Please help me understand 20th century art
Ted Shoemaker
Can someone please help me understand some forms of 20th (and 21st)
Century art?
I've read some of the books on the subject, and viewed some of the
artworks. Some
artists such as Joan Miro, Jackson Pollock, etc, leave me ... sort of
blank. I don't
understand what they're saying. So their work seems void.
If we say that "art" is that which expresses emotion -- not everyone
will agree on
that point; I'm groping for ideas here -- then Raphael's art expresses
our reach
for the sublime, while surrealism expresses our nightmares and
insanity. What does
"Grey Rainbow" express?
Thanks,
Ted Shoemaker
shoema...@yahoo.com
bob_d
You should watch the movie Wall Street. Gordon Gekko collects
contemporary art, and the movie features real works by the hot
contemporary artists of the 1980s. Through Oliver Stone's incredible
cinematic vision, you can get a glimpse into the minds of what drives
people to pay $400,000 for one of these paintings.
John Ng
> Can someone please help me understand some forms of 20th (and 21st)
> Century art?
Almost all the art in the last 75 years is not really art. There is
really nothing to understand and nobody understands them... not even
lovers of those art althought they may sound as if they do, making
them very chic. It is all a deception.
Good art is one where you don't need to know much but understand
straight away. This statement is what the high-priest of the 20C art
world is trying to defend because they would otherwise lose their
sense of awe.
I am speaking from a point of view of a person who has gone through
this, gone to art school, made research, and concluded. We are at a
point in time where we are in a state of flux because "good" art is,
alas very slowly, returning. A good site to start to understand the
20C art is http://www.artrenewal.org.
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
the evolutionary differences between generations of art as it moves through
the centuries and into the 21st century. Once you understand the
evolutionary process eg. ( really understand why Constable's addition of
green to the middle ground was revolutionary). You will still be faced with
people who will declare that the word art should only be applied to a
specific group of artists such as the pre-Raphaelites including those who
paint like them and that everything else, before and after is not to be
referred to as "art".
The position of these types is not unlike that of Jake Hanes - they are all
believers.
Your question my be better phrased as "why do some people believe that
modern painting is not art?"
Answer: Some people have a core of anger and they eventually discover ,much
as Jake and Mani have, that their anger can be released by projection onto
others through the use of a subject such as art, or Jews, or something else
as a carrier of their anger.
It's not what you believe but how you believe. That's why normal reasoning
does not work on them. Can they be reprogrammed? Very unlikely. In pagan
terms they have arrived at their personal hell during their lives. Can they
infect others ? Yes. Especially those who have a core of anger searching for
a cause. They can also neutralise and confuse potential opposition because
of their seemingly justifiable anger and bits of truth.
It does not matter if they are logically right or wrong. The key is their
anger used to subjugate others. One person can believe the world is flat
another believe it is round. Being right or wrong does not matter. The only
thing that matters is how they believe. If they believe because of anger
watch out they will try to dominate you. That's all they care about.
I am well aware that this type of thinking is new to most people who depend
on being logically right.
To sum up: study and understand the evolutionary stages of painting. Develop
your own understanding of art - don't depend on others. Your understanding
will change over time. It does not matter if you are right or wrong, as long
as you are not using anger to aggressively defend your position.
take care: keith
Ted Shoemaker <shoema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C69F11B...@yahoo.com...
RBrac53660
PFFFT ARGH YUCK You make me NOOG on my throat I thought I just did a shot of
well whiskey when I read that. I'll go back and reread it..............I still
want to vomit on your ignorance.
bob_d
> Answer: Some people have a core of anger and they eventually discover ,much
> as Jake and Mani have, that their anger can be released by projection onto
> others through the use of a subject such as art, or Jews, or something else
> as a carrier of their anger.
How do you know it's anger that drives Mani? Maybe he has a big
collection of Bougereaus and he hopes to pump up the price with his
usenet postings, and then sell them and make a fortune. The old "pump
and dump" strategy. It made a lot of people rich.
John Ng
> Answer: Some people have a core of anger and they eventually discover ,much
> as Jake and Mani have, that their anger can be released by projection onto
> others through the use of a subject such as art, or Jews, or something else
> as a carrier of their anger.
Libel Keith... libel. You are angry with us, right? You may go on to
presume what drives us but a simple answer... "dispelling the lies".
> It's not what you believe but how you believe. That's why normal reasoning
> does not work on them.
Yes, I agree that you form your own conclusion, and if you really like
Modern Art, be my guest. However, the problem is that, in the area of
Modern Art, many such people go on to influence others using
subterfuge to create a non-existent aural. It is not "liking" that is
a problem. We are talking about a bigger picture... not about you.
The fact is, is that this aural sends art patrons away from the real
art and as a result, since Modern Art is easy stuff, artists with or
without skill are streamed into pointless art. The result is
chaotic... talentless artists like Picasso and Kadinsky become saints
and talented artists loose their skill and cannot create proper art.
> Can they be reprogrammed? Very unlikely. In pagan
> terms they have arrived at their personal hell during their lives. Can they
> infect others ? Yes. Especially those who have a core of anger searching for
> a cause. They can also neutralise and confuse potential opposition because
> of their seemingly justifiable anger and bits of truth.
You should look at yourself. Your statements applies more
appropriately to your goodself. However, for us, we do not aim to
confuse at all. Just lay down the facts and the perceiver will make
up his/her own mind. We do not use vague jargons and art diplomas to
patronise the perceiver.
> It does not matter if they are logically right or wrong. The key is their
> anger used to subjugate others. One person can believe the world is flat
> another believe it is round. Being right or wrong does not matter. The only
> thing that matters is how they believe.
If you believe that the world is flat, IT MATTERS. If you believe
that the world is flat especially even after evidence that you are
much like the Modern Art lovers aren’t you?
> If they believe because of anger
> watch out they will try to dominate you. That's all they care about.
Hmm... untrue statements like these are uncalled for. Maybe the
reason why I hurt you so much is because I am simply talking sense and
rejecting your accumulated believes.
> as you are not using anger to aggressively defend your position.
Keith, now you are angry, right? You shouldn't be angry...
John Ng
> PFFFT ARGH YUCK You make me NOOG on my throat I thought I just did a shot of
> well whiskey when I read that. I'll go back and reread it...........I still
> want to vomit on your ignorance.
Said something wrong? Or were you drinking egg-noog while reading
this. Advice: don't drink too much of that stuff on a hungry stomach.
John
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.0202...@posting.google.com...
Ricardo Pontes
explained through the short story of The Emperors new clothes.
http://www.pileofgarbage.com/emperor.htm
modern "artists" condemn anyone who does not like modern art, so watch
out. Make your opinions based on what you have seen. Do not let hype
and the fact that some fart mentioned they were great. Use your own
eyes to form your own opinion.
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
Ted Shoemaker <shoema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3C69F11B...@yahoo.com>...
Ricardo Pontes
> To understand 20th century art you must begin in the 10th century and study
> the evolutionary differences between generations of art as it moves through
> the centuries and into the 21st century. Once you understand the
> evolutionary process eg. ( really understand why Constable's addition of
> green to the middle ground was revolutionary).
Guys like keith mention good artists in relation to modern artist
because then he can have something to fall back on. "Gee, you dont
like what i do, well i do the same thing that Constable did, you dont
like Constable, you fool!!". Keith, you ground breaker you!!
You will still be faced with
> people who will declare that the word art should only be applied to a
> specific group of artists such as the pre-Raphaelites including those who
> paint like them and that everything else, before and after is not to be
> referred to as "art".
>
Who are these group of artists. I dont remember anyone saying that a
group was better. There is art, bad art, and no art. Guess which
category you belong to!
