Behind formal criteria
Marilyn
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<362e1...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
>
>
>
>On 21 Oct 1998, Marilyn wrote:
>
>> Re Goya:
>>
>> Well, the composition is all wrong the critics say.
>
>Well, the critics need formulas, so they often don't recognize
>the value in something different.
>
>> For example
>> the Insurrection has no real central focus.
>
>Neither does Titian's "Venus and the Lute Player", but that one works
>pretty well, too.
>
>> Some of Goya's earlier
>> works were much more "composed." Maybe the force of the passion
>> of the artist, allows for the breaking of all rules. My idea
>> is that we should at least know the rules, and then push them,
>> and break them.
>
>
>Sounds reasonable to me. I think a good painter can break the rules well.
>
>Mark
I offered the two examples of Goya's work because although
they do not strictly meet all formal criteria they remain
masterpieces. I'm sure that goes for Titian too although
I don't have the image in mind.
Marilyn
Marilyn
Well in the real world I have learned that Modernism has crushed the
need for illusion in art. The work of art is the reality, it doesn't
need to refer to anything else.
But with 20 year old Iian, illusion
remains the the goal. I think that his is the majority view here.
It's enriching to learn what motivates artists, and there is
evidence of positive feedback on that subject.
M.
mark webber
On 23 Oct 1998, Marilyn wrote:
> I offered the two examples of Goya's work because although
> they do not strictly meet all formal criteria they remain
> masterpieces. I'm sure that goes for Titian too although
> I don't have the image in mind.
>
> Marilyn
I understand, Marilyn, and I only meant that I think of formalism not as a
fixed set of rules, but an approach that combines the visceral and the
intellectual. I think of it, in the works of painters like these two and
others, as a balance of these, and a visually oriented method that at its
best, is not reliant on rules.
(I wanted to clarify this because I don't want it to sound antagonistic.)
I don't think everyone has the same definitions of terms like form or
modern or post-modern, and that is one of the reasons I find this forum so
interesting, and why I enjoy the dialogues with you, Lauri, Tracy, Iian,
Chris and others.
It seems to me that anything tagged an "ism" is rightfully suspicious
looking - on the other hand, when we find our ideas or methods
corresponding with some "ism" we might want to try expressing our ideas to
see how they match up or don't.
I think I'm babbling a bit here, so I'll let it rest.
regards,
Mark
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>I understand, Marilyn, and I only meant that I think of formalism not as a
>fixed set of rules, but an approach that combines the visceral and the
>intellectual. I think of it, in the works of painters like these two and
>others, as a balance of these, and a visually oriented method that at its
>best, is not reliant on rules.
you know mark, under that definition i am a formalist, i never thought i
would say that. maybe it is the order that we set that separates us. we
all seem to hold the same values to art, it is just the emphasis that
differs.
>I don't think everyone has the same definitions of terms like form or
>modern or post-modern, and that is one of the reasons I find this forum so
>interesting, and why I enjoy the dialogues with you, Lauri, Tracy, Iian,
>Chris and others.
thank you, from you that is really a compliment, and i agree.
>It seems to me that anything tagged an "ism" is rightfully suspicious
>looking - on the other hand, when we find our ideas or methods
>corresponding with some "ism" we might want to try expressing our ideas to
>see how they match up or don't.
i personally am not much a "ism" person, but if we can not connect because
we do not have a solid base of terms, we never will get very far. with a
bit of leniency and careful explanation we should be able to work through
the "isms" and get to root of the discussion, what is art.
>I think I'm babbling a bit here, so I'll let it rest.
your not alone on that one.
tracy
mdeli
There are several snips.
>All I'm saying in the above paragraph is that much art, like conceptual
>art, minimalist art and pomo are theory-bound - I'm not making a
>judgement, only an observation. Do you really disagree that much art is
>reliant on theory?
No art is reliant on theory. Art theories are mostly babble about the
latest fashion. Art theories have a half-life of about twenty years.
Art is totally dependent on superior skill craftsmanship and
creativity. Those whose judgment on this is valid are viewers not
charlatans spouting bullshit.
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
>A difference between Surrealism and Minimalism is that no one needs to
>know any theories behind Dali's work to enjoy it. (Look at all the morons
>who love Dali but hate other modern art.)
And look at the work of morons like Weber who hate Dali and love
Modern Academic Art.
>And if you want to talk about
>good painters who were Surrealists, DeChirico, for example, can be enjoyed
>without the aid of a text.
DeChirico is an example of interesting ideas and lousy technique. That
is why he faded from the scene.
>I thought we agreed that, since Duchamp, it's art if anybody says its art.
Is that all it takes to be art? Gee, all these paintings of stripes
and large red canvases are now art. And the closet full of stuff you
took home from your show is also art. Or didn't anyone say it was art?
>I'm not talking about limitations - I'm not being judgemental, remember?
