implied it was a stupid
>argument. Mea culpa, mea culpa.
Then why didn't you say it directly?
>> >Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
>> >drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality Einstein
>> >defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a terrific
>> >read on this.
>> >
>> This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
>> dimension.
>
>Are you talking about 'time,' Mani? Then the answer is yea, verily. But I'm
>not stupid.
No I'm talking about the fourth dimension as in Physics and
mathematics. That is why I mentioned algebra. One isn't talking about
knowing about the fourth dimension if he tells you the time.
>
>> >But I have to say something about another response to your ' Interesting
>> >Aside" posted elswhere on this thread, Peter. I've read tons of words about
>> >art in my life, and about the most imbecilic statement I have evern
>> >encountered is that "Cezanne and Picasso knew nothing about perspective." I
Good now just name some examples.
>> Right. Now just point to some evidence.
>
>Just look at their drawings and painting -- point, point, point.
No point at all. Just name Three works be each artist.
>> A good example of Picasso's lack of knowledge is his curtain for
>> Parade and his academic style work.
>
>Yes, but did you know that he could paint pidgeon feet with a great deal of
>bravura? He started on that project when he was seven or eight.
But he didn't know perspective and he never got much better after the
age of 18.
>> As to Cezanne, everything is cockeyed. He drew in axanometric to the
>> extent he could figure it out.
>>
>
>The term you intend is "axonometric" not "axanometric." It wasn't coined
>until 1908, so Cezanne may have been anticipating Einstein, eh?
I guess by your sense of logic you could come to that conclusion. You
could also contend that where Picasso drew something that looked like
a spiral he anticipated DNA. etc etc. Perhaps you should write an
article about it in Atrforum
> But if you
>read the definition below, you can see that it's not remotely what Cezanne
>was doing, in fact a long way off. Nice term though. If I wasn't so clever,
>I might have thought that you actually knew what you were talking about.
Blah blah. Calm down and just name three Cezanne paintings that show
evidence of a knowledge of perspective.
>
>--being or prepared by the projection of objects on the drawing surface so
>that they appear inclined with three sides showing and with horizontal and
>vertical distances drawn to scale but diagonal and curved lines distorted <an
>axonometric drawing> (Websters)
By axonometric I mean the representation of parallel lines remain
parallel. They do not go to a vanishing points. You can find out how
this was done in any book on mechanical drawing. This is most evident
in Chinese painting. I'm not stating that this is either good or bad.
I'm just say that these artists didn't really know perspective.
True, I think both Picasso and Cezanne are totally over rated artists.
There are many more important reasons for this. However their lack of
knowledge didn't help them any.
>> >can't believe that anyone could even imagine that to be the case.
Sure because you like others here judge artists by what you imagine is
there instead of taking a close look and making comparisons. You also
believe what is in fashion instead of finding out for yourself.
mdeli
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote in message <36b627bd...@news.interlog.com>...
>>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:08:12 -0800, "peter nelson"
>><pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, that was from our resident curmudgeon, mdeli. Clearly Picasso
>>>understood perspective, since we can see this in his earlier works.
>>>He just chose to ignore it in order to experiment.
>>
>>He had no choice but to ignore it.
>>As one of our many resident technical nitwits here perhaps you could
>>name three Picasso paintings that demonstrate this knowledge.
>
>Most of his earlier work, from about 1892 to 1900, when he was a
>student showed a perfectly adequate grasp of perspective.
>
Thanks for a sound answer. Most people never answer this or state that
they are offended etc.
In "The First Communion-1895" the perspective is simple enough to be
correct. However I doubt that Picasso is the only hand that did this
painting.
In "Science and Charity-1897", there are perpective errors. Take a
look.
After these early paintings there is hardly another attempt at
perspective. Perhaps you would like to name a few paintings that you
feel contradict this point.
Another good place to look is at Picasso's early Paris paintings that
show how he fudged his perspective. I suppose some here will complain
that he wasn't into realistic painting here. However Monet was on
about the same level reality at that time and he knew perspective.
As I said, the fact that Picasso and Cezanne didn't know perspective
isn't what makes them second rate artists. I have lots of other
reasons for this. some of which can be seen on my web page and former
messages here.
When someone says that these artists knew perspective I want them to
take a look because I think they are wrong.
However, when some critic says Cezanne knew something about relativity
or Rothko and de Kooning painted the fourth dimension. I do not
hesitate to call them idiots.
>>There is no such thing as one photographically- accurate perspective.
>
>By photographically-accurate I mean geometrically accurate
>single-viewpoint perspective.
The reference is unclear. Are you referring to single vanishing point
perspective as in Greek and Roman painting? Or something to do with
any sort of photography? Or perspective as used in Architectural
drawing where the y axis is represented by parallel lines.
If you know a good 3D program I think it will clear up these points.
>>> And
>>>once we open that Pandora's Box then there really isn't any TECH-
>>>NICAL difference between what Picasso did via cubism and what
>>>Alma Tadema did in painting close-up columns with parallel
>>>sides - they both violate geometrically correct perspective. The
>>>differences can only be debated on aesthetic grounds.
>>
>>No difference?
>>Technique, subject matter, draftsmanship don't count. Except to
>>curmudgeons.
>
>Technique, subject matter and draftsmanship are irrelevent to the
>question at hand, which is, as I noted, that both Alma Tadema
>and Picasso departed from geometrically correct perspective.
>That's all we're discussing here.
Fine. My contention is that Picasso didn't depart from perspective, he
just didn't know it whereas Tadema did.
mdeli
wrote:
>In article <796gm5$lj3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
>
>> > As to Cezanne, everything is cockeyed. He drew in axanometric to the
>> > extent he could figure it out.
>> >
>>
>> The term you intend is "axonometric" not "axanometric." It wasn't coined
>> until 1908, so Cezanne may have been anticipating Einstein, eh? But if you
>> read the definition below, you can see that it's not remotely what Cezanne
>> was doing, in fact a long way off. Nice term though. If I wasn't so clever,
>> I might have thought that you actually knew what you were talking about.
>
>That is what he is counting on to further his demagoguery: ignorance. The
>stock and trade of his 'criticism'.
>Press him to the next level, where your point is irrefutably proven, and
>he will either 1)Insult you, 2)crawl sideways like the crab, 3)change the
>subject, 4) misrepresent information and facts and when pressed, will not
>provide references or 4)disappear...until he sees another opportunity to
>practice no skill 'criticism'.
>
Happy to know my points inflame you hemorrhoids.
Take a look at my web site in order to confirm the above to yourself.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
> >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
> >
> >> >By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's
> Theory,
> >> >as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
> >> >intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms.
> >>
> >> Total nonsense. I doubt that these painters even knew algebra.
> >
> >every relativity history) there has been a lot of fanstams about
> >Einstein's Theory, so there is no reason painters were not like the others.
>
> Your English is not very good, so I'm not entirely sure what
> you're trying to say, but the fact that the General Theory of
> relativity was reported in the news does not mean that the
> painters had any idea what it meant.
Well, Pete, this is where we come to the great 'impasse' in this ng -- any
cursory study of Analytical Cubism circa 1912-14 reveals that the
contemporary science was in fact (irrefutably) the major force behind
Picasso's and Braque's innovations. You know, all that time these fellows
spent at the sidewalk café with a bottle or red wasn't spent talking about
the Superbowl. So it boils down to reading books, and as long as people
think that they shouldn't read books about these things I guess they can
believe anything they imagine, whether or not there is any historical
reference. As I said before, read John Berger's essay 'The mmoment of
Cubism' or better yet, read his 'The Success and Failure of Picasso.'
> >
> >>
> >> >Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
> >> >drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality
> Einstein
> >> >defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a
> terrific
> >> >read on this.
> >> >
> >> This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
> >> dimension.
> >
> >
> >Relativity deals with x,y,z and the time t, if you count well (let's
> >help you x 1, y 2, z 3, t 4)it's a four dimension world.
>
> So what? Any art involving or attempting to suggest motion
> "deals with" x,y,z and t. If an artist motion-blurs some moving
> water he has introduced the element of time into his composition.
> This doesn't mean he has any concept of relativity.
Again, the literature on the subject refutes your observation. The
philosophical question was not so much the depiction of time, but more
accurately the depiction of the object embedded in a space/time matrix. What
Picasso, Braque, and many others discussed at the time, extrapolated from
Einstein's work, was the irreducability of space and time -- you know, either
space or time cannot be described out of context with the other. In an
important sense, then, analytical cubism is a more 'realistic' portrayal of
nature than is the body of painting we know as 'representational.'
>
> Shortly after the United States began a program of hydrogen
> bomb tests at Bikini Atoll French fashion designers named their
> latest teeny-weeny 2-piece bathing suit the "bikini" . This doesn't
> mean that they had any concept of nuclear fusion.
>
> ---peter
>
I didn't know this -- I had never made the connection. What a gem of
knowledge. It gives me some insight into the phrase "The Blond Bombshell"...
The only thing I want to say about your point, however, is that analytical
cubism referenced Einstein on a different level -- the French designers
referenced the bomb on the level of social spectacle, where the cubists
referenced Relativity on the level of the aesthetics of perception (or
something like that).
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> Happy to know my points inflame you hemorrhoids.
> Take a look at my web site in order to confirm the above to yourself.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
As a matter of fact I have visited your web site, and I also looked at some
Cezanne's to see if I could find some good examples of his use of perspective.
Didn't find much, but there's a couple of things to consider. One is of
course that he wasn't interested in displaying his mastery of the
Bruenelleschi formula like the renaissance painters were. If you dig out
your artbooks you'll see that subject matter changed very much once the
discourse on perspective became well known. Italian paintings conveniently
have tiled floors, architectural elements, parallel lines included as subject
elements to demonstrate deep pictorial space. By Cezanne's time this was
pretty passé.
The second thing to consider is that your work does not have these elements
in them either, just like Cezanne's. So if you make the claim that you
understand perspective, I would believe you, not on the basis of what your
paintings would prove about it, but on the basis that anyone who decides to
learn art eventually studies perspective and learning the technique of
perspective is really very simple -- anyone can learn it on a step by step
basis, just filling in the blanks. Do you see what I'm saying?
Now I would be happy to give you a post modern critiqué on your art work, but
I don't think you would appreciate it. I would touch on things like breast
obsessions (fortified by having Vargas in your list of favorites) and the
misappropriation of Freud by your transparent references to Dalí. Do you see
what I'm driving at? Juxtaposing Dalí and Vargas in any arena is an overtly
postmodern act. It is the essence of situationalism. I commend you.
mdeli
>In article <36b877ba...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>> Happy to know my points inflame you hemorrhoids.
>> Take a look at my web site in order to confirm the above to yourself.
I wrote the above message to N .after he flammed me, not to you. Many
messages here are crypyic and expressed in 200 words where 10 would
suffice. Whatever I might say I find most of your messages clearly
expressed and intellegable.
>As a matter of fact I have visited your web site, and I also looked at some
>Cezanne's to see if I could find some good examples of his use of perspective.
>Didn't find much, but there's a couple of things to consider. One is of
>course that he wasn't interested in displaying his mastery of the
>Bruenelleschi formula like the renaissance painters were. If you dig out
>your artbooks you'll see that subject matter changed very much once the
>discourse on perspective became well known. Italian paintings conveniently
>have tiled floors, architectural elements, parallel lines included as subject
>elements to demonstrate deep pictorial space. By Cezanne's time this was
>pretty passé.