> The position of these types is not unlike that of Jake Hanes - they are all
> believers.
YES MASTER!!! WE ARE LEMMINGS!!
>
> Your question my be better phrased as "why do some people believe that
> modern painting is not art?"
>
> Answer: Some people have a core of anger and they eventually discover ,much
> as Jake and Mani have, that their anger can be released by projection onto
> others through the use of a subject such as art, or Jews, or something else
> as a carrier of their anger.
Keith goes on to compare someone who disagrees with with him and
basically calls them nazis because they disagree with him based on
art. GOOD GOING KEITH!!
>
> It's not what you believe but how you believe. That's why normal reasoning
> does not work on them. Can they be reprogrammed? Very unlikely. In pagan
> terms they have arrived at their personal hell during their lives. Can they
> infect others ? Yes. Especially those who have a core of anger searching for
> a cause. They can also neutralise and confuse potential opposition because
> of their seemingly justifiable anger and bits of truth.
>
I think the original poster can sense who has anger..
> It does not matter if they are logically right or wrong. The key is their
> anger used to subjugate others. One person can believe the world is flat
> another believe it is round. Being right or wrong does not matter.
Hmm. Sure it does.. Read that again Keith. Do you know what 2 +2
equals?? If someone said that 2+2 = 5 would they be right?
The only
> thing that matters is how they believe. If they believe because of anger
> watch out they will try to dominate you. That's all they care about.
Damm, your paranoia is showing again. Are spys hiding under your bed?
>
> I am well aware that this type of thinking is new to most people who depend
> on being logically right.
>
> To sum up: study and understand the evolutionary stages of painting. Develop
> your own understanding of art - don't depend on others. Your understanding
> will change over time. It does not matter if you are right or wrong, as long
> as you are not using anger to aggressively defend your position.
Keith= part of everything is art crowd. What a hippie :)
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
Erik A. Mattila
> You first instinct is the right one. I think modern art is best
> explained through the short story of The Emperors new clothes.
>
> http://www.pileofgarbage.com/emperor.htm
>
> modern "artists" condemn anyone who does not like modern art, so watch
> out. Make your opinions based on what you have seen. Do not let hype
> and the fact that some fart mentioned they were great. Use your own
> eyes to form your own opinion.
>
> Ricardo
> www.pileofgarbage.com
I'll bet if you went through a year's worth of posts here on raf and
filled out a database of condemnation, you would find that about 80% of
the condemnations comes from the other direction. To wit, tight-ass
conservatives who condemn "Modern Art" and wimper louder than hell that
so few people actually like anal-retentive counterfeit neo-classic art.
Most of the so-called modernists love, along with most people,
Ruebens, Durer, Raphael, Rembrandt and so on, and also love the works of
'degenerate' artists of our history. What usually isn't appreciated
that much is the endless array of "neo-classic" redux matter that passes
our eyes from the pitiful persecuted counterfeiters that you apparently
advocate for.
So, next-time you're polishing your jack-boots and have a few moments
for reflection, reflect that.
But I'm not complaining, you understand. I find this futile discourse
incredibly entertaining.
EAM
Erik A. Mattila
> YES MASTER!!! WE ARE LEMMINGS!!
This is true.
> Keith goes on to compare someone who disagrees with with him and
> basically calls them nazis because they disagree with him based on
> art. GOOD GOING KEITH!!
No, the reason the Tin Man sez "Nazis" is because he is perceptive.
> I think the original poster can sense who has anger..
Well, displaced neo-classicists have anger. We moderns have "angst."
> Hmm. Sure it does.. Read that again Keith. Do you know what 2 +2
> equals?? If someone said that 2+2 = 5 would they be right?
Depends whose maths you are using. You think I'm joking, I'll bet.
> Keith= part of everything is art crowd. What a hippie :)
And proudly so, I might add. Hey, Keith, spin one up.
EAM
Ricardo Pontes
>
> I'll bet if you went through a year's worth of posts here on raf and
> filled out a database of condemnation, you would find that about 80% of
> the condemnations comes from the other direction.
Have you looked? I seriously think not.
To wit, tight-ass
> conservatives who condemn "Modern Art" and wimper louder than hell that
> so few people actually like anal-retentive counterfeit neo-classic art.
Whoever said that? Are you making up stuff as you go along?
> Most of the so-called modernists love, along with most people,
> Ruebens, Durer, Raphael, Rembrandt and so on, and also love the works of
> 'degenerate' artists of our history.
Liking some of the great artists for the past serves as a second
function for the modern artist. I dont doubt art failures like
rembrant and Da vinci. I suspect "old masters" wouldnt give a second
look at most modern garbage thou.
What usually isn't appreciated
> that much is the endless array of "neo-classic" redux matter that passes
> our eyes from the pitiful persecuted counterfeiters that you apparently
> advocate for.
Who do i advocate for? Do you know some names? And please tell me who
is a modern neo classicist?
>
> So, next-time you're polishing your jack-boots and have a few moments
> for reflection, reflect that.
>
> But I'm not complaining, you understand. I find this futile discourse
> incredibly entertaining.
Me too. I love to see failures reactions. Hey lets see your art??
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
mdeli
>Ricardo Pontes wrote:
>> Keith goes on to compare someone who disagrees with with him and
>> basically calls them nazis because they disagree with him based on
>> art. GOOD GOING KEITH!!
>
>
>No, the reason the Tin Man sez "Nazis" is because he is perceptive.
I regard anyone who equates art criticism and disagreement about what
they happen to like with Nazis is pretty stupid.
So I guess you are as stupid as some of the other artzy fartzies here.
...no skill no art
"The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are body installations containing invisible Color Fields."
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Erik A. Mattila
> "
>
>>I'll bet if you went through a year's worth of posts here on raf and
>>filled out a database of condemnation, you would find that about 80% of
>>the condemnations comes from the other direction.
>>
>
> Have you looked? I seriously think not.
Well, see if you can find one "modernist" who claims that people are
duped into liking classical art?
>
> To wit, tight-ass
>
>>conservatives who condemn "Modern Art" and wimper louder than hell that
>>so few people actually like anal-retentive counterfeit neo-classic art.
>>
>
> Whoever said that? Are you making up stuff as you go along?
Oh, it was just poetic license, I suppose...
>> Most of the so-called modernists love, along with most people,
>>Ruebens, Durer, Raphael, Rembrandt and so on, and also love the works of
>>'degenerate' artists of our history.
>>
>
> Liking some of the great artists for the past serves as a second
> function for the modern artist. I dont doubt art failures like
> rembrant and Da vinci. I suspect "old masters" wouldnt give a second
> look at most modern garbage thou.
Well, your ass may be tighter than I thought, but even van Gogh adored
Bouguereau. There's no way in the world that you can construct a
credible argument that "modern" artist only like "failed" classical
artists.
>
> What usually isn't appreciated
>
>>that much is the endless array of "neo-classic" redux matter that passes
>>our eyes from the pitiful persecuted counterfeiters that you apparently
>>advocate for.
>>
>
> Who do i advocate for? Do you know some names? And please tell me who
> is a modern neo classicist?
Such advocacy literally ooozes from your words, my friend. Remember,
you are the one who is claiming that there is one standard
(coincidentally yours) that measures artistic merit, and anything short
of that is "not art" etc.
>
>
>>So, next-time you're polishing your jack-boots and have a few moments
>>for reflection, reflect that.
>>
>>But I'm not complaining, you understand. I find this futile discourse
>>incredibly entertaining.
>>
>
> Me too. I love to see failures reactions. Hey lets see your art??
Why, you are so narrow-minded that everyone knows what you will say?
I've already 'failed' because I am saying you are full of shit. Not
interested.