>But I am making the observation that plenty of painting happening right
>now is theory-bound. BT cited Gerhard Richter as a stillife painter who
>deals with (and I'm paraphrasing as best I can) the difficulties
>confronting a contemporary artist, such as photography, etc. His
>(Richter's) jumping from style to style is understood best through a
>series of ideas related to pomo theories.
Here's a POMO theory. He jumps from style to style because all his
styles lack skill.
>How do you distinguish between idea and content, in that particular
>sentence?
Iian said:
>> However, not all things beautiful are works of art,
>> great or minor.
>
>There you go again, telling us what is and isn't art, when that is a
>flagrant violation of the Duchamp Act.
Impeach Iian for this flagrant violation.
>> To acknowlege a work to be "art" we have to go beyond the
>> physical appearance and consider why the relationship of components within a
>> work transmits that thing we call an aesthetic experience.
>
>As in Duchamp's Fountain? Just what are the those transmitted components,
>within that urinal, which relate and resonate an esthetic experience?
Duchamp's "Grand Pisspot" always tells me that a good piss is better
than lousy sex. However I also had similar experiences with other
receptacles. Does this mean they are also art Webber?
Please give us your learned opinion on this important matter.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mark webber
On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
>
> mark webber wrote in message ...
>
> >I understand, Marilyn, and I only meant that I think of formalism not as a
> >fixed set of rules, but an approach that combines the visceral and the
> >intellectual. I think of it, in the works of painters like these two and
> >others, as a balance of these, and a visually oriented method that at its
> >best, is not reliant on rules.
>
>
> you know mark, under that definition i am a formalist, i never thought i
> would say that. maybe it is the order that we set that separates us. we
> all seem to hold the same values to art, it is just the emphasis that
> differs.
Yes, it's a funny thing. Many critics and historians today speak of
"formalism" as something that was just invented in the early part of this
century, by people like Clive Bell and others. It may well have been
something new to write so explicitly about the visual aspects of a work,
but it certainly was not a new thing for artists to concern themselves
with these issues.
Clearly, what writers like Bell and Dewey were trying to do for their
readers was come to some conclusions about why a painter like Titian is
considered more important than one of his contemporaries. Ideas about
inventive design and color seemed more important than simple issues of
rendering.
Seeing a formalist approach as working within a set of rules doesn't make
sense to me. Nor does seeing it as some sort of intellectual design
problem.
Certainly there are those who will argue that formalism is just another
ism or theory, but I think if we really get to the heart of what formalism
is, it is actually a pretty useful alternative to theory, because it is
visually oriented, not theory-bound.
(Here I'd like to point out that the common notion that Greenberg was a
formalist doesn't make much sense to me. If he didn't write about which
Pollocks were the better ones, and only about how flatness was all
that mattered, then it wasn't about what made the work good, it was about
what made the work *not kitsch*.)
One thing about the technology which allows us to see, through x-rays,
earlier versions of works repainted by Titian and Caravaggio, is the
delightful realization that these two weren't following some *rule* about
composition, but were rather "feeling" their way through the form and
visual play.
>
>
> >I don't think everyone has the same definitions of terms like form or
> >modern or post-modern, and that is one of the reasons I find this forum so
> >interesting, and why I enjoy the dialogues with you, Lauri, Tracy, Iian,
> >Chris and others.
>
>
> thank you, from you that is really a compliment, and i agree.
Well, I think that for a relativly new contributor, you have really come
into your own, lately, and are helping to up the ante in this place.
Thank *you*.
>
> >It seems to me that anything tagged an "ism" is rightfully suspicious
> >looking - on the other hand, when we find our ideas or methods
> >corresponding with some "ism" we might want to try expressing our ideas to
> >see how they match up or don't.
>
>
> i personally am not much a "ism" person,...
Me neither.
> ... but if we can not connect because
> we do not have a solid base of terms, we never will get very far. with a
> bit of leniency and careful explanation we should be able to work through
> the "isms" and get to root of the discussion, what is art.
Thanks again, Tracy, for your thoughtful contributions, although, if I may
say so, (at the risk of spoiling our rapport) Iian has done some good
writing here, too. I agree that his genre interests may be getting in the
way of some new insights he might have coming his way, but that is really
up to him. In the mean time, he is usually pretty polite and I find that
to be one of the better ways to lay a ground work for good faith
discussion.
warm regards,
Mark
CROCUSDES
>(snip) Whilst on the subject of this externalization (or concretization, if
you >prefer), I hope you do not mind if I intrude a little and propose a rough
and >ready proposal for the defense of skillfull realistic art in our modern.
No, I don't mind the intrusion at all Iian. In fact it just keeps me on my
toes, otherwise I tend to get fat and lazy with my thinking. Defend away Iian,
I'm listening.