The point I made was that Cezanne didn't know perspective. I'm not
interested in what he supposedly wanted only what's there.
>
>The second thing to consider is that your work does not have these elements
>in them either, just like Cezanne's. So if you make the claim that you
>understand perspective, I would believe you, not on the basis of what your
>paintings would prove about it, but on the basis that anyone who decides to
>learn art eventually studies perspective and learning the technique of
>perspective is really very simple -- anyone can learn it on a step by step
>basis, just filling in the blanks. Do you see what I'm saying?
>
My work has nothing to do with the fact that Cezanne and Picasso
didn't know perspective. As to simplicity, the one point perspective
glossed over in art courses is indeed simple, taught by simple minded
instructors. However when you get into light and shade and measurement
and complex sets of parallel lines and composing figures in space it
gets very complex. You sound like you are under the delusion that
knowledge of perspective is at an end when you can draw a checkered
floor.
I point out again that I contradicted your statment that these artists
knew perspective and asked you for evidence in the name of some
paintings. You haven't named any.
>Now I would be happy to give you a post modern critiqué on your art work, but
>I don't think you would appreciate it.
Say anything you want about my artwork. Whether I appreciate it or not
is irrelivent
>I would touch on things like breast
>obsessions (fortified by having Vargas in your list of favorites) and the
>misappropriation of Freud by your transparent references to Dalí. Do you see
>what I'm driving at?
No.
And what does Freud have to do with it? Although I've read some Freud
I find his scientific pronouncements pseudo-science which doesn't
interest me.
> Juxtaposing Dalí and Vargas in any arena is an overtly
>postmodern act.
I like both artists. Whats exclusivly POMO about that?
> It is the essence of situationalism. I commend you.
?
I'm not into any isms. I try to create images which might interest
the viewer. During the years I was professional I also tried to get
people interested in buying my work. This is what almost all artists
do along with adding a large patina of bullshit.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
>> >But I have to say something about another response to your ' Interesting
>> >Aside" posted elswhere on this thread, Peter. I've read tons of words about
>> >art in my life, and about the most imbecilic statement I have evern
>> >encountered is that "Cezanne and Picasso knew nothing about perspective." I
Good now just name some examples that show they knew perspective. .
I'm still waiting. Bet he never answers this.
>Well, Pete, this is where we come to the great 'impasse' in this ng -- any
>cursory study of Analytical Cubism circa 1912-14 reveals that the
>contemporary science was in fact (irrefutably) the major force behind
>Picasso's and Braque's innovations. You know, all that time these fellows
>spent at the sidewalk café with a bottle or red wasn't spent talking about
>the Superbowl.
Doesn't mean they were talking about science either.
>So it boils down to reading books, and as long as people
>think that they shouldn't read books about these things I guess they can
>believe anything they imagine, whether or not there is any historical
>reference.
I've never seen any evidence that Picasso knew anything much about
relativity or science. Sure some artist can say his pictures have
something to do with the fourth dimension. It doesn't mean much of
anything.
>> >> >Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
>> >> >drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality
>> Einstein
>> >> >defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a
>> terrific
>> >> >read on this.
It doesn't suffice to say it. Point out some paintings
>> >> This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
>> >> dimension.
>> >
>> >
>> >Relativity deals with x,y,z and the time t, if you count well (let's
>> >help you x 1, y 2, z 3, t 4)it's a four dimension world.
-- you might also complete my quote about this:
I'm talking about the fourth dimension as in Physics and mathematics.
That is why I mentioned algebra. One isn't talking about knowing about
the fourth dimension if he tells you the time.
>>
>> So what? Any art involving or attempting to suggest motion
>> "deals with" x,y,z and t. If an artist motion-blurs some moving
>> water he has introduced the element of time into his composition.
>> This doesn't mean he has any concept of relativity.
>
>Again, the literature on the subject refutes your observation.
The literature you read. The paintings don't. How about some Picasso
quotes about relativity that amount to indicating that he had any
knowledge of the subject?
>The
>philosophical question was not so much the depiction of time, but more
>accurately the depiction of the object embedded in a space/time matrix.
Its not a philosophical question
>What
>Picasso, Braque, and many others discussed at the time, extrapolated from
>Einstein's work, was the irreducability of space and time -- you know, either
>space or time cannot be described out of context with the other. In an
>important sense, then, analytical cubism is a more 'realistic' portrayal of
>nature than is the body of painting we know as 'representational.'
Well that's your opinion. I find cubism to be a juvenile rendition of
an abstractified reality using a simple knowledge of mechanical
drawing . The color is boring, the technique second rate and any value
in these works totally depends on the authenticity of the signature.
If any turned out to be fake they would be worthless.
Cubism is also easily imitated and a boon to art teachers who don't
know the basics as they can then waste the students time making them
imitate cubism while reciting baloney about relativity and the fourth
dimension. Most of these teachers have students who know as little
about science as they do. This prevents any backtalk.
Furthermore, many Cubists milked it till it was dry and then expressed
their incompetence using other subject matter.
-N.
> In article <795kpk$lif$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
> > >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
> > >> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:22:47 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> >By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's
> > Theory,
> > >> >as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
> > >> >intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms.
> > >>
> > >> Total nonsense. I doubt that these painters even knew algebra.
> > >
> > >Hum hum...you have not read carefully, in this time (this is shown in
> > >every relativity history) there has been a lot of fanstams about
> > >Einstein's Theory, so there is no reason painters were not like the others.
> >
> > Your English is not very good, so I'm not entirely sure what
> > you're trying to say, but the fact that the General Theory of
> > relativity was reported in the news does not mean that the
> > painters had any idea what it meant.
>
> Well, Pete, this is where we come to the great 'impasse' in this ng -- any
> cursory study of Analytical Cubism circa 1912-14 reveals that the
> contemporary science was in fact (irrefutably) the major force behind
> Picasso's and Braque's innovations. You know, all that time these fellows
> spent at the sidewalk café with a bottle or red wasn't spent talking about
> the Superbowl. So it boils down to reading books, and as long as people
> think that they shouldn't read books about these things I guess they can
> believe anything they imagine, whether or not there is any historical
> reference. As I said before, read John Berger's essay 'The mmoment of
> Cubism' or better yet, read his 'The Success and Failure of Picasso.'
>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
> > >> >drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality
> > Einstein
> > >> >defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a
> > terrific
> > >> >read on this.
> > >> >
> > >> This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
> > >> dimension.
> > >
> > >
> > >Relativity deals with x,y,z and the time t, if you count well (let's
> > >help you x 1, y 2, z 3, t 4)it's a four dimension world.
> >
> > So what? Any art involving or attempting to suggest motion
> > "deals with" x,y,z and t. If an artist motion-blurs some moving
> > water he has introduced the element of time into his composition.
> > This doesn't mean he has any concept of relativity.
>
> Again, the literature on the subject refutes your observation. The
> philosophical question was not so much the depiction of time, but more
> accurately the depiction of the object embedded in a space/time matrix. What
> Picasso, Braque, and many others discussed at the time, extrapolated from
> Einstein's work, was the irreducability of space and time -- you know, either
> space or time cannot be described out of context with the other. In an
> important sense, then, analytical cubism is a more 'realistic' portrayal of
> nature than is the body of painting we know as 'representational.'
> >
> > Shortly after the United States began a program of hydrogen
> > bomb tests at Bikini Atoll French fashion designers named their
> > latest teeny-weeny 2-piece bathing suit the "bikini" . This doesn't
> > mean that they had any concept of nuclear fusion.
> >
> > ---peter
> >
>
> I didn't know this -- I had never made the connection. What a gem of
> knowledge. It gives me some insight into the phrase "The Blond Bombshell"...
> The only thing I want to say about your point, however, is that analytical
> cubism referenced Einstein on a different level -- the French designers
> referenced the bomb on the level of social spectacle, where the cubists
> referenced Relativity on the level of the aesthetics of perception (or
> something like that).
In France:
The Puteaux Cubist group (often meeting on Monday evenings at Gleize's
studio in the suburbs of Courbevoire and Tuesday evening soirees at the
Closerie des Lila) had two favorite topics of discussion; an art that
would engage the mind, and the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension was
a major interest to them and they expended a great deal of effort in
understanding the mathematical concepts underlying it. Much of their
understanding came from Maurice Princet, a young insurance actuary and
amatuer mathematician who had been hanging around Picasso's studio for
several years (he married one of Picasso's many girlfriend/models but she
left him for Andre' Derain). Picasso was less enamoured of Princet than
the Puteaux group was.
Appoillaire refered to the fourth dimension in lectures and writings and
devoted an an entire article to it in the spring of 1912 claiming the new
art was a product of artists ability to express the fourth dimension "it
is to the fourth dimension alone that we owe this new norm of the
perfect".
Gleizes and Metzinger published the book, "Du Cubisme" in 1912, in which
they attack painting such as impressionism as an 'absurdity' because "even
more than Courbet, the retina predominates over the brain". They were
interested in an art beyond material sensations. The Cubism of Picasso and
Braque above its indulgence in the real world, was a conceptual art in the
classical sense, attempting to paint as Picasso once said, "not what you
see but what you know is there". Theoretical concepts of the fourth
dimension were perpetuated by individuals like Henri Poincare in France,
H.G. Wells in England, and other popular writers spread such notions of "a
fourth dimension beyond time and space" during the first decade of the
twentieth century: such ideas were pervasive in the culture at large in
newspapers, cartoons, magazine articles, and novels. Interest continued
into the 1920's and was generally replaced by Einstein's theories of
relativity (General theory of Relativity formulated in 1916 and which
gained widespread public recognition in 1919).
Marcel Duchamp was also exposed to these ideas of mathematics and science,
and was very influenced by them, as he regularly attended meetings of the
Puteaux group, of which his two brothers were deeply involved.
mark webber
> In France:
> The Puteaux Cubist group (often meeting on Monday evenings at Gleize's
> studio in the suburbs of Courbevoire and Tuesday evening soirees at the
> Closerie des Lila) had two favorite topics of discussion; an art that
> would engage the mind, and the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension was
> a major interest to them and they expended a great deal of effort in
> understanding the mathematical concepts underlying it.
(snip)
Howdy, N., I was away for awhile - my this place is active these days. I
could be mistaken, but it appears you have folks waiting in line to take a
poke at you!
Anyway, I read with interest what you wrote about Metzinger and Gleizes,
and couldn't help but wonder if you thought their paintings were any good.
-N.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, -N. wrote:
>
> > In France:
> > The Puteaux Cubist group (often meeting on Monday evenings at Gleize's
> > studio in the suburbs of Courbevoire and Tuesday evening soirees at the
> > Closerie des Lila) had two favorite topics of discussion; an art that
> > would engage the mind, and the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension was
> > a major interest to them and they expended a great deal of effort in
> > understanding the mathematical concepts underlying it.
>
> (snip)
>
> Howdy, N., I was away for awhile - my this place is active these days. I
> could be mistaken, but it appears you have folks waiting in line to take a
> poke at you!
Well, perhaps a few...who have in common the making of mountains out of
molehills or out of imagined molehills; maybe an unbalanced individual or
two poised and ready to swing.....on the other hand, healthy, vibrant,
substantial opposition is always welcomed.