Erik
>
> Ricardo
> www.pileofgarbage.com
>
Ricardo Pontes
>
> Well, your ass may be tighter than I thought, but even van Gogh adored
> Bouguereau. There's no way in the world that you can construct a
> credible argument that "modern" artist only like "failed" classical
> artists.
>
>
classical artist?
>
>
> Such advocacy literally ooozes from your words, my friend. Remember,
> you are the one who is claiming that there is one standard
> (coincidentally yours) that measures artistic merit, and anything short
> of that is "not art" etc.
There are very high standards in Fine Art, what can i say. Most people
even most artists dont meet those standards i think.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>So, next-time you're polishing your jack-boots and have a few moments
> >>for reflection, reflect that.
> >>
> >>But I'm not complaining, you understand. I find this futile discourse
> >>incredibly entertaining.
> >>
> >
> > Me too. I love to see failures reactions. Hey lets see your art??
>
>
> Why, you are so narrow-minded that everyone knows what you will say?
> I've already 'failed' because I am saying you are full of shit. Not
> interested.
>
Not at all dude. You are a failure because you dont have any artistic
skills.(Im assuming you dont). But since you pussy foot around showing
us your art, thats what i am led to believe. Id love to see what you
do. Are you an artist?
If i think you are a crappy artist, i just will not reply, that way
you wont have your feelings hurt, how is that?
Ricardo
www.pileofgarbage.com
Miguel
regarding rubbish that had been dumped on the side of the road. It was
a pile of corragated sheet metal and other assorted stuff. The
council, believing that somone had illegally dumped some inorganic
waste investigated.
Not only was it not an illegal pile of rubbish but the council had
actually given permission for the "artist" to display his sculpture in
a public place.
Or how about walking into an art gallery and looking at three
paintings that are ostensibly the same (solid orange "windows" on dark
background) and being informed that they are actually different
instances of a plane flying over land; the label on one even tells us
that there is a camel below - where?
Another gallery hosts an exhibition of paintings belonging to the
Queen (Elizabeth). They express amazement at the record numbers of
people who come to see it and the exibition period is extended.
The people know what they like and it isn't "art" that requires an
explanatory note to tell the audience what is being expressed.
Chillie Benes
hom...@hotmail.com says...
>
>A few years back my then city council recieved a number of calls
>regarding rubbish that had been dumped on the side of the road.
Not sure what your point is?
Carl Andre, 25 years ago, kind of
lead the way in G.B. with his pile of
bricks that the Hayward (I think it's the Hayward)
paid thirty thousand pounds for at a time when
G.B. was experiencing serious economic setbacks.
The public outcry at that time was LOUD! but
ultimately futile.
Martin Skidmore
Hi Ted. Assuming you haven't lost interest watching the vitriol fly
backwards and forwards, I thought I'd say a few words. I love Modern
art. I'm not an academic, I don't know the theory in any depth, and
I'm not an artist. I just enjoy a lot of Modern art. Much as I love
Monet and Caravaggio and Bernini, I love Klee and Kandinsky more.
I disagree with your suggested meaning of art - my face doesn't become
art because it expresses an emotion, and surely art can be about ideas
rather than feelings? This is obvious if you consider literature,
isn't it?
I don't know where you're starting. Some people start 'modern art'
from the Impressionists, but there aren't many who have trouble with
them. I think they are the division in a lot of ways. I think it's
around here that we start finding artists being interested in things
other than illusionism, and starting to think about the fact that what
a painting is is colours and lines on a surface. The confidence in old
metanarratives starts to break down in the early 20th Century, leading
in various fields to Modernism (Joyce and Stravinsky, and here in art
Picasso, Kandinsky, Mondrian) and even Postmodernism. We have Picasso
inventing cubism, throwing away the single viewpoint and showing
various angles fragmented and recomposed into a single image. We have
Kandinsky realising that there doesn't have to be a subject at all -
arrangements of colours and shapes can express your ideas and be
beautiful in itself. We have Duchamp questioning the boundaries of art
by signing a urinal and displaying it: the most controversial moment
in the history of art, and immensely important in the new avenues
exposed.
But you specifically mentioned Miro and Pollock, so I should have a
crack at them. Miro is difficult because of his very personal
iconography, but do we get more from his work by knowing that the
collection of radial lines resembling a star represents the vagina?
Personally, no. He's more or less part of the surrealist movement, and
it's up to you whether you believe they were painting the unconscious
or making it up, and whether you think painting the unconscious a
worthwhile project. Personally, I dislike the clever-juxtaposition
weird-image segment of the movement (Dali, Magritte, de Chirico), but
I like the painters whose work can't be so easily described. I like
looking at Miro's paintings, I like his compositions and I find them
beautiful.
It's not that different with Pollock. Line had been, for thousands of
years, used to define form, to enclose shapes. The Modern movement was
trying to reassess old certainties, and this was one. Also, the idea
of craft, of the artist's magical hand, was an established element of
assessing artistic value. This had been questioned by Duchamp. There
is also the influence of the poured sand paintings of native Americans
such as the Navajo. These combine to lead Pollock to pour and
splatter, incorporating the accidental (long treasured in the Far
East) into the art, with the painter's direct control being far less
evident, and with lines no longer defining shapes, but valued as
elements in their own, independent right. There are still more
elements of deliberate choice, control, composition and traditional
painterly values in Pollock's work than are often acknowledged.
Having said all that, if you're not keen, then don't worry about it.
Keep on with the things you do enjoy. Look at other things now and
then, both to see if you feel the same way and in hope of discovering
wonderful new things, but we all basically stick with the areas we
love - none of us can manage to spend lots of time looking at
everything.
I don't want to get involved in the arguments, but I'm astonished that
anyone thinks that the 'emperor's new clothes' argument is worth
putting forward. It's been used again and again (remember Monet and
Renoir and the rest were thought of as monsters taking the piss when
they first exhibited) to say that millions upon millions of people are
just pretending to like this stuff. Why are we doing this? Why can you
not see that we just like something you don't? Why is that so
unbelievable?
Miguel
>
> Carl Andre, 25 years ago, kind of
> lead the way in G.B. with his pile of
> bricks that the Hayward (I think it's the Hayward)
> paid thirty thousand pounds for at a time when
> G.B. was experiencing serious economic setbacks.
> The public outcry at that time was LOUD! but
> ultimately futile.
The point is and you have helped proved this is that the public does
not like the crap that is peddled as art by all those charletans out
there. For some reason though they manage to get the ear of morons in
government, both local and national.
John Ng
Many people enjoy looking at an ink blot or a carpet design. But does
visual enjoyment constitutes art? Some people enjoy hearing white
noises but does that constitute music? Sure, both kind of art is only
art if it is purposeful; so does that mean that if I interlace the
white noise with beeps, it becomes music? Technically, that would be
so, but is it not disparaging to consider that so? If you do not
think so, then would you consider every human interaction an art?
Well, this is philosophical, but I believe we should draw a line, a
line based 600 years before the 20C. It necessities that art is a
glorification of man and the output of master craftsmen.
Nevertheless, enjoyment of either is not contested. The contest is
really to modernise modern art. An art renewal. I am bored to death
with this hollow and intellectually deficient art of Picasso, Kadinsky
and other modernism. Give me something which I can be proud of...
give me master craftsmanship.
Ted Shoemaker
> I disagree with your suggested meaning of art
So do I.
I'm groping with the "What is art?" question. I believe
that question is very much to the point when studying 20th & 21st
Century artists. If I crumple a piece of paper, it's trash. If
some other guy (mentioned in this morning's newspaper) crumples a
piece of paper, it's art. Why?