>(snip...I hope I'm not cutting out what's important...) If there is a
particular >approach to expression which makes our inner state (ideas,
feelings, >reminiscenes and so forth) that much more powerful, which increases
its >profundity and ability to strike to the very heart of the human soul ...
then >should we not consider such an approach to be of immense importance?
Yes, I'm in agreement with you here.
>(snip) Now, have you ever read a novel or watched a movie and found that the
>events portrayed therein were so incredible (or so poorly composed, written,
>etc.) that your appreciation for the actual message was marred by what one
>might describe as a failure of the work to suspend your disbelief?
Yes, I can see where you're going with this and I agree so far.
>(snip) Poor technique (in this case, special effects) completely derails the
>message that the writers had intended to come across.
Once again I'm not having a big problem with this (although there may be some
exceptions but lets hang in there with the general idea anyway)....
>(snip) Why is it that the artists' intentions here have so clearly failed? It
is >because they *failed to suspend our disbelief*.
So far we're coasting along in harmony, (omigod, am I going to be transformed
into an old time artist now?).....
>(snip) And here I arrive at the topic I wish to offer up to discussion, the
>apologia for representationalism and visual coherency in art and literature:
Ah, I see a chance for rehabilitation, you were beginning to make me nervous
Iian......
>(snip...now I'm beginning to chop up the point Iian is trying to make but for
the >sake of brevity, I hope I can remain faithful to his intent)..It is the
easiest -- and >most pointless, and vapid -- thing in the world to show people
that the painting >they are looking it is just a flat surface with paint of it.
People realize this much >before they enter art galleries -- they do not need
to be instructed on this, and >if they did they need only look up a dictionary.
Yes, that's obvious, so the point that this is a painting or sculpture etc.
isn't in question.
>(snip...continued below) Secondly, for the artist's inner state to be
projected >(externalized) most effectively he needs to find some way of
suspending his >audience's natural disbelief. People do not automatically
become immersed in >literature as soon as they pick up a book -- it takes great
skill for a writer to >sweep them up in his rhythmic impulse, characterization,
and so forth.
Right, so now we're leading to the effectiveness of an expressed idea through
skilful technique I presume. Hmmm...I'm not finding any work to do yet since I
agree more or less with what you say.
>(snip....continued from above) Leaving aside such matters as *what* he or she
>should write or paint, it seem eminently reasonable to me (from what I have
>noted above) that the artist who wants most to fulfill the purpose of Art
(which is >to externalize his inner state) will need to gain the technical and
aesthetic skills >necessary in suspending the disbelief of his audience.
This sounds similar to the preceeding paragraph but the difference here is what
I presume to be a reference to the idea of representational work. Actually
though, the statement can apply to non representational work as well and if
this was what you were trying to imply (and I assume it is not) then I could
agree. I'll continue with your final wrap up before going further.......
>(snip) .......if we WERE to mistake such objects for living people it is
either an
>indication of some perceptual disorder on our part, or a testament to the
>incandescent skill of the artist who can sweep us out of the factual realm of
>paint on cavas or letters on paper, and immerse us in his *own world* -- the
>world that saw its formation inside the artist, and which is now realized in
print, >marble, clay or paint (and so on).
I'm going to have to make an interpretation of the above because it sounds like
you are saying that the more realistic a work the more skilled the artist.
Then you would have to accept the work of Duane Hanson who did polymer figures
clothed with real clothing and even included hairs in his figures. Those
pieces should then equal in rank with the best of the best since they are very
convincing figures. I'm not trying to twist anything around Iian but using
your criteria even the Photo Realists like Richard(?) Estes would be allowed in
the same camp as the "old masters". Would you agree with this or does the work
of these two artists fail to meet the criteria you state? If you're not
familiar with either artist then ignore the question.
Now I can agree with much of what you say but interject a different meaning
about what is convincing and what is consumate skill. To "make real" the power
of a concept, it's just as effective to use metaphor as it is to refer to
"visual reality". In fact, from my point of view it is even more effective to
express the "real" through distortion. The emotive power of imagination that
takes place during translation or interpretation is more effective and has more
power than receiving complete information without the intervention of the
viewer. As I see it, this is what differentiates art from the prosaic.
If we use theater as an example, some of the most provocative works are in
themselves very abstract. Consider the transformation from "reality" that
takes place out of necessity, due to the limitations of the stage. Now make a
transition from that idea to painting or sculpture. Once the lights go out in
a theater you are immersed immediately into another world outside of reality.
Once you are confronted with a canvas or sculpture the same thing happens if
your attention is focused on the work itself. In either case, if a work has
the ability to do so, it will recreate a different reality and it doesn't
necessarily rely on realistic pointers.