> Anyway, I read with interest what you wrote about Metzinger and Gleizes,
> and couldn't help but wonder if you thought their paintings were any good.
Frankly, as regards the work of Metzinger and Gleizes, I don't think I
have seen a wide enough selection of their work to be able to give a
really rounded, fair, and sincere response...too much about my relation to
them is based on hearsay, twice removed references, and presentations
colored by historical agendas which are at the service of the Machinery
Picasso/Braque et al. Certainly they extended the range of subject matter
and themes availible to cubism compared with Picasso and Braque. A
retrospective of their works would be helpful to change my unfamiliarity.
While in Paris in the fall of 1997, I was dismayed to find the Pomp.
closed for renovation....lost a good opportunity to get a more balanced
first hand look at alot of artists.
I'll ask you the same question, "if you thought their paintings were any good."
mark webber
(snip)
> > Anyway, I read with interest what you wrote about Metzinger and Gleizes,
> > and couldn't help but wonder if you thought their paintings were any good.
>
> Frankly, as regards the work of Metzinger and Gleizes, I don't think I
> have seen a wide enough selection of their work to be able to give a
> really rounded, fair, and sincere response...too much about my relation to
> them is based on hearsay, twice removed references, and presentations
> colored by historical agendas which are at the service of the Machinery
> Picasso/Braque et al. Certainly they extended the range of subject matter
> and themes availible to cubism compared with Picasso and Braque. A
> retrospective of their works would be helpful to change my unfamiliarity.
> While in Paris in the fall of 1997, I was dismayed to find the Pomp.
> closed for renovation....lost a good opportunity to get a more balanced
> first hand look at alot of artists.
>
> I'll ask you the same question, "if you thought their paintings were any good."
>
> -N.
Fair enough. I haven't seen nearly as much as the work by Picasso, Braque,
Leger and Gris. But I have seen some, and none of it seemed anywhere near
as fresh, dynamic or felt as the work by the originators.
If I may, I'll add that I think there is a problem if we begin to
see Metzinger, Gleizes and Feininger as anywhere near as important as
Braque and Picasso. What Braque and Picasso developed was a very personal
thing, at first. There were no manifestos, no articles - no "cubism" even.
To be very honest, I've always been a little suspicious of Gris, coming
along, affecting someone else's "voice"... I guess what makes it not so
bad is the fact that he did it well, and Braque and Picasso seemed to have
not minded. But I think those guys - and they were just young guys,
drinking buddies, studio mates - I think they must have just howled when
other people started talking about what it all meant.
We kid ourselves, I think, in a sorry way, when we look back at "Cubism"
and think of it as some inevitable development that anyone was free to
be a part of. It was the reflection of the sensibilites of these two fine
painters, and it had to do with fundamental issues of composition and
space which were part of great and not so great painting for many
centuries.
I know I'm rambling a bit, sorry, but to get back to my point, I think
it's embarrassing to take anything Metzinger, Gleizes and Feininger
said seriously, because they weren't just unoriginal and bad, they didn't
even get it.
Yes, bummer about the Pompidou Centre. It is supposed to reopen in 2000.
-N.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
I'm not so sure they were howling.
In fact, I believe it was within the 1911 Salon des Independants, in a
special room 'Salle 41' that a group of cubists were first exhibited
together before a large public. Apollinaire and Andre Salmon helped to
arrange this special room within the Independants. Apollinaire wrote
L'Intansigeant, a long review defending cubism to the public (the show was
a jam-packed sensation, although many critics took pot-shots at the
works). The movement was thus catapaulted into the public realm. Picasso
and Braque did not participate (as they maintained a distance from the
Puteaux group) and as such, as Cubism's founders, were not a part of the
sensation. Maybe they were howling, but for other reasons.
> We kid ourselves, I think, in a sorry way, when we look back at "Cubism"
> and think of it as some inevitable development that anyone was free to
> be a part of. It was the reflection of the sensibilites of these two fine
> painters, and it had to do with fundamental issues of composition and
> space which were part of great and not so great painting for many
> centuries.
It was shaped by many forces in the culture. Posterity as well has a part
to play. Braque, for example, is often overlooked because of the needs for
a genious-hero, Picasso has served this role.
> I know I'm rambling a bit, sorry, but to get back to my point, I think
> it's embarrassing to take anything Metzinger, Gleizes and Feininger
> said seriously, because they weren't just unoriginal and bad, they didn't
> even get it.
I have an open mind to artists. No matter what they did, their own
interests and smell rubbed off on their works, and it would be a shame to
value their works solely on the basis of how strictly they adhered, or
failed to adhere, to the Picasso/Braque party lines. Picasso was not as
obstensibly into the fourth dimension thing as the Puteaux group was, so,
obviously they were orienting to the art in different manners.
The Puteaux group did contribute in introducing subject matter that had
been somewhat off limits for the avant-guard for many years, Picasso
usually did his cafe tables, still life, portraits.
Part of the sensation of Nude Descending A Staircase (which I like as much
as any other Cubist work), was due to the subject matter and its
treatment. Clearly, Picasso and Braque had done nothing like that.
I would recommend not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
mdeli
wrote:
>In article <79abem$ums$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
>> In article <795kpk$lif$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>,
>> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> > Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
>> > >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
>> > >> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:22:47 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> >By 1912 Europe was very excited about the implications of Einstein's
>> > Theory,
>> > >> >as wall as Plank's and others, and the analytical cubism project was an
>> > >> >intitial attempt to translate these ideas into graphical forms.
>> > >>
>> > >> Total nonsense. I doubt that these painters even knew algebra.
>> > >> >Suffice it to say that Picasso and Braque
>> > >> >drew from Cezanne some ideas about how to describe the new reality
>> > Einstein
>> > >> >defined. John Berger's famous essay, "The Moment of Cubism," is a
>> > terrific
>> > >> >read on this.
>> > >> >
>> > >> This is as stupid as claiming AE had something to do with the fourth
>> > >> dimension.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Relativity deals with x,y,z and the time t, if you count well (let's
>> > >help you x 1, y 2, z 3, t 4)it's a four dimension world.
So does looking at your watch. So what?
>> > So what?
>> > Any art involving or attempting to suggest motion
>> > "deals with" x,y,z and t. If an artist motion-blurs some moving
>> > water he has introduced the element of time into his composition.
>> > This doesn't mean he has any concept of relativity.
>>
>> Again, the literature on the subject refutes your observation.
What it means is that like lots of literature it is also bullshit.
Snip
.
> The Cubism of Picasso and
>Braque above its indulgence in the real world, was a conceptual art in the
>classical sense, attempting to paint as Picasso once said, "not what you
>see but what you know is there".
Where?
Snip
Questions for conference experts on the fourth dimension and
relativity:
Was Picasso more fourth dimensional than Rothko, Mondrian, or my
designer pillowcase?
Do fourth dimensional paintings only look flat to the insensitive?
Any textbooks with lessons on how to paint fourth dimensional aspects
of relativity?
Are N's paintings more fourth dimensional than Webber's? Marilyns?
br...@wralaw.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 23:04:12 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.)
> >> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> >> > Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
> >> > >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
> >> > >> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:22:47 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >> > >Relativity deals with x,y,z and the time t, if you count well (let's
> >> > >help you x 1, y 2, z 3, t 4)it's a four dimension world.
Einstein used time as another dimension however it is not a spacial
dimension. Some theories of Modern(now PostModern?) Physics posit that
'superstrings' exist in no less than 9 spacial dimensions and as many as
30.
Time can be given dimensionality. For instance Hawkings theory suggest
that Time can fold back on itself 'be made spherical' and hence the
Universe like a sphere or globe, has no linear begining but it does
have boundaries. Since entropy increases with time, time is by some
considered to be the same as entropy. And other theories suggest that
time advances in clicks or a Quantum Time of sorts,
> So does looking at your watch. So what?
This is what I interpret(and strongly suspect) Dali's persistance of
MEmory to be about.
> >> > Any art involving or attempting to suggest motion
> >> > "deals with" x,y,z and t. If an artist motion-blurs some moving
> >> > water he has introduced the element of time into his composition.
Artist were aware of time before Einstein discovered it's non-linear
aspects in the General Theory of Relativity. How does blurring show
time as in flux - different in one area than it is in the next?
> Any textbooks with lessons on how to paint fourth dimensional aspects
> of relativity?
None that I am aware of...
Bryn Ayers
emat...@tomatoweb.com
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9902090...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
<snip>
Let's not forget the war. It is difficult to imagine where cubism would have
gone without it. I wouldn't say it created the short life of cubism, but
certainly was a major contribution to its demise. On the other hand theorists
like Peter Berger believe it simply exhausted itself quickly, along with other
art movements of the time -- as it was a very closed system to begin with.
I also think the distinction between Analytic Cubism and Synthetic Cubism
should be kept in mind. To me at least they are very different.
Erik Mattila
>
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, -N. wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
emat...@tomatoweb.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > So does looking at your watch. So what?
>
> This is what I interpret(and strongly suspect) Dali's persistance of
> MEmory to be about.
>
Do you really? Interesting. I've read Dali's '50 Secrets of Magic
Craftsmanship', 'My Secret Life', and a few others of his (a long time ago)
and I don't remember him talking about Einstein or physics theory. I do
remember a lot of Freud in his writings. Also, D'Arcy Whitworth Thompson
("On Growth and Form").
What leads you to suspect this about 'The Persistnace of Memory?' (By the
way, in many ways I would hold your 'reading' of the painting equal to
Dalí's, or mine, for that matter ). (I always thought this painting was a
premonition of 'software' --yuk, yuk, yuk.)
Erik Mattila
Charles Eicher
> In article <36c0ea72...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 23:04:12 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.)
> > >In article <79abem$ums$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > >> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > >> > Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
> > >> > >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
> > >> > >> On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 09:22:47 GMT, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > >> > >Relativity deals with x,y,z and the time t, if you count well (let's
> > >> > >help you x 1, y 2, z 3, t 4)it's a four dimension world.
>
> Einstein used time as another dimension however it is not a spacial
> dimension. Some theories of Modern(now PostModern?) Physics posit that
> 'superstrings' exist in no less than 9 spacial dimensions and as many as
> 30.
Actually, I've seen quantum physics theories that propose 42 spatial
dimensions. And more radical mathematicians consider the possibility of
infinite spatial dimensions, or even beyond that (but lets not get into
cardinal math here).
> Time can be given dimensionality.
Time HAS dimensionality. Go look at Feynman and his "Feynman diagrams"
charting time. Look for the key concept "light cones" which define the
boundaries of time.
> ..For instance Hawkings theory suggest
> that Time can fold back on itself 'be made spherical' and hence the
> Universe like a sphere or globe, has no linear begining but it does
> have boundaries.
That statement is meaningless. Time has dimensionality, but what you are
proposing is that it is a spatial dimension (which would be meaningless).
> ..Since entropy increases with time, time is by some
> considered to be the same as entropy. And other theories suggest that
> time advances in clicks or a Quantum Time of sorts,
Ah, the "corpuscular time" theory.
>
> > So does looking at your watch. So what?
>
> This is what I interpret(and strongly suspect) Dali's persistance of
> MEmory to be about.