> my face doesn't become
> art because it expresses an emotion, and surely art can be about ideas
> rather than feelings? This is obvious if you consider literature,
> isn't it?
Granted. Art is not only about expressing emotion.
> arrangements of colours and shapes can express your ideas and be
> beautiful in itself.
Yes. Some definitions of art include a concept of beauty. Many
people would disagree, however.
> It's not that different with Pollock. Line had been, for thousands of
> years, used to define form, to enclose shapes. The Modern movement was
> trying to reassess old certainties, and this was one.
Discarding "form" as necessary to art.
> Also, the idea
> of craft, of the artist's magical hand, was an established element of
> assessing artistic value.
Discarding "craft" as necessary to art.
> These combine to lead Pollock to pour and
> splatter, incorporating the accidental (long treasured in the
> Far East) into the art, with the painter's direct control being
> far less evident, and with lines no longer defining shapes, but
> valued as elements in their own, independent right. There are still
> more elements of deliberate choice, control, composition and
> traditional painterly values in Pollock's work than are often
> acknowledged.
This reduces the message. Simply put, you can't say as much when
you're not the one in control of what's being said. In Pollock's
case, it's gravity doing a lot of the talking. Or maybe some
artists didn't *want* to say much?
Thus some artists have thrown away "meaning" as a component in art.
Among other things, your post says: art is not necessarily about
emotion, form, craft, or message. Great. What's left?
> Why can you
> not see that we just like something you don't? Why is that so
> unbelievable?
I like some modern art. That which I don't like, I still want to
understand. That which is supposed to be neither liked nor
understood: what's it for?
Ted Shoemaker
shoema...@yahoo.com
Chillie Benes
>The point is and you have helped proved this is that the public does
>not like the crap that is peddled as art by all those charletans out
>there. For some reason though they manage to get the ear of morons in
>government, both local and national.
I said, "Not sure what your point is? "
Now that I see you are one of the unwashed "public"
I regret it if you think what I wrote "proves"
anything. All it says to me is that there will
always be those who are either pro or anti - it's
human nature.
Chillie Benes
shoema...@yahoo.com says...
>If I crumple a piece of paper, it's trash. If
>some other guy (mentioned in this morning's newspaper) crumples a
>piece of paper, it's art. Why?
If you're an office worker, it is trash.
If you're an artist with artistic intent, it's art.
So the simple answer to your dilemma is, "intention."
For more complex reasoning on the subject, study
Duchamp's writings, and those of others in the DaDa
movement.
Nikolaus Maack
> In article <bc584b4d.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> shoema...@yahoo.com says...
>
>>If I crumple a piece of paper, it's trash. If
>>some other guy (mentioned in this morning's newspaper) crumples a
>>piece of paper, it's art. Why?
>
> If you're an office worker, it is trash.
> If you're an artist with artistic intent, it's art.
> So the simple answer to your dilemma is, "intention."
I would argue that everyone is an artist. Everyone. If you pick up a
stapler and declare it to be art, it is art. Just like that. It's MAGIC.
The question is not, in my mind, "Is this art or not?"
The real question is, "Is this art of any VALUE?"
"Value" being financial, spiritual, artistic, philosophical, political, or
whatever other definition of value you'd care to mention.
Your coworker can crumple up a ball of paper and call it art. He's right.
It's art. Just like that. But it's up to you -- and the world at large
-- to decide whether or not the art is of any value.
Your coworker might consider it very significant. He might even think
it's worth a million dollars. And that's fine. Let him have his opinion.
I doubt many will agree with him.
Nik
Todd Strickland
> Martin Skidmore (martin.s...@btinternet.com) wrote:
>
> I'm groping with the "What is art?" question. I believe
> that question is very much to the point when studying 20th & 21st
> Century artists. If I crumple a piece of paper, it's trash. If
> some other guy (mentioned in this morning's newspaper) crumples a
> piece of paper, it's art. Why?
"Art" is whatever enough people say is art, or whatever the artworld
accepts as art; this is not new, it has always been this way. Keep in
mind that in their day "masters" such as Corot, Courbet, Manet, Monet,
etc. were not accepted as "art" by the establishment. The usual
put-downs such as "childish," "sensation-grabbing," "monkey-like,"
were used to describe these artists whom we now easily accept as
great.
If that definition bothers you, remember that just because a
couple of galleries in a chic section of New York say that a crumpled
piece of paper is art today, it doesn't mean that the artworld, at
large, will accept that definition in the long run. But don't throw
out the baby with the bathwater when deciding what to write-off;
Picasso, Kandinsky, Miro, Pollock (the baby) are a lot more
significant than some guy who sells crumpled pieces of paper (the
bathwater).
>
> > arrangements of colours and shapes can express your ideas and be
> > beautiful in itself.
>
> Yes. Some definitions of art include a concept of beauty. Many
> people would disagree, however.
>
> > It's not that different with Pollock. Line had been, for thousands of
> > years, used to define form, to enclose shapes. The Modern movement was
> > trying to reassess old certainties, and this was one.
>
> Discarding "form" as necessary to art.
You need to define what you mean by form, here. I know of no style of
painting which aims to discard form. Quite the contrary, regarding
Modernism, which is very "formal," emphasizing form, line, and
color, not trying to hide them in any illusionistic way (well, some styles,
at least).
>
> > Also, the idea
> > of craft, of the artist's magical hand, was an established element of
> > assessing artistic value.
>
> Discarding "craft" as necessary to art.
Again, I've never heard of any major artist who said "craft" isn't
necessary to make good art.
>
> > These combine to lead Pollock to pour and
> > splatter, incorporating the accidental (long treasured in the
> > Far East) into the art, with the painter's direct control being
> > far less evident, and with lines no longer defining shapes, but
> > valued as elements in their own, independent right. There are still
> > more elements of deliberate choice, control, composition and
> > traditional painterly values in Pollock's work than are often
> > acknowledged.
>
> This reduces the message. Simply put, you can't say as much when
> you're not the one in control of what's being said. In Pollock's
> case, it's gravity doing a lot of the talking. Or maybe some
> artists didn't *want* to say much?
It doesn't reduce the message, it expresses other messages which
couldn't be expressed any other way. The quality of line in Pollock's
classic paintings could never be achieved by putting brush to canvas
in the traditional way. By pouring the paint, Pollock expresses
dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity, "nature," and a
host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're talking about.
"Gravity" isn't doing the talking; Pollock laid out the canvas, mixed
the paint, "composed" the picture, poured the paint... It is
completely Pollock's, just as certainly as the Mona Lisa is da
Vinci's.
>
> Thus some artists have thrown away "meaning" as a component in art.
I know of no artist or style which seeks to "throw away meaning."
>
> Among other things, your post says: art is not necessarily about
> emotion, form, craft, or message. Great. What's left?
I think that's what you've said, although I'm not sure that's what Martin
was
saying. Anyway, whatever it is that pre-modern art is about, Modern
art is basically about the same thing; new times, new styles, but the
age old themes recur in Modernism, too.
>
> > Why can you
> > not see that we just like something you don't? Why is that so
> > unbelievable?
>
> I like some modern art. That which I don't like, I still want to
> understand. That which is supposed to be neither liked nor
> understood: what's it for?
I know of no art which is supposed to be neither liked nor understood.
Todd Strickland
Martin Skidmore
> The real question is, "Is this art of any VALUE?"
Very good point. I wasn't trying to offer a definition, because I've
seen none that get us anywhere. 'Someone says it is' covers it as well
as anything. Before Modernism, there were clear and reasonably simple
definitions, but they don't work any more. The insistence on craft is
meaningless, and leads to art being valued according to our knowledge
of its production, rather than any inherent merit. This is not
sustainable. We need to open our minds. Art is about more than craft:
the fact that Picasso was a masterful painter by any traditional
measure while in his teens tells us nothing of the worth of
'Guernica'.