Consumate skill is a relative matter because one can imply either technique
which is one thing, or the ability to convey forcefully something as etherial
as an idea. There isn't any set manner that I can think of that best conveys
idea or concept. Consider the work of El Greco if we want to call up something
that maybe both of us can relate to on some level. I see his work as very
expressionistic in many respects. It's not the representational pointers he
uses alone that conveys idea but abstracted shapes as well.
Another example might be a spired Gothic cathederal. Now though it is a
structure, such buildings are also meant to convey idea. It's an abstract
structure and even without familiarity with the specific references to the
beliefs of a sect, it's still pretty obvious that it's a testiment to a being
or idea beyond the human. Take the overall design, then include the carved
images and ornamental work that supports the concept and I think it's
unmistakable what it means. The very same thing can be said about temples in
India and elsewhere for that matter. Such places serve not only a physical
function but also can be considered as abstract sculptures in terms of mass,
shape and detail. I think it's valid to see these buildings as both structure
and as sculpture. It may be inappropriate to refer to works that are pretty
much removed from the idea of painting or sculpture as we normally use the term
but the point is that representational work alone isn't the only vehicle that
coveys idea in an aesthetic way.
Technical skill as an important component related to artmaking is almost
another topic in itself I think so I'm not going to go into it here.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
Marilyn
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [5]<Pine.PMDF.3.95.9810230...@TIGER.UOFS.ED
> U>
>
>
>mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>>I understand, Marilyn, and I only meant that I think of formalism not as a
>>fixed set of rules, but an approach that combines the visceral and the
>>intellectual. I think of it, in the works of painters like these two and
>>others, as a balance of these, and a visually oriented method that at its
>>best, is not reliant on rules.
I never got this post. Quite often I get the responses to posts
which have never appeared on my screen.
Think that Mark was responding to my example of Goya's paintings
as not strictly meeting formal criteria and yet being masterpieces.
The above is a good description of formalism, the combination of
the visceral & the intellectual. I'll buy it.
Marilyn
>
>you know mark, under that definition i am a formalist, i never thought i
>would say that. maybe it is the order that we set that separates us. we
>all seem to hold the same values to art, it is just the emphasis that
>differs.
>
>
>>I don't think everyone has the same definitions of terms like form or
>>modern or post-modern, and that is one of the reasons I find this forum so
>>interesting, and why I enjoy the dialogues with you, Lauri, Tracy, Iian,
>>Chris and others.
>
>
Why not give dates such as Modernism began with Goya, or Cezanne,
and Postmodernism began with (?????????). You're the teacher
Mark.
Marilyn
mark webber
On 24 Oct 1998, Marilyn wrote:
> >mark webber wrote in message ...
> >
> >>I understand, Marilyn, and I only meant that I think of formalism not as a
> >>fixed set of rules, but an approach that combines the visceral and the
> >>intellectual. I think of it, in the works of painters like these two and
> >>others, as a balance of these, and a visually oriented method that at its
> >>best, is not reliant on rules.
>
> I never got this post. Quite often I get the responses to posts
> which have never appeared on my screen.
Yes the same happens to me. Very annoying! I was beginning to wonder if
you'd seen it.
> Think that Mark was responding to my example of Goya's paintings
> as not strictly meeting formal criteria and yet being masterpieces.
That's correct, and actually I think there may have been more. I look, and
if I can find it, I'll forward a copy.
> The above is a good description of formalism, the combination of
> the visceral & the intellectual. I'll buy it.
>
Great! yes, I think it's a bit more useful than seeing it as a specific
theory.
>
> Why not give dates such as Modernism began with Goya, or Cezanne,
> and Postmodernism began with (?????????). You're the teacher
> Mark.
I doubt everyone will find the dates I would use useful, but I think of
modernism beginning with the Fauves. (Cezanne, Seurat, Van Gogh and
Gauguin I think of as key post-impressionists.)
Pomo, whatever it is, for me begins in the eighties - and not specificly
in time, but in spirit. I don't see pomo as really detached from
modernism, because so much of it seems rooted in dada and pop.
I see pomo, as it manifests itself in New York, as yuppie modernism.
I should also mention, however, that if pomo is really just a thread of
one aspect of modernism, modernism is just a distillation of older ideas.
That recapitulation thing again. Sorry Chris.
Mark
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>>
>> mark webber wrote in message ...
>Seeing a formalist approach as working within a set of rules doesn't make
>sense to me. Nor does seeing it as some sort of intellectual design
>problem.
i agree, what we are proposing to attempt will take an unusual mixture of
form, concept, intellect and intuition. artmaking, for me, has never been
theory bound, unless you count my own. i acknowledge theory and incorporate
aspects, but the inherent nature of artmaking remains intact and rarely
altered.