Impossible. Dali wasn't that intelligent.
The only work of that era that specifically invokes multidimensional
physics is by Duchamp, notably the large glass. Duchamp was known to have
studied higher dimensional math & physics (i.e. Hinton), and in his later
years made some specific remarks about how the large glass was a metaphor
for multidimensional mathematics. He said it mapped higher-dimensional
structures onto a glass, just as a painting maps 3d objects onto a 2d
picture plane.
>
> > >> > Any art involving or attempting to suggest motion
> > >> > "deals with" x,y,z and t. If an artist motion-blurs some moving
> > >> > water he has introduced the element of time into his composition.
Who said that? I can't tell from the multilayered quotations. But whoever
said it, the statement is ridiculous. Mapping time onto a 2D plane is just
an abstraction (and twice-removed from reality too). There is nothing
natural about motion blur, it is an abstraction borrowed from film. It is
merely a representation of motion, not motion. It is about as accurate a
system for representing time as Cubism (maps the motion of the eye, not the
objects). You can't project time onto a spatial dimension because time
isn't a spatial dimension.
> Artist were aware of time before Einstein discovered it's non-linear
> aspects in the General Theory of Relativity.
There is nothing in General Relativity about non-linear time. It all still
flows in one direction, in a line. That line may speed or slow, but it
never reverses.
> ..How does blurring show
> time as in flux - different in one area than it is in the next?
Huh? I assume you are referring to motion blur, which I think is completely
artificial and fails completely. Ever since the Photoshop Motion Blur
filter came out, I've seen more mis-applications of this technique than I
ever imagined possible. It was not intended for use in still images, it
originated at ILM as a filter to process animation stills. The only good
still images I know that use this effect are those that do NOT use it to
represent motion.
>
> > Any textbooks with lessons on how to paint fourth dimensional aspects
> > of relativity?
>
> None that I am aware of...
There are tons of standard painting and sculpting techniques used to
represent motion. Just to mention one, putting a figure in an unbalanced
pose implies motion, since the balance is unresolved, and gravity will
"finish" the action. This has been widely known and used for many
centuries.
However, I suggest you read a book "White Light" by Rudy Rucker (it just
came back into print). It is a book about what would happen if you created
infinite-dimensional artworks. There's a map in the front of infinity (and
beyond). Rucker wrote several hardcore math books about multidimensional
mathematics (he's a number theorist) as well as some pop-science books (one
of which was subtitled "The 4th Dimension and How To Get There.")
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
mark webber
Preamble mamble jumbo: This is not a flame. I don't mind if others flame
(at me, even - for pete's sake, it's only usenet!) but I don't have the
energy to flame, so please don't anyone read this that way!
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, -N. wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure they were howling.
> In fact, I believe it was within the 1911 Salon des Independants, in a
> special room 'Salle 41' that a group of cubists were first exhibited
> together before a large public. Apollinaire and Andre Salmon helped to
> arrange this special room within the Independants. Apollinaire wrote
> L'Intansigeant, a long review defending cubism to the public (the show was
> a jam-packed sensation, although many critics took pot-shots at the
> works). The movement was thus catapaulted into the public realm. Picasso
> and Braque did not participate (as they maintained a distance from the
> Puteaux group) and as such, as Cubism's founders, were not a part of the
> sensation. Maybe they were howling, but for other reasons.
Well, we'll probably never really know, and so, as usual, we'll all
believe what we want to believe... but as interesting as all the above is,
it only seems distantly related to painting if the rhetoric is more
important than the pictures themselves.
Recently, there has been a lot of talk here of "poseurs".
I only bring this up because for me, Metzinger, Gleizes et al were
terrific examples of poseurs. The rap was more important than the art.
Or maybe in lieu of good art. What better example do we have of poseurs?
(Now I know there has been some heat recently, here in r.a.f., and I'm not
particularly interested in that stuff - don't misread this as flaming
please. I'm not insisting that anyone agree with me. I'm simply saying
that, to me, the way we look at "Cubism" today seems more in line with
*theory* than a pictorial experience. And it began as a pictorial
experience, not an effort to reflect changing times, the industrial
revolution, speed in the 20th century, the war or a metaphysical tract.
Which is the reason why I think Braque and Picasso stayed out of the
rapping, and were probably laughing their asses off.
N., you might disagree with me, which is fine, but the whole fun in this,
for me, anyway, is putting something out there that someone capable of
thinking might disagree with, and seeing what they do with it. I do happen
to believe what I'm writing, but I'm interested in what anyone's logical,
good-faith disagreement might be.)
(I wrote)
> > We kid ourselves, I think, in a sorry way, when we look back at "Cubism"
> > and think of it as some inevitable development that anyone was free to
> > be a part of. It was the reflection of the sensibilites of these two fine
> > painters, and it had to do with fundamental issues of composition and
> > space which were part of great and not so great painting for many
> > centuries.
>
> It was shaped by many forces in the culture. Posterity as well has a part
> to play. Braque, for example, is often overlooked because of the needs for
> a genious-hero, Picasso has served this role.
I agree that Braque is overlooked - in the mainstream. No serious painters
or art historians that I know see Braque as less important than Picasso.
But your earlier point, that cubism was shaped by many forces in the
culture; this is one of the more intriguing lines of thought for me, these
days. I mean, plumbing is a reflection of the culture that produces it.
Everything is. How can it not be?
But the paintings of Picasso and Braque distinguished themselves in some
further way, that I think had to do with their sensibilities. Their work
looks like a fascination with shapes, composition, textures and visual
puns. It doesn't, anywhere, look like "looking at an object from many
points of view", or 4th dimentional hopscotch. Not to me.
>
> I have an open mind to artists. No matter what they did, their own
> interests and smell rubbed off on their works, and it would be a shame to
> value their works solely on the basis of how strictly they adhered, or
> failed to adhere, to the Picasso/Braque party lines.
I agree completely! I think they were much too involved in Picasso's and
Braque's smells and interests. But I wouldn't want to value their
paintings on what they or others wrote, or which night of the week they
met where, before drinking with whom and losing whom to Derain. (And I'm
glad Derain was getting some, by the way!)
> Picasso was not as
> obstensibly into the fourth dimension thing as the Puteaux group was, so,
> obviously they were orienting to the art in different manners.
> The Puteaux group did contribute in introducing subject matter that had
> been somewhat off limits for the avant-guard for many years, Picasso
> usually did his cafe tables, still life, portraits.
The stress on subject matter and writing kind of makes the Puteaux sound
more like illustrators, doesn't it?
> Part of the sensation of Nude Descending A Staircase (which I like as much
> as any other Cubist work), was due to the subject matter and its
> treatment. Clearly, Picasso and Braque had done nothing like that.
> I would recommend not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> -N.
>
It's no secret, I suppose, where I stand on issues of form and subject
matter, but one of the many things I love about P.'s and B.'s work is the
very conventional subject matter - it helps to stress that the issue is
form. For M. and G. to turn around and place the stress on subject, well
to me *that* is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
In a larger sense, though, I share your concern with these dirty babies
and their emptied baths. And I think "Cubism" is really a great topic for
exploring these concerns.
Marilyn
>
> In article <redirect-090...@1cust231.tnt7.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
> > In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9902090...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> > mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Let's not forget the war. It is difficult to imagine where cubism would have
> gone without it. I wouldn't say it created the short life of cubism, but
> certainly was a major contribution to its demise. On the other hand theorists
> like Peter Berger believe it simply exhausted itself quickly, along with other
> art movements of the time -- as it was a very closed system to begin with.
>
> I also think the distinction between Analytic Cubism and Synthetic Cubism
> should be kept in mind. To me at least they are very different.
>
> Erik Mattila
>
> >
> > > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, -N. wrote:
> > >
> > > (snip)
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
I'm so glad you brought up the war, the historical context in other
words. That in turn brings up shortage of materials and rationing.
These mundane material considerations are often forgotten
when artists discuss style and theory.
The shortage of materials inspired collage.
And it is said that collage is considered the 20th cent. medium.
Schwitters anyone?
Marilyn
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
(snip)
Hey, boob, try trimming the 200 lines you repost on your 5 line appends.
> words. That in turn brings up shortage of materials and rationing.
>
> These mundane material considerations are often forgotten
> when artists discuss style and theory.
Artists rarely discuss style and theory. All that is required for proof
is one look through the nonsense that is posted here. The higher the volume,
the more probable it is that their work is shit.
>
> The shortage of materials inspired collage.
<snicker>... it's tough to use the term "inspired collage" in
a sentence.
Should that be added to the "military intelligence" list?
>
> And it is said that collage is considered the 20th cent. medium.
So are sliced cows. Your point?
They probably started slicing those cows because of a paper/canvas shortage.
>
> Schwitters anyone?
Nope. Stop drinking the local water or try taking some
Pepto Bismal. That'll cure those schwitters.
>
> Marilyn, resident boob
-N.
> Let's not forget the war. It is difficult to imagine where cubism would have
> gone without it. I wouldn't say it created the short life of cubism, but
> certainly was a major contribution to its demise. On the other hand theorists
> like Peter Berger believe it simply exhausted itself quickly, along with other
> art movements of the time -- as it was a very closed system to begin with.
The war is another issue entirely, and most definately impacted heavily on
the players and markets.
> I also think the distinction between Analytic Cubism and Synthetic Cubism
> should be kept in mind. To me at least they are very different.
Indeed.
-N.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> Preamble mamble jumbo: This is not a flame. I don't mind if others flame
> (at me, even - for pete's sake, it's only usenet!) but I don't have the
> energy to flame, so please don't anyone read this that way!
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, -N. wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not so sure they were howling.
> > In fact, I believe it was within the 1911 Salon des Independants, in a
> > special room 'Salle 41' that a group of cubists were first exhibited
> > together before a large public. Apollinaire and Andre Salmon helped to
> > arrange this special room within the Independants. Apollinaire wrote
> > L'Intansigeant, a long review defending cubism to the public (the show was
> > a jam-packed sensation, although many critics took pot-shots at the
> > works). The movement was thus catapaulted into the public realm. Picasso
> > and Braque did not participate (as they maintained a distance from the
> > Puteaux group) and as such, as Cubism's founders, were not a part of the
> > sensation. Maybe they were howling, but for other reasons.
>
> Well, we'll probably never really know, and so, as usual, we'll all
> believe what we want to believe... but as interesting as all the above is,
> it only seems distantly related to painting if the rhetoric is more
> important than the pictures themselves.
There is substantial historical documentation on the above event and the
various players. Also participating (if name dropping is what you are
after) were Robert Delaunay and Fernand Leger among others.
I'm suggesting to you that these artists were differnt from
Picasso/Braque, and their pictures evolved differently partially as a
response to their theoretical interests.
You may wish to further research the Cubism of Picasso and Braque and
their followers: the latter's emphasis on theory was one of the main
differences between them. Duchamp, for example, is another who came up
through this tradition. Indeed, if the fourth dimension is of interest to
one, it's application can be found somewhat explicitly, but by no means
exclusively, in Duchamp's work.
There are also market concerns to consider in 1910,11,12, both on the part
of the artists, and their respective dealers, as to how to show, where,
and why, who to associate with and whom to have one's artwork in proximity
to and why. Never forget that people were selling art and trying to make a
living and a career. This had great impact on their actions and motives.