There is no simple answer as to what 20th Century art is doing. There
are thousands, probably millions, of different ones. When you add in
modern critical philosophies such as deconstructionism, you have to
face the huge range of interpretations and readings that any of them
can invoke. It makes criticism complex, hard to defend - and very
interesting.
Do bear in mind that the works that make tabloid headlines are just
extreme examples of individual movements. Most of them are from the
areas known as 'conceptual' and 'minimalist' art - I'd suggest reading
about Duchamp, and particularly his readymades, as a good start
towards seeing what the thinking is. You might still get nothing out
of minimalist art, and you may see conceptual art as putting too
little value on art and too much on concepts - but you may find a new
area to love.
- Martin Skidmore
Chillie Benes
says...
>Your coworker can crumple up a ball of paper and call it art. He's right.
>It's art. Just like that. But it's up to you -- and the world at large
>-- to decide whether or not the art is of any value.
HA! I seriously - and I'm serious here - doubt
that an office worker would get what the wadded
up paper is worth even if they framed it in
a solid gold frame.
On the OTHER hand, let Jasper Johns wad it up,
frame it in ersatz black felt, sign his name
to it in "magic marker" and put it on the market
and what do you think then the difference in
"value" would be?
Mind you, we're talking about two sheets of
three-hole punched ruled notebook paper from
the very same package of paper.
Chillie Benes
>
>Just so. Here is another view: Context. A tangle of rusting pipes in a
>vacant lot is just that. Select it and move it into a gallery or museum and
>it becomes art because of its context.
No argument from me on that score. As I just
wrote in another thread here, Carl Andre did
just that with his pile of ordinary commercial
building bricks. They weren't even interesting
used bricks as I recall. They were brand new
with no history at all - bought and paid for
and stacked on the gallery floor - neatly mind
you - and declared a ground-breaking Minimalist
art work.
Of course there have since been even more
imaginative artists. I recall the one who simply
piled tons of dirt - ordinary soil - into the
gallery space. What fun that must have been.
Allowing the inner child its play time!
Miguel
> > that question is very much to the point when studying 20th & 21st
> > Century artists. If I crumple a piece of paper, it's trash. If
> > some other guy (mentioned in this morning's newspaper) crumples a
> > piece of paper, it's art. Why?
>
Of course you're groping with this question, it's part of the problem.
The vast bulk of the population intuitively know what is artistic and
deserving of merit. The fact that many modern artists have to hide
behind a wall of words and jargonism when it comes to describing what
is in front of them suggests that they are merely compensating for
their lack of talent. Modern art has no standards, you don't need to
be a good artist. What you do need to be is a good psycho-analyst,
either that or an exceptional bullsh!tter.
But what would I know, I'm just a member of the public right, only
other modern artists are capable of commenting on the validity of
modern art pieces. How very convenient.
The real difference between modern and other forms that came before is
that modern art is not produced for the enjoyment of others.
mdeli
>"Art" is whatever enough people say is art, or whatever the artworld
>accepts as art; this is not new, it has always been this way.
That isn't a definition. A lot of people can point out that it's crap.
and that doesn't define crap. As your next paragraph shows.
> Keep in
>mind that in their day "masters" such as Corot, Courbet, Manet, Monet,
>etc. were not accepted as "art" by the establishment. The usual
>put-downs such as "childish," "sensation-grabbing," "monkey-like,"
>were used to describe these artists whom we now easily accept as
>great.
I believe trying to define art is a waste of time. It is also a ploy
used to get a point off on a tangent. What is worth discussing is the
quality of art artwork.
I always agree with anyone who presents the all is art argument.
However its quite obvious that much art can be crap at the same time.
This leaves the average artzy fartzy with the question, can art be
crap? I believe we have a good century of examples.
>It doesn't reduce the message, it expresses other messages which
>couldn't be expressed any other way. The quality of line in Pollock's
>classic paintings could never be achieved by putting brush to canvas
>in the traditional way.
Neither can the quality of what's in the toilet, so what?
> By pouring the paint, Pollock expresses
>dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity, "nature," and a
>host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're talking about.
---the usual Artspeak BS!
>"Gravity" isn't doing the talking; Pollock laid out the canvas, mixed
>the paint, "composed" the picture, poured the paint... It is
>completely Pollock's, just as certainly as the Mona Lisa is da
>Vinci's.
Every artwork is completely the creator's in that sense. You are
saying nothing as usual.
Todd Strickland
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c71836a...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> "Todd Strickland" wrote:
>
> >"Art" is whatever enough people say is art, or whatever the artworld
> >accepts as art; this is not new, it has always been this way.
>
> That isn't a definition. A lot of people can point out that it's crap.
> and that doesn't define crap. As your next paragraph shows.
It certainly is a definition. "Crap" (as in dogshit) is a completely
different class of object from "art," and can be identified by objective
criteria; this is not so easy to do with art, even if we limit ourselves to
the most traditional styles of art. "Crap" (as in art with no merit) is not
a definition of art, but a value judgement; if you say that *this* painting
is crap, in this sense, you are inherently admitting that it is art.
You could reasonably attack my definition for being circular (it is
circular, but that doesn't invalidate it in any philosophical sense), but it
is still a definition; a very practical definition which avoids many of the
aesthetic quandries associated with some other definitions.
>
> >Keep in
> >mind that in their day "masters" such as Corot, Courbet, Manet, Monet,
> >etc. were not accepted as "art" by the establishment. The usual
> >put-downs such as "childish," "sensation-grabbing," "monkey-like,"
> >were used to describe these artists whom we now easily accept as
> >great.
>
> I believe trying to define art is a waste of time. It is also a ploy
> used to get a point off on a tangent. What is worth discussing is the
> quality of art artwork.
That's a reasonable position, although your own catchphrase "no skill no
art" belies this. "No skill no art" is a definition (a very incomplete one,
but a definition none the less).
Still, a lot of very intelligent people over the years have dedicated more
than a little effort to this question, and I for one think any students of
art should spend some time reading what others have said about it, and think
about it for themselves.
>
> I always agree with anyone who presents the all is art argument.
> However its quite obvious that much art can be crap at the same time.
For the record, I don't adhere to the "all is art" argument. According to
my definition above, anything *could* be called art (theoretically
speaking). However, not everything *is* called art by the artworld. The
distinction still comes down to the judgement of people, not all of whom are
"charlatans" and "conmen."
>
> This leaves the average artzy fartzy with the question, can art be
> crap? I believe we have a good century of examples.
Sure, art can be crap; there has been a lot of it produced throughout the
ages.
>
> >It doesn't reduce the message, it expresses other messages which
> >couldn't be expressed any other way. The quality of line in Pollock's
> >classic paintings could never be achieved by putting brush to canvas
> >in the traditional way.
>
> Neither can the quality of what's in the toilet, so what?
The "so what" is simply that I don't compare what Pollock achieves with his
expert handling of line with what I see in the toilet. You're entitled to
see it that way if you like, but I see something a little more significant
there.
>
> > By pouring the paint, Pollock expresses
> >dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity, "nature," and a
> >host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're talking about.
>
> ---the usual Artspeak BS!
If I said that Raphael's use of balanced compostion in "The School of
Athens" was meant to represent the "balance" of classical philosophy (or a
balance between the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, the two central
figures of the painting), would you accuse me of artspeak?
If I said that David's "Oath of the Horatii" expresses conflict through it's
use of sharp line, severe composition, and placing the focal point upon the
swords being grasped by the brother warriors, would you accuse me of
artspeak?