>Certainly there are those who will argue that formalism is just another
>ism or theory, but I think if we really get to the heart of what formalism
>is, it is actually a pretty useful alternative to theory, because it is
>visually oriented, not theory-bound.
i think it is a good language for our purpose and is an important piece of
the puzzle to the product and process. theory is much like religion, a
person comes along and explains actions and events so well that others latch
on, this helps bring people together and is important for clarity, but can
be dangerous if people forget that is one man's explanation and not absolute
truth. we need the theory to relate clearly and efficiently certain
concepts.
>
>(Here I'd like to point out that the common notion that Greenberg was a
>formalist doesn't make much sense to me. If he didn't write about which
>Pollocks were the better ones, and only about how flatness was all
>that mattered, then it wasn't about what made the work good, it was about
>what made the work *not kitsch*.)
>
a perfect example of why we shy away from "isms".
>
>Well, I think that for a relatively new contributor, you have really come
>into your own, lately, and are helping to up the ante in this place.
>
>Thank *you*.
>
no, thank you. most artist i know either are on the same wavelength i am or
do not care a whit for understanding art, just making it. chris talks about
art being a journey and i really want a few bumps in the road.
understanding artmaking is one of the most challenging concepts i have ever
tried to wrap my brain around and having this dialogue keeps it honest. you
can theorize all you want, but you have to test it before it can have any
validity.
>Thanks again, Tracy, for your thoughtful contributions, although, if I may
>say so, (at the risk of spoiling our rapport) Iian has done some good
>writing here, too. I agree that his genre interests may be getting in the
>way of some new insights he might have coming his way, but that is really
>up to him. In the mean time, he is usually pretty polite and I find that
>to be one of the better ways to lay a ground work for good faith
>discussion.
>
mark, you have nothing to worry about, i know i broke the rules by going for
the throat and deserve to be told so. i agree that lian has done some good
writing and stays within the acceptable limits of polite discussion. i also
think lian has some real talent and an admirable goal for is work. however,
no matter how polite he says it, i can not stand by when he invalidates
entire mediums and all art done before the greek's and after 1910. saying
you do not like modern art or photography is one thing, to say that by
objective(hence the truth) criteria photography, ceramics, abstract, and the
list go on and on are not art, that is a slap in the face to every artist in
this new group. i should have kept my ire to e-mails, but i became
indignant and protective and acted rashly.
roped back in
tracy
mark webber
On Sat, 24 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
> i think it is a good language for our purpose and is an important piece of
> the puzzle to the product and process. theory is much like religion, a
> person comes along and explains actions and events so well that others latch
> on, this helps bring people together and is important for clarity, but can
> be dangerous if people forget that is one man's explanation and not absolute
> truth. we need the theory to relate clearly and efficiently certain
> concepts.
Yeah, that's a good analogy.
(snip)
> ...i know i broke the rules by going for
> the throat and deserve to be told so.
It's not like I haven't done the same. Everybody has a button, and mine
has been pushed from time to time.
> i agree that lian has done some good
> writing and stays within the acceptable limits of polite discussion. i also
> think lian has some real talent and an admirable goal for is work. however,
> no matter how polite he says it, i can not stand by when he invalidates
> entire mediums and all art done before the greek's and after 1910.
Well, that stance gives me an itch, too.
> saying
> you do not like modern art or photography is one thing, to say that by
> objective(hence the truth) criteria photography, ceramics, abstract, and the
> list go on and on are not art, that is a slap in the face to every artist in
> this new group.
>
> i should have kept my ire to e-mails, but i became
> indignant and protective and acted rashly.
>
> roped back in
>
> tracy
I wasn't scolding - I'm not the police or anything. I'm just trying to
focus, these days, on the valuable points people are making.
Good talking with you,
Mark
Marilyn
background on canvas,(linen, cotton, duck, burlap) for example.
And then it could lead to a study of tapestry.
M.
Marilyn
I think now and in the future these terms, modernism, postmoderism
will be useful, maybe more to curators and art critics than to
artists themselves. They refer to a period in time, and in that
context, literature and philosophy are included. They are concurrent.
I get more out of reading modern & pomo literature & poetry than I
do out of reading modern & pomo art theory and criticism. Maybe it
is because many people writing about art today do not write that
well (to my mind).
Poetry criticism is so well written! Sometimes it is possible to
substitute "painting" for "poetry" in the writings. As someone
once told me, paintings can be distilled poetry.
Just a few thoughts from the North Country.
M.
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>> i think it is a good language for our purpose and is an important piece
of
>> the puzzle to the product and process. theory is much like religion, a
>> person comes along and explains actions and events so well that others
latch
>> on, this helps bring people together and is important for clarity, but
can
>> be dangerous if people forget that is one man's explanation and not
absolute
>> truth. we need the theory to relate clearly and efficiently certain
>> concepts.
>
>Yeah, that's a good analogy.
>
enable me to solidify my ideas.
>(snip)
>
>> ...i know i broke the rules by going for
>> the throat and deserve to be told so.
>
>It's not like I haven't done the same. Everybody has a button, and mine
>has been pushed from time to time.