> Recently, there has been a lot of talk here of "poseurs".
> I only bring this up because for me, Metzinger, Gleizes et al were
> terrific examples of poseurs. The rap was more important than the art.
> Or maybe in lieu of good art. What better example do we have of poseurs?
That is one theory. Again, you may wish to become better aquainted with
the individuals, their background, their milieu, their theoretical
activities, and have a bit more sophisticated background from which to
enter the period. As such, I am not certain how you use the word poseur.
> (Now I know there has been some heat recently, here in r.a.f., and I'm not
> particularly interested in that stuff - don't misread this as flaming
> please. I'm not insisting that anyone agree with me. I'm simply saying
> that, to me, the way we look at "Cubism" today seems more in line with
> *theory* than a pictorial experience. And it began as a pictorial
> experience, not an effort to reflect changing times, the industrial
> revolution, speed in the 20th century, the war or a metaphysical tract.
Thats one 'theory'.
> Which is the reason why I think Braque and Picasso stayed out of the
> rapping, and were probably laughing their asses off.
I think otherwise. One, I do not think they were as gifted in this arena,
the thinking. Secondly, I think that they understood the value of relative
silence. Plus, they had others do the talking and thinking in this regard,
people with tremendous talent in this capacity, individuals such as
Apollinaire, for example.
> N., you might disagree with me, which is fine, but the whole fun in this,
> for me, anyway, is putting something out there that someone capable of
> thinking might disagree with, and seeing what they do with it. I do happen
> to believe what I'm writing, but I'm interested in what anyone's logical,
> good-faith disagreement might be.)
I've no problem with your position. You do not appear to be a crankpot.
> (I wrote)
> > > We kid ourselves, I think, in a sorry way, when we look back at "Cubism"
> > > and think of it as some inevitable development that anyone was free to
> > > be a part of. It was the reflection of the sensibilites of these two fine
> > > painters, and it had to do with fundamental issues of composition and
> > > space which were part of great and not so great painting for many
> > > centuries.
> >
> > It was shaped by many forces in the culture. Posterity as well has a part
> > to play. Braque, for example, is often overlooked because of the needs for
> > a genious-hero, Picasso has served this role.
>
> I agree that Braque is overlooked - in the mainstream. No serious painters
> or art historians that I know see Braque as less important than Picasso.
>
> But your earlier point, that cubism was shaped by many forces in the
> culture; this is one of the more intriguing lines of thought for me, these
> days. I mean, plumbing is a reflection of the culture that produces it.
> Everything is. How can it not be?
>
> But the paintings of Picasso and Braque distinguished themselves in some
> further way, that I think had to do with their sensibilities. Their work
> looks like a fascination with shapes, composition, textures and visual
> puns. It doesn't, anywhere, look like "looking at an object from many
> points of view", or 4th dimentional hopscotch. Not to me.
Firstly, let me clarify a possible misunderstanding on your part. I posted
about the fourth dimension because there was interest in how this existed
in the culture at the time of Cubism. I gave a very brief synopsis of the
period as background information to the subject. I think that you, once
again, may be attributing a point of view to me that is nowhere stated, so
I'll just add a cautionary note for your reading. I nowhere stated my
presonal relation to the fourth dimension, or what role I think it may or
may not have played in Cubism...I simply gave a reiteration of rather
common historical facts pertaining to it. If you read my post carefully,
you would have read that I stated that "Picasso was not as obstensibly
into the fourth dimension thing as the Puteaux group was, so, obviously
they were orienting to the art in different manners.".
On the other hand, there were MANY feeds into the art of, for example,
Picasso. He was, as much, or more than, any other artist was a thief...he
took what he needed from other artists and art and integrated it into his
own art (he may have even stated as much...research his quoted
statements). If you want evidence in his art of "looking at an object from
many points of view" you need only study the paintings. In addition,
perhaps a study of the fourth dimension could be useful for you as well,
so that you could either dismiss it critically, (rather than prejudicially
without particularly understanding it) or, conversely, you may see an
influence and/or expression of it somehow articulated in the work.
> > I have an open mind to artists. No matter what they did, their own
> > interests and smell rubbed off on their works, and it would be a shame to
> > value their works solely on the basis of how strictly they adhered, or
> > failed to adhere, to the Picasso/Braque party lines.
>
> I agree completely! I think they were much too involved in Picasso's and
> Braque's smells and interests. But I wouldn't want to value their
> paintings on what they or others wrote, or which night of the week they
> met where, before drinking with whom and losing whom to Derain. (And I'm
> glad Derain was getting some, by the way!)
These things are part of the social matrix of art: since art is a social
activity, they have their place innthe development of an artist and his
art as much as any of the particulars of your own expereince, your life,
friends, education, ideas, and milieu have in the manefistation of your
art. How, where, and to what degree is up in the air....
> > Picasso was not as
> > obstensibly into the fourth dimension thing as the Puteaux group was, so,
> > obviously they were orienting to the art in different manners.
> > The Puteaux group did contribute in introducing subject matter that had
> > been somewhat off limits for the avant-guard for many years, Picasso
> > usually did his cafe tables, still life, portraits.
>
> The stress on subject matter and writing kind of makes the Puteaux sound
> more like illustrators, doesn't it?
Picasso and Braque stressed subject matter no less, but in a different manner.
I would accept your logic, but it would have to be inclusive for Picasso
and Braque.
> > Part of the sensation of Nude Descending A Staircase (which I like as much
> > as any other Cubist work), was due to the subject matter and its
> > treatment. Clearly, Picasso and Braque had done nothing like that.
> > I would recommend not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> >
> > -N.
> >
>
> It's no secret, I suppose, where I stand on issues of form and subject
> matter, but one of the many things I love about P.'s and B.'s work is the
> very conventional subject matter - it helps to stress that the issue is
> form. For M. and G. to turn around and place the stress on subject, well
> to me *that* is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I am not so sure that P and B would agree with you. I think their subject
matter was very important to them and often very highly personalized.
There are more than one issue in P's and B's work...I wouldn't pass them
off as a one trick pony.
> In a larger sense, though, I share your concern with these dirty babies
> and their emptied baths. And I think "Cubism" is really a great topic for
> exploring these concerns.
I see the babies as clean, the 'bathwater' as dirty. I'm all for
discarding dirty water.
Cheers,
-N
br...@wralaw.com
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> In article <79rbsq$rn2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > Time can be given dimensionality.
> Time HAS dimensionality. Go look at Feynman and his "Feynman diagrams"
> charting time. Look for the key concept "light cones" which define the
> boundaries of time.
Yes I think you are right. "Given" is a synonym of appropriated. If
I had stated that 'Time has dimensionality' I would be concluding that
these *'spacial theories' of time are correct.*
> > ..For instance Hawkings theory suggest
> > that Time can fold back on itself 'be made spherical' and hence the
> > Universe like a sphere or globe, has no linear begining but it does
> > have boundaries.
> That statement is meaningless. Time has dimensionality, but what you are
> proposing is that it is a spatial dimension (which would be meaningless).
What Hawkings proposed is something that we might need Gwen Jones to
explain. Also dimentionality is Mathematical. You are talking about
+linear time+ or that it can be graphed with a single line, as if it
were a one dimensional space.
If the statement is meaningless Hawkings 'theory' is false or at least
time in the Universe is meaningless. I don't believe it is a proposition
of non-progressive time, but a recognition that every particle in the
Universe has its own time-line. And that the 'big-bang' is not a
specific time but a time boundary which is a close approximation of
a specific time(ugh).
> Impossible. Dali wasn't that intelligent.
I didn't say that Dali was intelligent(he was). It is only necessary
that Dali read something about General Relativity at that time and
thought it was surrealistic.
> The only work of that era that specifically invokes multidimensional
> physics is by Duchamp, notably the large glass. Duchamp was known to have
> studied higher dimensional math & physics (i.e. Hinton),
That's interesting to know. I did a piece which represented six-cubes(5d),
(the faces of a hypercube or a 4-D cube) a few years back. After that
I noticed that Dali's christ 'hypercubus' represents Jesus in front of
a six-cube-faced cube or a 2-d representation of a hypercube. I think
it is extremely difficult(nearly impossible) to represent what the
modular perspective of such a 4-d object, in a 2-d representation of
a 3-d representational object is.
I also did two 5-d-hypercube sculptures, one that needs to be finished.
-none- of them do I tout as 5-d representations. It's just there for
people in the know who ask why are there six-cubical faces? Ans it is
the face of a hypercube... Nor do I think that these are accurate. My
Uncle, who really is a Rocket Scientist(we pick on him for this), and
I have discussed the difficulty of Multidimensional visualization
-Which he thinks would help in the area of his theoretical Physics.
> and in his later
> years made some specific remarks about how the large glass was a metaphor
> for multidimensional mathematics. He said it mapped higher-dimensional
> structures onto a glass, just as a painting maps 3d objects onto a 2d
> picture plane.
I see.
> > Artist were aware of time before Einstein discovered it's non-linear
> > aspects in the General Theory of Relativity.
> There is nothing in General Relativity about non-linear time. It all still
> flows in one direction, in a line. That line may speed or slow, but it
> never reverses.
Well yes... I mean non-linear like if we saw a chart of a stock it would
bounce and fluxuate, time in General Relativity is progressive or that
it flows in a positive direction for all objects going less than the
speed of light. However I think that wormholes and twin-paradoxes are
examples of time reversal/ non-linearity that are theoretical
possibilities in General Relativity -Even if these things never happen
or are procluded by practical energy limitations.
-snip-
> However, I suggest you read a book "White Light" by Rudy Rucker (it just
> came back into print). It is a book about what would happen if you created
> infinite-dimensional artworks. There's a map in the front of infinity (and
> beyond). Rucker wrote several hardcore math books about multidimensional
> mathematics (he's a number theorist) as well as some pop-science books (one
> of which was subtitled "The 4th Dimension and How To Get There.")
>
> ----------------
> Charles Eicher
> cei...@inav.net
> ----------------
>
Bryn Ayers
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
mdeli
wrote:
Large snip
>There are tons of standard painting and sculpting techniques used to
>represent motion. Just to mention one, putting a figure in an unbalanced
>pose implies motion, since the balance is unresolved, and gravity will
>"finish" the action. This has been widely known and used for many
>centuries.
>
>However, I suggest you read a book "White Light" by Rudy Rucker (it just
>came back into print). It is a book about what would happen if you created
>infinite-dimensional artworks. There's a map in the front of infinity (and
>beyond). Rucker wrote several hardcore math books about multidimensional
>mathematics (he's a number theorist) as well as some pop-science books (one
>of which was subtitled "The 4th Dimension and How To Get There.")
Fine. Now what does any of this have to do with Abstract
Expressionism, Cezanne or Picasso. How is any of that stuff any more
or less fourth dimensional than Disney or Norman Rockwell?
mdeli
>Time can be given dimensionality. For instance Hawkings theory suggest
>that Time can fold back on itself 'be made spherical' and hence the
>Universe like a sphere or globe, has no linear begining but it does
>have boundaries. Since entropy increases with time, time is by some
>considered to be the same as entropy. And other theories suggest that
>time advances in clicks or a Quantum Time of sorts,
>
>> So does looking at your watch. So what?
>
>This is what I interpret(and strongly suspect) Dali's persistance of
>MEmory to be about.