If I said Poussin's subdued palette was intended to show a certain
restraint, or that Delacroix's bright color was meant to express vibrancy
and emotion, would you accuse me of artspeak?
In other words, why is it acceptable to consider line, color, and form as
expressive elements of all art through the ages, but "artspeak BS" when
applied to Pollock? Is the reason anything more than the simple fact that
you, personally, don't like Pollock?
>
>
> >"Gravity" isn't doing the talking; Pollock laid out the canvas, mixed
> >the paint, "composed" the picture, poured the paint... It is
> >completely Pollock's, just as certainly as the Mona Lisa is da
> >Vinci's.
>
> Every artwork is completely the creator's in that sense. You are
> saying nothing as usual.
Your right! That's why I said it, to refute Ted's statement that Pollock's
painting somehow wasn't completely Pollock's. When people make obvious
fallacies, we sometimes have to point out the obvious (I find myself doing
that with you constantly).
Todd Strickland
Discussion
I recently had the misfortune to spend 5 days looking at
a reproduction of a Monet.
"artists whom we now easily accept as great."
so it was from his latter years?
The view was across a river looking to a small town.
The reflections of the opposite trees and town stretched across
the river, so I 'feel' the view was from well up a bank, rather than at the
waterside. However, he included a small boat with 2 people inside,
and no reflection at all. The effect on me was that he could only have
included this back in the studio, and was careless about it.
The colours and tones he gave to the reflections did not 'work' at all.
A balance of tone was almost absent with regard to depth.
Some of the reflections were either offset or had no object that they
related to. Of course, no effort had been made to detail anything, -
impressionist style.
I once saw an explanation of one of his works with an artist trying to
match his brushwork as he told of Monet's greatness.
It was in part convincing when I saw the work reproduced in a book so I
could look at it from a distance.
Where do artists such as Joseph Wright of Derby, Atkinson Grimshaw,
and John Martin come in your list of 'greats'?
N.H
Todd Strickland" <ex...@gw7.gateway.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:a4r73...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Ted Shoemaker" <shoema...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bc584b4d.02021...@posting.google.com...
> > Martin Skidmore (martin.s...@btinternet.com) wrote:
> >
> > I'm groping with the "What is art?" question. I believe
> > that question is very much to the point when studying 20th & 21st
> > Century artists. If I crumple a piece of paper, it's trash. If
> > some other guy (mentioned in this morning's newspaper) crumples a
> > piece of paper, it's art. Why?
>
> "Art" is whatever enough people say is art, or whatever the artworld
> accepts as art; this is not new, it has always been this way. Keep in
> mind that in their day "masters" such as Corot, Courbet, Manet, Monet,
> etc. were not accepted as "art" by the establishment. The usual
> put-downs such as "childish," "sensation-grabbing," "monkey-like,"
> were used to describe these artists whom we now easily accept as
> great.
>
<snip>
> Todd Strickland
>
>
mdeli
> "Crap" (as in art with no merit) is not
>a definition of art, but a value judgement; if you say that *this* painting
>is crap, in this sense, you are inherently admitting that it is art.
If you say a painting is art its a value judgment. I would say roughly
speaking, that the word art is a value judgment.
>
>You could reasonably attack my definition for being circular (it is
>circular, but that doesn't invalidate it in any philosophical sense), but it
>is still a definition; a very practical definition which avoids many of the
>aesthetic quandries associated with some other definitions.
>
I don't dissagree with this.
>> I believe trying to define art is a waste of time. It is also a ploy
>> used to get a point off on a tangent. What is worth discussing is the
>> quality of art artwork.
>
>That's a reasonable position, although your own catchphrase "no skill no
>art" belies this. "No skill no art" is a definition (a very incomplete one,
>but a definition none the less).
It's a value judgment not a definition.
>
>Still, a lot of very intelligent people over the years have dedicated more
>than a little effort to this question, and I for one think any students of
>art should spend some time reading what others have said about it, and think
>about it for themselves.
I think its a total waste of time.
>> I always agree with anyone who presents the all is art argument.
>> However its quite obvious that much art can be crap at the same time.
>
>For the record, I don't adhere to the "all is art" argument.
Never said you did. However many here do.
> The quality of line in Pollock's
>> >classic paintings could never be achieved by putting brush to canvas
>> >in the traditional way.
>>
>> Neither can the quality of what's in the toilet, so what?
>
>The "so what" is simply that I don't compare what Pollock achieves with his
>expert handling of line with what I see in the toilet.
--and I do.
> You're entitled to
>see it that way if you like, but I see something a little more significant
>there.
-- and I don't
>> > By pouring the paint, Pollock expresses
>> >dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity, "nature," and a
>> >host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're talking about.
>>
>> ---the usual Artspeak BS!
On Sunday on TV 60 Minutes had a long thing on elephant paintings. The
had a big show in Australia which was attended by what looked like the
elite. It received very positive comments.
I would say that " By schmiering the paint, the elephant expresses
dynamism, balance, aggression, lyricism, complexity, "nature," and a
host of other ideas, depending on which picture we're talking about.
I'm sure that your knowing this would have left you impressed.
>If I said that Raphael's use of balanced compostion in "The School of
>Athens" was meant to represent the "balance" of classical philosophy (or a
>balance between the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, the two central
>figures of the painting), would you accuse me of artspeak?
No, but I would say its the usual stuff. I could say "argument." or
lots of other things and maintain that its an interesting imbalance.
The same goes for the rest. Art books are full of this sort of stuff.
It thickens them.
>If I said that David's "Oath of the Horatii" expresses conflict through it's
>use of sharp line, severe composition, and placing the focal point upon the
>swords being grasped by the brother warriors, would you accuse me of
>artspeak?
>
>If I said Poussin's subdued palette was intended to show a certain
>restraint, or that Delacroix's bright color was meant to express vibrancy
>and emotion, would you accuse me of artspeak?
>
>In other words, why is it acceptable to consider line, color, and form as
>expressive elements of all art through the ages, but "artspeak BS" when
>applied to Pollock? Is the reason anything more than the simple fact that
>you, personally, don't like Pollock?
Read the statement which I called Artspeak.
John Ng
> If I said that Raphael's use of balanced compostion in "The School of
> Athens" was meant to represent the "balance" of classical philosophy (or a
> balance between the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, the two central
> figures of the painting), would you accuse me of artspeak?
>
> If I said that David's "Oath of the Horatii" expresses conflict through it's
> use of sharp line, severe composition, and placing the focal point upon the
> swords being grasped by the brother warriors, would you accuse me of
> artspeak?
>
> If I said Poussin's subdued palette was intended to show a certain
> restraint, or that Delacroix's bright color was meant to express vibrancy
> and emotion, would you accuse me of artspeak?
On some points, such as Delacroix's and Poussin's, It is still
artspeak, simply because it is doubtable as the intention of the
artists and perception from the point of the viewers. Justification
statements like these are only good as academic mind-teaser and the
viewer may never (and probably never) see them and they (including me)
must take it au fait.
A painting MUST stand by itself without even a whisper except for the
title. Of the comments on David's and Raphael's, it is still artspeak
but tolerable because it adds a little spice to an otherwise
skillfully crafted painting. These comments are understandable by
most laymen. Still, the artspeak is still flatulence if it is to
support a poor quality output.
silverpoint
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.0202...@posting.google.com...
>
> On some points, such as Delacroix's and Poussin's, It is still
> artspeak, simply because it is doubtable as the intention of the
> artists and perception from the point of the viewers. Justification
> statements like these are only good as academic mind-teaser and the
> viewer may never (and probably never) see them and they (including me)
> must take it au fait.