>> i agree that lian has done some good
>> writing and stays within the acceptable limits of polite discussion. i
also
>> think lian has some real talent and an admirable goal for is work.
however,
>> no matter how polite he says it, i can not stand by when he invalidates
>> entire mediums and all art done before the greek's and after 1910.
>
>Well, that stance gives me an itch, too.
thank you, i would have regretted the action if i had damaged my standing
in the discussion with rash actions. this is such an interesting experiment
which concedes with similar questions i am dealing with in my own work.
>I wasn't scolding - I'm not the police or anything. I'm just trying to
>focus, these days, on the valuable points people are making.
you didn't have to, chris took care of it. i do apologize for getting off
the subject.
tracy
Iian Neill
> background on canvas,(linen, cotton, duck, burlap) for example.
> And then it could lead to a study of tapestry.
My decision not to go ahead with the Textiles course was a purely personal one
-- I have never really been good with the needle and thread, I'll have to admit.
And although I know that Textiles is more than that these days, I found that the
medium was rather limited for the ideas I wanted to express.
Simple as that really.
Regards,
Iian Neill
____________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my own art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
mark webber
On 25 Oct 1998, Marilyn, up in the North Country, wrote:
> Mark:
> I think now and in the future these terms, modernism, postmoderism
> will be useful, maybe more to curators and art critics than to
> artists themselves.
That seems very true.
> They refer to a period in time,...
I'm not sure they refer *only* to a period in time, though. If pomo only
refered to "after modern", then I would be a pomo. But I think pomo
is thought of as a refutation of modernism, a rejection.
(This amuses me, because, as I think I've made clear, I think of the pomo
ideas that I encounter in visual art as extensions of dada and pop -
certainly as much as pop was an extension of dada, and this would make
pomo just another modernist movement.)
In addition, I'm interested in the rumblings I'm hearing about a sort of
Hegelian "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" process now taking place, wherein
pomo ideas and modernist ideas are joined to allow an even more "timely"
and "relevant" art to emerge. Also, BT seems aware of a "theory rebellion"
taking place, however I don't know whether thatwas "approved" art or
not....
It seems a pity that the phrase "good painting" doesn't seem to fit in
anymore. (Don't get me wrong - I know that's an old complaint.)
(sorry to have interupted you - you were saying...)
> and in that
> context, literature and philosophy are included.
I could be mistaken, but I've been getting a strong sense that pomo in
visual art means something pretty different than pomo in literature and
philosophy. I noticed BT sneaking back in to reply to you - you were
always his favorite - maybe he can confirm or refute this.
> They are concurrent.
> I get more out of reading modern & pomo literature & poetry than I
> do out of reading modern & pomo art theory and criticism. Maybe it
> is because many people writing about art today do not write that
> well (to my mind).
I've mentioned this guy before, but I'll mention him again, because he's
the only critic I've read who sounds like a painter when he writes. Jed
Perl has a couple of books out, on art criticism. One is called _Gallery
Going_. You might enjoy some of his writing. He likes paintings that call
up our sensibilities and LOOK good.
>
> Poetry criticism is so well written! Sometimes it is possible to
> substitute "painting" for "poetry" in the writings. As someone
> once told me, paintings can be distilled poetry.
>
That's an intriguing analogy!
> Just a few thoughts from the North Country.
>
> M.
Please keep them coming,
Mark
Marilyn
>
> On 25 Oct 1998, Marilyn, up in the North Country, wrote:
>
> > Mark:
> > I think now and in the future these terms, modernism, postmoderism
> > will be useful, maybe more to curators and art critics than to
> > artists themselves.
>
> That seems very true.
>
> > They refer to a period in time,...
>
> I'm not sure they refer *only* to a period in time, though. If pomo only
> refered to "after modern", then I would be a pomo. But I think pomo
> is thought of as a refutation of modernism, a rejection.
No, not "only." Recently I've seen and heard the term
"late modernism ."
>
> (This amuses me, because, as I think I've made clear, I think of the pomo
> ideas that I encounter in visual art as extensions of dada and pop -
> certainly as much as pop was an extension of dada, and this would make
> pomo just another modernist movement.)
POMO
I think of it in terms of the post-industrial age we live in. It's like
a free-for-all, exciting and confusing.
> In addition, I'm interested in the rumblings I'm hearing about a sort of
> Hegelian "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" process now taking place, wherein
> pomo ideas and modernist ideas are joined to allow an even more "timely"
> and "relevant" art to emerge. Also, BT seems aware of a "theory rebellion"
> taking place, however I don't know whether thatwas "approved" art or
> not....
Just the swing of the pendulum, there is always rebellion.
Who approves art? collectors, buyers, curators, theorists, artists?
You'll need BT if you want to discuss Hegel.