Speaking of interpertation: I don't really know what the subject
matter actually means. I doubt that it has a verbal meaning. It
represents an artist's quest for a persistant image. It sticks in the
mind because Dali has suceded in making it so. That is an artistic
achievment.
I believe its sucess like that of many great painting is its
persistant attraction.
It leads the viewer to theorise meanings. It is as Dali said,
"provocitive."
That is the subject matter but there is much more that attracts the
viewer, namely the brilliant technique.
Let the artzy fartzies here take note that this is not an example of
their persistant claim of subject matter harking back to the past, P
of M is entirely modern as is the rest of Dali's output.
As to the fourth dimention; it gave the critics something to go on
about. Its no more fourth dimentional than Dumbo.
Marilyn
>
> In article <36C1BB...@britishcolumbia.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> > emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> Hey, boob, try trimming the 200 lines you repost on your 5 line appends.
Infantile name-calling. Try trimming your entire posts.
>
> > words. That in turn brings up shortage of materials and rationing.
> >
> > These mundane material considerations are often forgotten
> > when artists discuss style and theory.
>
> Artists rarely discuss style and theory. All that is required for proof
> is one look through the nonsense that is posted here. The higher the volume,
> the more probable it is that their work is shit.
>
Nonsense would be an improvement over your bar-room-brawl-repartee:
baseless assumptions, scatologicial vocabulary.
> > The shortage of materials inspired collage.
The shortage of materials led to the art of collage: Braque & Picasso.
> <snicker>... it's tough to use the term "inspired collage" in
> a sentence.
>
> Should that be added to the "military intelligence" list?
your erudite opinion of collage.
> >
> > And it is said that collage is considered the 20th cent. medium.
>
> So are sliced cows. Your point?
>
> They probably started slicing those cows because of a paper/canvas shortage.
>
> >
> > Schwitters anyone?
>
> Nope. Stop drinking the local water or try taking some
> Pepto Bismal. That'll cure those schwitters.
>
> >
What? your are not qualified to discuss one of the 20th century's great artists?
Try the library then the troll pit.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
In article <36C31B...@britishcolumbia.ca>,
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <36C1BB...@britishcolumbia.ca>,
> > Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> > > emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > Hey, boob, try trimming the 200 lines you repost on your 5 line appends.
>
> Infantile name-calling. Try trimming your entire posts.
OH! I'M CRUSHED!!!! :P
YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOO MATURE!!!!! <;P
>
> >
> > > words. That in turn brings up shortage of materials and rationing.
> > >
> > > These mundane material considerations are often forgotten
> > > when artists discuss style and theory.
> >
> > Artists rarely discuss style and theory. All that is required for proof
> > is one look through the nonsense that is posted here. The higher the
volume,
> > the more probable it is that their work is shit.
> >
>
> Nonsense would be an improvement over your bar-room-brawl-repartee:
> baseless assumptions, scatologicial vocabulary.
It went unsaid that you would prefer "nonsense" ;P
Oh, and speaking of "baseless assumptions" why would you have a problem
with those? You certainly make enough of them.
>
> > > The shortage of materials inspired collage.
>
> The shortage of materials led to the art of collage: Braque & Picasso.
WONDERFUL! <CLAP CLAP>
EXQUISITE!! <CLAP CLAP>
SUPERB!!!! (shit <snicker>)
>
> > <snicker>... it's tough to use the term "inspired collage" in
> > a sentence.
> >
> > Should that be added to the "military intelligence" list?
>
> your erudite opinion of collage.
"erudite"?
I wasn't being rude. Maybe sarcastic.
>
> > >
> > > And it is said that collage is considered the 20th cent. medium.
> >
> > So are sliced cows. Your point?
> >
> > They probably started slicing those cows because of a paper/canvas shortage.
> >
> > >
> > > Schwitters anyone?
> >
> > Nope. Stop drinking the local water or try taking some
> > Pepto Bismal. That'll cure those schwitters.
> >
> > >
>
> What? your are not qualified to discuss one of the 20th century's great
artists?
Hey, look, if you've got the schwitters and want to call it art, it's your
business. I suppose you could let one blast on a canvas and it'd be at
least as artistic as a lot of the other shit that passes for art here.
Try it drunk from a ladder if you can manage it. You'd be hailed as
a visionary... another Jackson Pollack. A true Shit Artist :P
If you don't want to try the Pepto Bismal, try a lot of cheese. A 1/4
lb of good American chedder will plug you right up... um, you *eat* it,
ya' know? Just checking. No offense.
mark webber
Here is a repost of "Cubism and Bathwater." Did this show up previously on
anyone else's lists? Thanks in advance... Marilyn - did you see it? By the
way, Marilyn, I emailed you recently, did you receive that? I'm worrying
about my server, now....
mark webber
hasn't shown up on my server, so I've copied it, will read it and reply.
Sorry to waste time with the repost....
Marilyn
>
> Here is a repost of "Cubism and Bathwater." Did this show up previously on
> anyone else's lists? Thanks in advance... Marilyn - did you see it? By the
> way, Marilyn, I emailed you recently, did you receive that? I'm worrying
> about my server, now....
>
Hi Mark,
Blame it on the 'flu.
I read your post with interest. Theory (up until now with digital technology)
was easier to transmit than the actual paintings, could that be one practical
reason why it seems to surmount the work itself?
Cubism had its day and probably seeps into almost every painter's mind
(who has studied it) as they go about their craft today. My interest is collage
and what Picasso & Braque accomplished in that genre/medium. I saw an original
Braque collage in LA and I believed I loved it better than any Picasso. Braque
had a gentle nature, he was also a musician. Picasso for all his talent was a
"rapacious careerist" (Dave Hickey). Sorry if I'm changing the subject to line
up with my own interests. Unfortunately the common image of collage is
magazine stuff pasted together by school kids. It is widely riduculed here
on raf (like most things). Some people in my daughter's classes pronounce
it as "college." So what can you do?
Seguey into how artists get along:
One of my favourite stories of the impressionists
was the big party they had to prove their
comaraderie which ended up in certain of them pushing others down the
stairs. This seems to happen here metaphorically.
regards,
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> Here is a repost of "Cubism and Bathwater." Did this show up previously on
> anyone else's lists? Thanks in advance... Marilyn - did you see it? By the
> way, Marilyn, I emailed you recently, did you receive that? I'm worrying
> about my server, now....
Yes, I saw it. Cybermysterioso.
Braque's nail? What's this all about? (Violin & Pitcher -- you can see the
painting @< http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Braque7.html > )
I would think Braque's little trompe l'oeil was a point of reference, maybe
to a time/space argument, and the painting's ability to metaphorize physics.
All 'nail theories' are encouraged by this poster.
Regarding Picasso's overshadowing Braque, I refer to John Berger's idea (The
Success and Failure of Picasso). Berger says that Pablo was from an area in
Spain that was never touched by Modernism, Romanism -- in short, a Visigothic
niche. The Spanish Government, sez Berger, was never more than a tax
collector, and some of the backwoods Spanish cultures remained untouched
since the goth migrations.
So when Picasso arrived in Paris he was a total 'other.' Berger goes on to
say that this left him sort of outside the cultural loop, and he could see
the whole scene much differently that Braque and others, who were so
enculturated that they couldn't see the forrest through the trees. So Pablo
was able to freely develop exploitative connections, for his own benefit, and
chisled out a 'heroic artist' imago in society. (Berger does a much more
graceful job of presenting this than my awkward synopsis.
Waddayouthink?
Erik Mattila
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, mark webber wrote:
>
> >
<snipped>
-N.
> So when Picasso arrived in Paris he was a total 'other.' Berger goes on to
> say that this left him sort of outside the cultural loop, and he could see
> the whole scene much differently that Braque and others, who were so
> enculturated that they couldn't see the forrest through the trees. So Pablo
> was able to freely develop exploitative connections, for his own benefit, and
> chisled out a 'heroic artist' imago in society. (Berger does a much more
> graceful job of presenting this than my awkward synopsis.
>
> Waddayouthink?
Haven't read the book, but on the other hand, assuming such a scenario to
be accurate, what does Berger have to say as to why Pablo would have been
more free to develop exploitative connections, more so than an ambitious,
expediential, and acculturated 'insider'?
Kay Kane
Marilyn wrote in message <36C494...@britishcolumbia.ca>...
>mark webber wrote:
>>
>> Here is a repost of "Cubism and Bathwater." Did this show up previously
on
>> anyone else's lists? Thanks in advance... Marilyn - did you see it? By
the
>> way, Marilyn, I emailed you recently, did you receive that? I'm worrying
>> about my server, now....
>>
>
I read something like that in "The Banquet Years" about Picasso and a bunch
of others telling Rousseau that he was going to get a big award from the
mayor (I believe) and Rousseau was so excited and they were just pulling his
chain, the whole thing was a hoax. Rousseau was the butt of many jokes.
Kay Kane
br...@wralaw.com
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> magazine stuff pasted together by school kids. It is widely riduculed here
> on raf (like most things). Some people in my daughter's classes pronounce
> it as "college."
That day is sooner than you think.
>So what can you do?
Drop acid, tune in, drop-out, sell-out, buy-stock...
> Seguey into how artists get along:
> One of my favourite stories of the impressionists
> was the big party they had to prove their
> comaraderie which ended up in certain of them pushing others down the
> stairs. This seems to happen here metaphorically.
The way up and the way down are the same.
> regards,
> Marilyn
Bryn Ayers
mark webber
Sorry that I'm slow in replying. My server didn't pick this up, and I had
to fetch from dejanews:
On the subject of the meetings of the Puteaux Cubists, N. wrote:
> There is substantial historical documentation on the above event and
> the various players. Also participating (if name dropping is what you
> are after) were Robert Delaunay and Fernand Leger among others.
I hope I haven't given the impression I'm "after" name-dropping. (I
usually associate that term with the mentioning of people with whom one
has had some sort of contact, not merely their identification....)
And I'm sure there is plenty of documentation, too. From my point of view,
the documentation, the meetings, the manifestoes are all secondary. The
work itself is more important - to me. Leger was a really great painter
in my humble opinion, and I think he made something very personal out of
cubism. The others, (Delauney, Gleizes, etc.) were mostly - in my opinion
- poseurs because the rap was more important than the work. For them it
had to be, because the work was weak in comparison to Braque's and
Picasso's.
> You may wish to further research the Cubism of Picasso and Braque and
> their followers...
I thank you for your concern for my level of education. I have, if you
remember, seen enough of the work of the followers to compare and find
some of them to be not as engaging.
> ...the latter's emphasis on theory was one of the main
differences between them.
One difference, and the other main difference has, I think, more to do
with quality, sensibility. Neither difference speaks well for them, I
think.
> > Recently, there has been a lot of talk here of "poseurs".
> > I only bring this up because for me, Metzinger, Gleizes et al were
> > terrific examples of poseurs. What better example do we have of
> > poseurs?
> That is one theory. Again, you may wish to become better aquainted with
> the individuals, their background, their milieu, their theoretical
> activities, and have a bit more sophisticated background from which to
> enter the period...
Again I thank you for your concern for my level of research and
sophistication - may I return the compliment by suggesting you try to
track down more of the paintings. All due respect, of course.
> ... As such, I am not certain how you use the word poseur.