>
> A painting MUST stand by itself without even a whisper except for the
> title. Of the comments on David's and Raphael's, it is still artspeak
> but tolerable because it adds a little spice to an otherwise
> skillfully crafted painting. These comments are understandable by
> most laymen. Still, the artspeak is still flatulence if it is to
> support a poor quality output.
>
The "artspeak" on Poussin and Delacroix is right on, both of whom wrote
extensively about art and left no doubt as to their theories and intentions.
Poussin had an idea called "modes," which I think he classified in a list of
8, whereby the artist should invent entirely different manners and
compositional schemas suitable to the subject matter and intention of the
picture. His restrained palette came from classical art of the ancient
world. Delacroix's Journal is quite huge, and filled with his thoughts on
color and much else. Some artists like to talk and write, some don't, and
doesn't really affect the actual impact of their impact, though it does make
for an interesting read.
These are good examples of "artspeak," coming from some of the greatest
painters who ever lived (too bad the several volumes of El Greco's Treatise
on Painting are lost, and that da Vinci never fully compiled his notes on
painting.) Bad artspeak might be that used to justify 7th generation Marcel
Duchamp knockoffs such as are still turned out by unoriginal artists by the
major mega-ton, and would be a far worthier target of derision than Jackson
Pollock any day. Abstract Expressionism came and went more than 40 years
ago, and is considered to be just as much a relic of the past as traditional
art by the conceptualists who long ago announced that "painting is dead."
Ridama
Some of the new art could be rightly called"The Kings New Clothes", You
don't understand it because it may not be anything to understand. When art has
to be explained with words by some so called expert then its no longer visual
art. You can call crap diamonds but its still crap.
Ted Shoemaker
>
> If you're an office worker, it is trash.
> If you're an artist with artistic intent, it's art.
> So the simple answer to your dilemma is, "intention."
Nikolaus Maack (ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>
> I would argue that everyone is an artist. Everyone. If you pick up a
> stapler and declare it to be art, it is art. Just like that. It's MAGIC.
>
> The question is not, in my mind, "Is this art or not?"
> The real question is, "Is this art of any VALUE?"
>
> "Value" being financial, spiritual, artistic, philosophical, political, or
> whatever other definition of value you'd care to mention.
>
> Your coworker can crumple up a ball of paper and call it art. He's right.
> It's art. Just like that. But it's up to you -- and the world at large
> -- to decide whether or not the art is of any value.
Let's see if I understand correctly.
About intention and value...
How is value determined? I'm not referring to monetary
value, although that is an indicator of people's opinions.
Suppose I take my radio that I wake up to each morning,
and smash it with a hammer, then I pour honey onto the
broken radio. Then I take the whole thing to a gallery
and ask the folks there to display it. Suppose I assure
the gallery people (and you) that I had intentions of
making art when I smashed the radio. How do they decide
whether it's art, and whether it's worth showing?
Also: intention is necessary to art. One difference between
a paper I crumple and a crumpled paper that shows up in a
museum is whether the Crumpler had the desire to make art
of it.
But it's hard to gauge intention. It's sometimes impossible
to examine a medium (e.g. canvas, paint) and decide whether
the object was created with artistic intention. That's not
an insult against 20th & 21st Century art; it's just a fact.
People don't always recognize that piles of sheet metal on
the roadside, for example, were meant as art. How are we
to know what the artist's intentions are?
Returning to my radio, smashed, with honey:
I have seen a lot of destroyed radios. Some of them have
had foreign liquids dripped onto them -- that includes paint!
I do not categorize them as art. (None of them were in
galleries; most were just gathering dust somewhere.) The
radio itself is therefore not the essential core of the art.
If it is intention that makes art, then I submit that the
medium is unnecessary. My description of the smashed radio
with honey is enough. It is my thoughts that are art. This
post, which communicates those thoughts to you and the world,
is needed only to help you experience my art, but it is not
the art itself. Let's call this new form "hypothetical art".
(If that term is taken, we can pick another term.)
Responses?
Ted Shoemaker
John Ng
> The "artspeak" on Poussin and Delacroix is right on, both of whom wrote
> extensively about art and left no doubt as to their theories and intentions.
I take your word for it that these things were documented by the
artists themselves. However, it is still artspeak. The contention is
NOT whether artspeak was used at all, but rather whether it is used to
prop up an otherwise poor work.
As to Possin's and Delacroix's artspeak, I am still don't think they
work. And even if they do, if a specific work is bad, it is bad...
artspeak or not. (Don't read this a statement that Possin and
Delacroix is bad which in fact they aren't)
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE from Down Under
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Stewart
> Can someone please help me understand some forms of 20th (and 21st)
> Century art?
>
If you want to know about 20th century art you'll have to go back
about 30 years into the last century and start.
There you will find that almost at the very beginning, painting took
two very different directions. Modern art is like a river with a road
on each side. Both roads follow the river, and you can travel the one
of your choice.
One road is the Romantic Road and you can start your trip with Van
Gogh. This is for travelers who are directed "by their internal state
of being".
The other road is the Classical Road. Start with Cezanne. This road is
for cooler, more analytic, even intellectual travelers.
This may be a simplified statement, but it is essential to understand.
Keeping this is mind will be a big help in your studies. And it will
help you understand yourself and why you like certain artists and
styles more than others.
Stewart Schooley
mdeli
>Let's see if I understand correctly.
>
>About intention and value...
It seems philosophically obvious that today's most successful
Ultra-Minimalists painters might really be more modern had they left
all their paint in the tube as the Conceptualist painters actually do.
But even this presents difficulties. As one painter once exclaimed as
he was sitting around trying to think up something new, "True Nothing
is a very difficult quantity to arrive at."
Did I come close? I exhibited a super-minimal work of my own
invention called "Hole." I believed this came closer to "nothing" than
any previous work. It consisted of a small, very real hole in the wall
made by the nail of a picture-hook. No frame no picture no canvas!
I always supposed that this work's necessarily minuscule size
prevented it from gaining much deserved recognition. Now that this
most minimal possible work was conceived and executed the pendulum
might swing back a bit and the actual picture might regain
intellectual interest. My intentions were excellent!
Nik Maack
Ted Shoemaker wrote:
> How is value determined? I'm not referring to monetary
> value, although that is an indicator of people's opinions.
What determines the value of a stock on the stock market? Why were
Internet stocks worth a whole lot a few years back, but are now scorned?
Did all these companies suddenly lose a lot of money? No -- most of
them NEVER turned a profit, ever. So why were they worth money in the
first place? And why did they suddenly cease to be worth money? What happened?
Why do cabbage patch dolls or tickle-me-elmos suddenly become worth
insane amounts of money around Xmas?
The same sort of VALUE occurs with art. There's the market value.
> Suppose I take my radio that I wake up to each morning,
> and smash it with a hammer, then I pour honey onto the
> broken radio. Then I take the whole thing to a gallery
> and ask the folks there to display it.
The market might be perfectly willing to believe that your honey soaked
radio is the next big thing. People leap on an opportunity to buy one.
You can't smash radios fast enough. It all started because Bob, who is
rich and white and upper crust, bought one, and now everyone wants to be
cool as Bob. Some newspaper ran an article -- honey smashed radios!
Get em while they're hot!
And maybe I look at your smashed radios and say, "What a load of shit!
Honey smashed radios? Are these people insane?"
To me, these radios have no value at all. Am I right? Evidently not.
People are buying them like crazy. You're getting ten grand for every
radio you kill! But still, I stick to my guns and say, "This is shit."
Personally, I think we'd live in a saner world if people learned to
trust their own judgment when it comes to art (and a lot of other
things). Enjoy what you enjoy, and to hell with what everyone else is
doing.
Ha. If only the world worked that way.