>
> It seems a pity that the phrase "good painting" doesn't seem to fit in
> anymore. (Don't get me wrong - I know that's an old complaint.)
> Painting - period. They tried to kill it but we persist.
> (sorry to have interupted you - you were saying...)
>
> > and in that
> > context, literature and philosophy are included.
>
> I could be mistaken, but I've been getting a strong sense that pomo in
> visual art means something pretty different than pomo in literature and
> philosophy. I noticed BT sneaking back in to reply to you - you were
> always his favorite - maybe he can confirm or refute this.
>
> > They are concurrent.
> > I get more out of reading modern & pomo literature & poetry than I
> > do out of reading modern & pomo art theory and criticism. Maybe it
> > is because many people writing about art today do not write that
> > well (to my mind).
>
> I've mentioned this guy before, but I'll mention him again, because he's
> the only critic I've read who sounds like a painter when he writes. Jed
> Perl has a couple of books out, on art criticism. One is called _Gallery
> Going_. You might enjoy some of his writing. He likes paintings that call
> up our sensibilities and LOOK good.
Thanks for the tip.
>
> >
> > Poetry criticism is so well written! Sometimes it is possible to
> > substitute "painting" for "poetry" in the writings. As someone
> > once told me, paintings can be distilled poetry.
> >
>
> That's an intriguing analogy!
>
> > Just a few thoughts from the North Country.
> >
> > M.
>
> Please keep them coming,
>
> Mark
Sometimes, I am completely thoughtless.
au revoir
Marilyn
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > I'm not sure they refer *only* to a period in time, though. If pomo only
: > refered to "after modern", then I would be a pomo. But I think pomo
: > is thought of as a refutation of modernism, a rejection.
: >
: > (This amuses me, because, as I think I've made clear, I think of the pomo
: > ideas that I encounter in visual art as extensions of dada and pop -
: > certainly as much as pop was an extension of dada, and this would make
: > pomo just another modernist movement.)
: >
: >
: > In addition, I'm interested in the rumblings I'm hearing about a sort of
: > Hegelian "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" process now taking place, wherein
: > pomo ideas and modernist ideas are joined to allow an even more "timely"
: > and "relevant" art to emerge. Also, BT seems aware of a "theory rebellion"
: > taking place, however I don't know whether thatwas "approved" art or
: > not....
: >
: > It seems a pity that the phrase "good painting" doesn't seem to fit in
: > anymore. (Don't get me wrong - I know that's an old complaint.)
For an artist to spending so much time on second guessing where art -is
going- seems short sighted. Feeling you have a handle on art and where
it's going is maybe a disease of this generation as it was of mind to a
lesser extent. Even the desire to KNOW is the kiss of death for most, like
Adam &Eve and the "Tree of Knowledge". Judd was a critic first and a poor
artist second. Jeff koons got a handle on the market for a short ride. If
you want to know where art is going you have to be in the process, engaged
in your own connection to that process. This is where art is going, where
I take it. Good art, bad art, innovative or passe', it's all the same
experience for the artist at work! Only time will tell where a given
artist or movement is at a given time and it's changes by the minute.
Postmodern, modernism, expressionism were terms invented by historians for
the sake of historians. This will change too. I won't even attempt to
define why I think it's dangerious for an artist to think like historians
or critics but it's obvious to me that it is so. Like Matisse says
concerning improvement..something like "you have to work and work and you
may get better or you don't". That seems pretty simple and wise.
Better to read poetry or at least read everything as if it were poetry!
Then these ideas can have their effects in proportion to what they
actually are.
Just a little thought.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
> No, not "only." Recently I've seen and heard the term
> "late modernism ."
My guess is that in the future it will be as difficult to distinguish
between pomo and late modernism as it is to distinguish between late
Venetian Italian Rennaisance and Baroque (or, similarly, Mannerism and
Baroque)
Again, I repeat my plea for some art historians to come forward. I mean
PHDs, not amateurs like myself.
> POMO
> I think of it in terms of the post-industrial age we live in. It's like
> a free-for-all, exciting and confusing.
I like the sound of that, unfortunately that doesn't include the notion of
"approved art" that I get from pomo - such as "strictly anti-formalist"
I once had a conversation with a gallery director who said he thought the
worst thing to happen to American painting was Hans Hoffmann.
> Just the swing of the pendulum, there is always rebellion.
> Who approves art? collectors, buyers, curators, theorists, artists?
> You'll need BT if you want to discuss Hegel.
I await his return with the patience of a child. But I enjoy everyone
else, too.
> >
> > I've mentioned this guy before, but I'll mention him again, because he's
> > the only critic I've read who sounds like a painter when he writes. Jed
> > Perl has a couple of books out, on art criticism. One is called _Gallery
> > Going_. You might enjoy some of his writing. He likes paintings that call
> > up our sensibilities and LOOK good.
>
> Thanks for the tip.