For me, a poseur is someone who uses theory, background and milieu as
a *substitute* for the visual experience. Just for me.
[regarding Picasso and Braque being amused at what was being read into
their invention, N. wrote:]
> ...I think otherwise. One, I do not think they were as gifted in this
arena, the thinking.
For me, there is quite a gift in both their ability to make those things
and the many levels of thought in them.
Perhaps the French punning is less clear to speakers of other languages,
for example, but there are a huge variety of plays on the word "play" and
the idea of "play" that I find very thoughtful and delightful in Braque's
and Picasso's stuff at this time. The sort of thing that I'm sure
influenced Johns in a huge way.
What I especially like about this sort of thinking, though, is that it is
so closely related to the visual experience.
The thinking in 4th dimentional, simultaneous optical experience is
evidenced in the other guys' works in a very illustrative sort of way.
That is, the paintings become some sort of illustration of the theories.
> Firstly, let me clarify a possible misunderstanding on your part. I
> posted about the fourth dimension because there was interest in how this
> existed in the culture at the time of Cubism. (small snip) I think that
> you, once again, may be attributing a point of view to me that is
> nowhere stated, so I'll just add a cautionary note for your reading. I
> nowhere stated my presonal relation to the fourth dimension, or what
> role I think it may or may not have played in Cubism... (snip)
I'm very sorry if I've misinterpreted. I understand that you were talking
about the theoretical end - and I was only interested in whether or not
that other aspect - the paintings - struck you as important enough to
merit missing out on what makes a Picasso or Braque cubist painting or
collage special.
> On the other hand, there were MANY feeds into the art of, for
> example Picasso...
I promise not to falsely attribute theories to you if you'll promise not
to assume I'm unaware of that - sound good?
> If you want evidence in his art of "looking at an object from
> many points of view" you need only study the paintings.
Again, I have, really. (And thanks again for the concern.)
They look primarily, like playful studies in composition to me - the ones
by P. and B. that is.
The ones by G., M. and F. do look like strained attempts at illustrating
notions of multiple perspective and movement. Bad paintings. Not nearly as
poetic or dynamic. My opinion, again, of course. But let me say in my
much needed defense that it's informed by looking.
> perhaps a study of the fourth dimension could be useful for you as well,
> so that you could either dismiss it critically, (rather than
> prejudicially without particularly understanding it)
Again, I'm sorry to appear so uneducated, and thanks for the concern, but
while I certainly understand that some folks want to illustrate theories
in their work, I really have no need to dismiss the theories. Dismissing
the paintings is much more useful and fun (again, for me, of course.)
> > The stress on subject matter and writing kind of makes the Puteaux
> > sound more like illustrators, doesn't it?
>Picasso and Braque stressed subject matter no less, but in a different
>manner. I would accept your logic, but it would have to be inclusive for
>Picasso and Braque.
I understand your point, but maybe more time with the paintings of the
others would help you to see the distinctions I see. I see the very
conventional subject matter in P. and B. as *stressing* the focus on form.
> There are more than one issue in P's and B's work...I wouldn't pass them
> off as a one trick pony.
I'm very sorry to give the impression that I do. On the contrary, the
other guys were the O.T.P.s, to me.
> I see the babies as clean, the 'bathwater' as dirty. I'm all for
> discarding dirty water.
Great! I'll see your metaphor and raise it: I see the babies as good
paintings and the resonance they produce. I see the bathwater as trying to
sell what might be not such great art, and working one's way into art
history by riding bandwagons of theory and unoriginality.
But I in no way attribute to your thinking or opinions that sort of
posing, and I apologize if it looked that way in my last post. Like I
said, I'm not trolling or flaming, just having some warm times.
warmly,
mark webber
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Marilyn wrote:
(snip)
>
> Cubism had its day and probably seeps into almost every painter's mind
> (who has studied it) as they go about their craft today. My interest is collage
> and what Picasso & Braque accomplished in that genre/medium.
I love that stuff too. It is really remarkable - I guess that's no news
bulletin, but I do love those things.
> I saw an original
> Braque collage in LA and I believed I loved it better than any Picasso.
Yes, I often find myself prefering the Braques to the Picassos
> Braque
> had a gentle nature, he was also a musician. Picasso for all his talent was a
> "rapacious careerist" (Dave Hickey). Sorry if I'm changing the subject to line
> up with my own interests.
That's ok - that's what I did too.
> Unfortunately the common image of collage is
> magazine stuff pasted together by school kids. It is widely riduculed here
> on raf (like most things). Some people in my daughter's classes pronounce
> it as "college." So what can you do?
March on, I suppose. "Marchons, Marchons...."
>
> Seguey into how artists get along:
> One of my favourite stories of the impressionists
> was the big party they had to prove their
> comaraderie which ended up in certain of them pushing others down the
> stairs. This seems to happen here metaphorically.
Yes, I guess you're right. But it's all in fun, right? What are a few
bruises?
regards,
mark webber
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9902121...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a repost of "Cubism and Bathwater." Did this show up previously on
> > anyone else's lists? Thanks in advance... Marilyn - did you see it? By the
> > way, Marilyn, I emailed you recently, did you receive that? I'm worrying
> > about my server, now....
>
> Yes, I saw it. Cybermysterioso.
Sorry, my goof.
>
> Braque's nail? What's this all about? (Violin & Pitcher -- you can see the
> painting @< http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Braque7.html > )
>
> I would think Braque's little trompe l'oeil was a point of reference, maybe
> to a time/space argument, and the painting's ability to metaphorize physics.
> All 'nail theories' are encouraged by this poster.
Visual pun? Lot's of those in his and P.'s work. Verbal ones too.
"Le Jou..."
>
> Regarding Picasso's overshadowing Braque, I refer to John Berger's idea (The
> Success and Failure of Picasso). Berger says that Pablo was from an area in
> Spain that was never touched by Modernism, Romanism -- in short, a Visigothic
> niche. The Spanish Government, sez Berger, was never more than a tax
> collector, and some of the backwoods Spanish cultures remained untouched
> since the goth migrations.
>
> So when Picasso arrived in Paris he was a total 'other.' Berger goes on to
> say that this left him sort of outside the cultural loop, and he could see
> the whole scene much differently that Braque and others, who were so
> enculturated that they couldn't see the forrest through the trees. So Pablo
> was able to freely develop exploitative connections, for his own benefit, and
> chisled out a 'heroic artist' imago in society. (Berger does a much more
> graceful job of presenting this than my awkward synopsis.
>
> Waddayouthink?
Sounds good to me. I think he was a fine painter too. That helped. And his
personality contributed. Inotherwords, some other Spanish dude may not
have cut it.
Culture and context are a lot, but they don't actually make the pictures.
ciao!
emat...@tomatoweb.com
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
> Haven't read the book, but on the other hand, assuming such a scenario to
> be accurate, what does Berger have to say as to why Pablo would have been
> more free to develop exploitative connections, more so than an ambitious,
> expediential, and acculturated 'insider'?
>
> -N.
>
I'm pretty fuzzy on that -- it's been a few years, and all my books are in
storage right now. But as I recall, it was simply a matter of Picasso not
feeling he 'belonged' to Parisian society, and therefore wasn't as rule bound
(social manners etc.) as were others.
Another interesting read is the biography written by his buddy, Jaime
Sabartes.
Sabartés, Jaime, 1881-1968. Picasso, an intimate portrait;, tr. from the
Spanish by Angel Flores. With 8 Picasso reproductions. [1st American ed.] New
York, Prentice-Hall [1948]
I was about three quarters through the 'intimate portrait' when I realized
that every time Pablo had a girlfriend Sabartes wasn't around. Their
life-long friendship only seemed to actualize when Picasso was between
flames.
But I have to agree with Mark's comment in this thread, not anyone could be so
cunning just on the basis of being a foreigner.
I think you would get a kick out of Berger's book. He's one of the best art
writers I have come across -- and he really must enjoy what he does.
Berger, John. The success and failure of Picasso /, John Berger. 1st Vintage
International ed. New York : Vintage International, 1993
Erik Mattila
-N.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
l
> I hope I haven't given the impression I'm "after" name-dropping. (I
> usually associate that term with the mentioning of people with whom one
> has had some sort of contact, not merely their identification....)
No, I wasn't suggesting that. I wanted to lay on the table that it wasn't
simply G and M who related to Cubism via this other method of
orientation, and shared curiosities...and to suggest other Cubists whom
you might like who entered the challanges and methodology through a
different door (and one heavier with theory) than P & B Inc. After all,
the 4D topic was somewhere at the root of our thread.
> And I'm sure there is plenty of documentation, too. From my point of view,
> the documentation, the meetings, the manifestoes are all secondary. The
> work itself is more important - to me.
I always have trouble believing in or even simply identifying in 'the work
in itself'.
> Leger was a really great painter
> in my humble opinion, and I think he made something very personal out of
> cubism. The others, (Delauney, Gleizes, etc.) were mostly - in my opinion
> - poseurs because the rap was more important than the work. For them it
> had to be, because the work was weak in comparison to Braque's and
> Picasso's.
Again, I cannot comment here because of the limits of my viewing. P & B
have tons of weak work as well(based on what I imagine your formal
criteria to be)...do G and M have any works which you think worthy (mind
you , forgeting the idea that they were somehow 'followers', as the whole
leader/founder & follower thing has no bearing on the artwork whatsoever
from your ideological position....you are advancing a notion of the 'work
in itself', am I correct? Such a position as I undersatnd it, would
eliminate biography, history, context, historical influence,etc. Once one
admits certain extra-pictorial material and information into the
evaluative equation it seems to me that they undermine the arguement of
'work-in-itself," "thing-in-itself," or "essence". Conversly, once one
starts heading down this slope of allowing certain extra-pictorial
elements into the evaluation and conceptualization of the artwork, where
and why does one then draw the line of exclusion?
> > You may wish to further research the Cubism of Picasso and Braque and
> > their followers...
>
> I thank you for your concern for my level of education. I have, if you
> remember, seen enough of the work of the followers to compare and find
> some of them to be not as engaging.
What about Duchamp's Cubist based works?
Or works of the Futurists? Do you find any of these works engaging to you?
> > ...the latter's emphasis on theory was one of the main
> differences between them.
> One difference, and the other main difference has, I think, more to do
> with quality, sensibility. Neither difference speaks well for them, I
> think.
I suppose that ends up becoming a matter of personal taste (not to
diminish personal taste). But is your criteria for quality extrinsic to
the 'work itself', and laden with theory of it's own?
> > > Recently, there has been a lot of talk here of "poseurs".
> > > I only bring this up because for me, Metzinger, Gleizes et al were
> > > terrific examples of poseurs. What better example do we have of
> > > poseurs?
>
> > That is one theory. Again, you may wish to become better aquainted with
> > the individuals, their background, their milieu, their theoretical
> > activities, and have a bit more sophisticated background from which to
> > enter the period...
>
> Again I thank you for your concern for my level of research and
> sophistication - may I return the compliment by suggesting you try to
> track down more of the paintings. All due respect, of course.
No offense taken, I would be benefited by more exposure to these
artists...I made that explicit near the outset of my discussion of them.
I am curious though, as my exposure here is limited...do you feel that you
have seen a wide enough range of what is 'conventionally accepted'
(tricky) as these artist's finest works? As well as a broad selection of
their quirky, personally unconventional works? I don't even know where G
and M are best represented in collections to tell the truth.