Are you familiar with the "innocent bystander effect"? A man gets hit
by a car. Falls down on the sidewalk. Bloody and semi-conscious. The
car drives away. A crowd of people gather around and stare. No one
does anything. They all just stand there and watch as the man dies.
One theory to explain this behavior is that everyone in the crowd is
looking around, trying to determine what is a "normal" reaction for a
situation like this. When they look around, they see a whole bunch of
people, just standing there, looking around. So people figure, "Hey!
That's normal!" And everyone just stands there, watching, doing nothing.
Apply this model to art trends. Jenny wants to buy a really "good"
painting. But what on earth is a good painting? She checks out what
everyone else her age and social class are buying -- she's a young,
stupid, high school girl -- and she buys a poster of a unicorn standing
under a rainbow. She is pleased because THIS (she knows) is Good Art --
for her, anyway.
This pretty much sums up human psychology in groups. Once you know
about the innocent bystander effect, it can be a little terrifying. How
many times do people do something simply because that's what the
majority is doing, because that's the "safest" action?
Anything can become art. I genuinely believe this. And it's proven
over and over again. Watch the masses buy it in bulk.
What determines the value of an art work, for me, is my gut. I try to
trust my values, my beliefs, my own mythology. Because I didn't grow up
alone on Mars, I have been influenced by the world around me. But over
all, I try to trust me and only me.
This tends to make me a bit of a freak and an outsider, because I'm not
very keen on "fitting in". It can be a problem. At work, for example,
I'll often say something and everyone will turn and stare -- and I'll
realize that, uh oh, I said something "weird" again.
> People don't always recognize that piles of sheet metal on
> the roadside, for example, were meant as art. How are we
> to know what the artist's intentions are?
We can't determine the artist's intentions. But if it's art, someone
will probably hang a price tag on it. And if we're stupid -- and all of
us are stupid in one way or another -- we'll probably end up deciding if
the art is any good based on how many zeros are at the end of the number
on the price tag.
There are stories about stores being unable to sell items until they
raise the price. Only then do people think, "Hey, this object must be
worth something! Look how expensive it is!" Then they buy it.
If it's on sale at 75% off, it's a deal -- but there's probably
something wrong with it, or its crap -- right? That's only logical.
All of this is to say that, while I personally have some respect for
abstract art and weird art and all that, I also understand that human
beings (including myself) are terrifyingly stupid.
> Responses?
On a good day, I'd say you're being cynical. On a bad day (and today
seems to be one of those days) I'd say you're not being cynical enough.
Nik
Ted Shoemaker
Who are some of the other Romantics? and the other Classicists?
Ted Shoemaker
ge...@ncweb.com (Stewart) wrote in message news:<63b4b8c0.02022...@posting.google.com>...
>
> If you want to know about 20th century art you'll have to go back
> about 30 years into the last century and start.
>
> There you will find that almost at the very beginning, painting took
> two very different directions. Modern art is like a river with a road
> on each side. Both roads follow the river, and you can travel the one
> of your choice.
>
> One road is the Romantic Road and you can start your trip with Van
> Gogh. This is for travelers who are directed "by their internal state
> of being".
>
> The other road is the Classical Road. Start with Cezanne. This road is
> for cooler, more analytic, even intellectual travelers.
>
> This may be a simplified statement, but it is essential to understand.
>
> Stewart Schooley
Stewart
> This (below) sounds like good advice.
> Who are some of the other Romantics? and the other Classicists?
Ted,
Instead of writing a long list of artists here, let me suggest that
you do a study of Romanticism and Classicism first. The Internet has
plenty of information and you can start your search here.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/glo/romanticism/
With this foundation, you will begin to judge for yourself about
individual artists. It really gets interesting when you begin to see
all the nuances, subleties and variations that artists can devise
regardless of which style is dominant in their work.
Again, I see the chief value of this study is that you will find out
something about yourself.
Stewart
Discussion
I accept that everyone has their own definition of art,
but you seem to be promoting a version that has no
definition other than the one person who claims it to be so.
That is very 1960's, but is also the idea from which have
sprung a pile of bricks, a shark in formalin, an unmade bed,
a urinal, an empty room which has it's lights switched on and
off at regular intervals, Hippy 'happenings', poetry with no rhyme
or rhythm, a period of silence posed as music, collage, minimalism,
etc.
It may be true now that there is no common set of accepted ideas
or even principles. Indeed, this may be the only statement we might
all be able to support.
In a search for lasting art, I suggest that certain fundamentals still
remain that might guide art and artists should they wish their art to
have more meaning than just throwaway stuff.
Can't be a waste of time to study art that has been aclaimed by
generation after generation can it or has our generation suddenly
become wiser?
N.H
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20020218113454.110$R...@newsreader.com...
> Just so. Here is another view: Context. A tangle of rusting pipes in a
> vacant lot is just that. Select it and move it into a gallery or museum
and
> it becomes art because of its context.
>
> Dan
>
> 'The self, violent and constant, is the subject of all art.' - Barnett
> Newman http://www.danfoxart.com
Martin Skidmore
> That is very 1960's, but is also the idea from which have
> sprung a pile of bricks, a shark in formalin, an unmade bed,
> a urinal, an empty room which has it's lights switched on and
> off at regular intervals, Hippy 'happenings', poetry with no rhyme
> or rhythm, a period of silence posed as music, collage, minimalism,
> etc.
Historically this is rather short of accuracy. Having said this...
damn right! Yeah!
> In a search for lasting art, I suggest that certain fundamentals still
> remain that might guide art and artists should they wish their art to
> have more meaning than just throwaway stuff.
Meaning? In the history of art, nothing, nothing ever, has had the
significance and therefore meaning for art that Duchamp's readymades
had. We're back to a urinal. And Postmodernism has addressed the
complexity of meanings, the multiple readings, in a way that nothing
had before.
> Can't be a waste of time to study art that has been aclaimed by
> generation after generation can it or has our generation suddenly
> become wiser?
Do you seriously imagine that modern generations of artists, critics
and fans have stopped looking at and thinking about Michelangelo,
Rembrandt and all of the other greats of all those pre-Modern
centuries? The recognition of the huge amount of great work produced
before the 20th Century doesn't mean that we should all freeze our
ideas and stop being interested in anything new. We don't have to
throw away Shakespeare, and we don't have to honour his work by
refusing to read Joyce or Proust or Faulkner. Similarly, I have no
problem with saying that my two favourite ever sculptors are Bernini
and Hepworth.
Discussion
own definition of art. Therefore, if you claim that a urinal removed
from it's intended use, (& planted upside down?) put in a museum
somewhere is art then you have your art.
Would this offering have been more meaningful if viewers were
required to put it to it's original use?
Quite right, ideas must be allowed to flow. I mourn the paucity of ideas
that might impress the next generations. All we have is a true mirror of
the current materialism and the change in society that seems to worship
youth, and at the same time disrepect age. It is this which has severed
our 'art' from all that has gone before.
I mentioned a body of art that would, like art has done in the past, last.
I can see your urinal (and the like) lasting, but only as a symbol fit for
the mockery of the numbness of our aestheticism.
N.H
...
So calm are we when passions are no more.
For then we know how vain it was to boast
Of fleeting things, so certain to be lost.
Clouds of affection from our younger eyes
Conceal the emptiness which age descries.
The soul's dark cottage, batter'd and decay'd,
Let's in new light through chinks that Time hath made:
Stronger by weakness, wiser men become
As they draw near to their eternal home.
Leaving the old, both worlds at once they view
That stand upon the threshold of the new.
"Martin Skidmore" <martin.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8c06756e.02022...@posting.google.com...
> "Discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.dotcom> wrote in message
news:<ISse8.2757
>> snipped<<