[Mind you: in all of this I am not in the least interested in defending
theories of the forth dimension or artists who were somehow either
directly or indirectly involved with such notions. I doubt that such an
approach would offer me much by way of approaching their works for my own
interests. I have little interest in the fourth dimension, even less
interest in mathematics. However, that is not the same as suggesting that
it cannot be, or was not, of value to other artists. For those interested,
there is a Poincare/Duchamp seminar at Harvard in November.
I have read "Marcel Duchamp's Notes From the Large Glass: An N-Dimensional
Analysis" by Craig E. Adcock...not my favorite book on Duchamp. Even with
Duchamp, although there is a neat thing that happens with his play with
translations/representations from one dimension to another, it is in no
way the area of Duchamp that most intrigues me. I just don't get too
excited when I go into the math. Perhaps one day I shall...
> > ... As such, I am not certain how you use the word poseur.
>
> For me, a poseur is someone who uses theory, background and milieu as
> a *substitute* for the visual experience. Just for me.
You are skirting mighty close to it when elements of your arguement in
support of P & B's works includes a weighing-in and evaluation of their
influence, background, theory, and milieu, particularly problematic when
you privilige them as 'originals' or 'founders' or 'leaders', with other
artists following suit...all criteria that is extrinsic to the object.
Conversely, you also appear to reject G & M's paintings partially on
grounds that refer to their relation to P & B as Cubism's founders. What
in addition an arguementfor 'aesthetic value based upon extrinsic criteria
to the art object', would have to invest in, before disqualifying and
challenging "intrinsic value of the work-in-itself" I cannot imagine. Your
terms of evaluation are extrinsic and contradict not only your stated
position, but as well inform your criteria for evaluating both P & B and G
& M, as well as the relation between them.
> [regarding Picasso and Braque being amused at what was being read into
> their invention, N. wrote:]
>
> > ...I think otherwise. One, I do not think they were as gifted in this
> arena, the thinking.
>
> For me, there is quite a gift in both their ability to make those things
> and the many levels of thought in them.
I should have been clearer: not gifted in articulating 'theory' of what
they were doing in general, and 4th Dimension in particular.
> Perhaps the French punning is less clear to speakers of other languages,
> for example, but there are a huge variety of plays on the word "play" and
> the idea of "play" that I find very thoughtful and delightful in Braque's
> and Picasso's stuff at this time. The sort of thing that I'm sure
> influenced Johns in a huge way.
>
> What I especially like about this sort of thinking, though, is that it is
> so closely related to the visual experience.
?
> The thinking in 4th dimentional, simultaneous optical experience is
> evidenced in the other guys' works in a very illustrative sort of way.
> That is, the paintings become some sort of illustration of the theories.
>
> > Firstly, let me clarify a possible misunderstanding on your part. I
> > posted about the fourth dimension because there was interest in how this
> > existed in the culture at the time of Cubism. (small snip) I think that
> > you, once again, may be attributing a point of view to me that is
> > nowhere stated, so I'll just add a cautionary note for your reading. I
> > nowhere stated my presonal relation to the fourth dimension, or what
> > role I think it may or may not have played in Cubism... (snip)
>
> I'm very sorry if I've misinterpreted. I understand that you were talking
> about the theoretical end - and I was only interested in whether or not
> that other aspect - the paintings - struck you as important enough to
> merit missing out on what makes a Picasso or Braque cubist painting or
> collage special.
Special in relation to...?
[Before I continue here, I should point out that I think I understand what
the 'formal values' that you are responding to in the work are, and I
could be wrong, but I think I understand vaguely, your aesthetic. I think
I share such taste. But not exclusively.
Part of the difficulty for me in trying to pin down the 'value' of a work
of art is that my experience of looking is not unitary. I oscillate
between many interests when approaching art...one value of a work exists
in it's value for me in the present, as an artist. Picasso, for ex., I
have little direct interest in these days, I've been over saturated,
overexposed. Braque, I hold more an interest in, but it is not in his
earlier Cubist works; I am more interested in his later 'Studio' works,
even those later odd bird paintings of his. G and M, I probably place more
value in at the present than in Picasso, as I have such limited exposure
to them, I imagine that by having the opportunity to study their work, it
will not only expand my language of art, but also transform my
understanding of P & B. In this sense, my understanding of art works
consists in a larger relational system. For example, G & M may interest me
for precisely the reasons you dislike them with respect to P & B. Add to
this process, the experience that each artwork has this other quality we
can attribute to it, lets call it 'mood' (also constructed out of a
relational system). So the work has a 'mood' (or moods) that factors in,
somehow not reducible to form alone. I form my language of art (in one
aspect) by a large relational system of these moods. In this aspect...good
and bad are not really defining terms, the works all influence each other
and how they impact upon me. I may find, for example, that I have
currently become over-saturated and exhausted with Picasso in this
regard...M & G may, as well as opening a new direction here for me, also
open up Picasso again, by allowing me to re-orient myself. On the other
hand, I may end up disliking M & G based on general (and perhaps
'superficial') formal criteria, but then go on to discover that there is
something akward, off-center, clumsy non-mainstream about their works that
awakens an area of excitement in me, more exciting than the formal
analysis of P & B. This unique quality (if i locate it, and I will not
know until ,when and if, I do) may be of more use to me as an artist than
an evaluation of their paintings that based upon 'originality', "these
other artists were followers, their work is formally not as innovative or
as powerful as Picasso and Braque, they were poseurs, therefor I dismiss
their works, looking instead with favour upon P & B, using these latter as
formal benchmarks". That may make sense abstractly, but I do not relate to
artists exclusively on such criteria, I need a personal relation to the
work for it to have any resonance in the first place. It is my own
imagination which brings the work to life, or fails to. Is this begging
the question?! To complicate further, I may find just a wee little aspect
of a painting that grips me, not the entire work or conception, but that
wee little aspect may be more influential and powerful to me than an
entire 'conventionally superior painting' (whatever that may mean). One
more layer of complication: that wee little aspect may alighn itself with
an extra-pictorial element and really develop a great resonance for me.
You see, it is just these kinds of experiences that define my life in the
arts and my existence as an artist. These are the real jewels of my
imagination, where I really assess value. To extricate myself from such an
involvement to the point where more generalized absolute 'objective'
judgements on art can be suggested is certainly more convenient, but it is
more an art historical approach and negates my personal process and needs
as an artist. The latter method is more exchangable as public currency...a
Lingua Franca, in fact, it is in trying to somehow overcome that system of
appraoching and using art, that has yielded my own relation to art and my
artistic maturity.
> > On the other hand, there were MANY feeds into the art of, for
> > example Picasso...
>
> I promise not to falsely attribute theories to you if you'll promise not
> to assume I'm unaware of that - sound good?
Sounds good...but we know so little of each other, we have built so few
bridges to one another's worldviews, that we need to be constantly
sniffing and poking each other's asses to more fully understand each
other's bi/ases.
> > If you want evidence in his art of "looking at an object from
> > many points of view" you need only study the paintings.
>
> Again, I have, really. (And thanks again for the concern.)
> They look primarily, like playful studies in composition to me - the ones
> by P. and B. that is.
There is not much in that statement to refute, or on the other hand, much
for me to chew on. I think there is no harm in exploring further, in
understanding how representation works, in those paintings.
One could combine 'like playful studies in composition' by "looking at an
object from many points of view", and it would still ring as true. There
is an iconography in P & B's works. They are constructing iconography and
engaging in representation. How is it constructed and can it be at all
'read' by the viewer? If it can, how is it constructed, how is
representation functioning?
> The ones by G., M. and F. do look like strained attempts at illustrating
> notions of multiple perspective and movement. Bad paintings. Not nearly as
> poetic or dynamic. My opinion, again, of course. But let me say in my
> much needed defense that it's informed by looking.
But poetry can exist, equally or more so, in the clumbsy, awkward, or the
strained (indeed, I am much more interested in these latter qualities
these days). It is a taste I have aquired to unbalance, broaden, and
extend my more mainstream stentorian formalist instincts...I am finding
the former as difficult (or more so) to aquire and integrate as the latter
had been. Also those analystic Cubist works by P & B are fairly
conservative works pictorially, spatially.
> > perhaps a study of the fourth dimension could be useful for you as well,
> > so that you could either dismiss it critically, (rather than
> > prejudicially without particularly understanding it)
>
> Again, I'm sorry to appear so uneducated, and thanks for the concern, but
> while I certainly understand that some folks want to illustrate theories
> in their work, I really have no need to dismiss the theories. Dismissing
> the paintings is much more useful and fun (again, for me, of course.)
Well that is one perspective from which to view the work. I can find no
fault with it. But I would not suggest that it is an exclusive method, or
for mysef, the best. Additionally, I think you have interiorized your own
set of theories which are guiding your looking and evaluative procedures.
So I see no way you can dismiss or embrace 'the paintings' without
resorting to theory. Thus both you and the Puteaux group are sharing an
appraoch reliant on theory. In the end, why would your theoretical
material and background be inherently superior on operational groundds,
than that of the Puteaux Cubists?
> > > The stress on subject matter and writing kind of makes the Puteaux
> > > sound more like illustrators, doesn't it?
>
> >Picasso and Braque stressed subject matter no less, but in a different
> >manner. I would accept your logic, but it would have to be inclusive for
> >Picasso and Braque.
>
> I understand your point, but maybe more time with the paintings of the
> others would help you to see the distinctions I see. I see the very
> conventional subject matter in P. and B. as *stressing* the focus on form.
>
> > There are more than one issue in P's and B's work...I wouldn't pass them
> > off as a one trick pony.
>
> I'm very sorry to give the impression that I do. On the contrary, the
> other guys were the O.T.P.s, to me.
>
> > I see the babies as clean, the 'bathwater' as dirty. I'm all for
> > discarding dirty water.
>
> Great! I'll see your metaphor and raise it: I see the babies as good
> paintings and the resonance they produce. I see the bathwater as trying to
> sell what might be not such great art, and working one's way into art
> history by riding bandwagons of theory and unoriginality.
These contradict what you suggest are the merits of paintings in general,
and P & B's in particular. In the evaluative structure you have delineated
earlier, ideas and material outside the paintings are seen as irrelavant
measures or factors in assigning value. Your methodology integrates the
'artwork' with an entire world of extra-pictorial anecdate,material,
concept, theory, social value, art-historical value etc. Riding (or not
riding) bandwagons should have no weight in such an analysis. You are
evaluating painting and arriving at a conception of cubist-painting-value
based on theoretical, conceptual, art historical factors. Consider: how
does an aesthetic position that upholds an evaluation based upon formal
values determine your evaluation and relationship to the art (ex., lets
say, Alfred Barr's institutionalising agenda, juxtaposing diverse art
based upon 'hypostasizing their rhetorical aspects into 'formal values'"
recommending them to us based upon a 'narrow area of regional and
technical convergence, while suppressing their equally self-evident and
candidly disparate social, political, and philosophical agendas'.)
> But I in no way attribute to your thinking or opinions that sort of
> posing, and I apologize if it looked that way in my last post. Like I
> said, I'm not trolling or flaming, just having some warm times.
Never taken as a troll or flame. Ditto all the above.
-Cheers,