If you do read some, please let me know what you think.
saluts! (My French isn't spectacular - is that spelled correctly, or
should I leave out the "s"?)
Mark
mark webber
> For an artist to spending so much time on second guessing where art -is
> going- seems short sighted.
I agree completely. For the last couple of decades I have been just trying
to paint what I want to paint. However, I'm currently teaching a graduate
level art criticism class, and I feel a need to address things with my
students in a way that I wouldn't in my studio. If your remark is
directly specificly at me, I'm not here as an artist.
> Jeff koons got a handle on the market for a short ride. If
> you want to know where art is going you have to be in the process, engaged
> in your own connection to that process. This is where art is going, where
> I take it. Good art, bad art, innovative or passe', it's all the same
> experience for the artist at work! Only time will tell where a given
> artist or movement is at a given time and it's changes by the minute.
Again, I agree, and I think you've put it very effectively, too.
(snip)
>
> Just a little thought.
Thanks, its nice to have you express it.
Mark
Ariane
Hi! This sounds quite interesting and as I am from this "North Country"
too, I thought I'd take the liberty to add my thoughts.
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, mark webber wrote:
> From: mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: North Country Esthetics (was Re: Behind formal criteria)
>
> On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Marilyn wrote:
>
> > No, not "only." Recently I've seen and heard the term
> > "late modernism ."
>
> My guess is that in the future it will be as difficult to distinguish
> between pomo and late modernism as it is to distinguish between late
> Venetian Italian Rennaisance and Baroque (or, similarly, Mannerism and
> Baroque)
>
> Again, I repeat my plea for some art historians to come forward. I mean
> PHDs, not amateurs like myself.
>
** With respect to styles of painting, sculpture, and installation art, I
think that you are right about this continuity, but when you consider this
civilization more as a whole, I think that there is an overall ideological
trend which is distinctly colouring our period.
> > POMO
> > I think of it in terms of the post-industrial age we live in. It's like
> > a free-for-all, exciting and confusing.
>
> I like the sound of that, unfortunately that doesn't include the notion of
> "approved art" that I get from pomo - such as "strictly anti-formalist"
>
** I like to think of modernist art as a time when artists like Picasso,
Mondrian, Grosz etc., and art groups like the Bauhaus were still
optimistic about our union with technology. They seemed to feel that art
could say something about this new 20th century human condition, and
perhaps even ensure that the human spirit would not get lost in this
technological revolution which marks our century. I love the early cubist
work by Picasso which followed immediately his "Desmoiselles d'Avignon".
It is so aesthetic and lyrical but yet, very modern for the time.
Anyway, now that we are in this post-industrial late 20th century
period, after two world wars, and an atomic cold war as well, we are not
so optimistic about the perseverance of the human spirit, and of the
relevance of beauty in the face of the power of technology. At least not
like the modernists were at any rate. Therefore, perhaps this `approved'
art today, is one that breaks with the modernist `naivetee' and expresses
our contemporary sentiments much more accurately. We have no current
aesthetic perhaps because we feel aesthetics in general to be somewhat
impotent. And so....we have only anti-modernism. Have you noticed how
much postmodern installations have in common with science fairs?
> I once had a conversation with a gallery director who said he thought the
> worst thing to happen to American painting was Hans Hoffmann.
>
>
> > Just the swing of the pendulum, there is always rebellion.
> > Who approves art? collectors, buyers, curators, theorists, artists?
> > You'll need BT if you want to discuss Hegel.
>
Maybe Hegel's a bit too romantic for our current situation. I feel that
Derrida's work "Ecriture et Differance" (or writing and differance) is
much more resonant. Anyway, we are far from art now and into the terrain
of philosophie. If we are to consider Hegel's historical dialectic, then
maybe he would be writing of technology and spirit today.
> I await his return with the patience of a child. But I enjoy everyone
> else, too.
>
> > >
> > > I've mentioned this guy before, but I'll mention him again, because he's
> > > the only critic I've read who sounds like a painter when he writes. Jed
> > > Perl has a couple of books out, on art criticism. One is called _Gallery
> > > Going_. You might enjoy some of his writing. He likes paintings that call
> > > up our sensibilities and LOOK good.
> >
> > Thanks for the tip.
>
> If you do read some, please let me know what you think.
>
> saluts! (My French isn't spectacular - is that spelled correctly, or
> should I leave out the "s"?)
Salut! (no `s').
>
> Mark
>
> webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
>
** Thanks for the forum! A bientot,
Ariane `La Montrealaise'
A. B. Sieze
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>I once had a conversation with a gallery director who said he thought the
>worst thing to happen to American painting was Hans Hoffmann.
Soooo, what was your reply. There are imbeciles
in all walks of life, including Gallery Directors.
Cheers, Abby.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
> > Again, I repeat my plea for some art historians to come forward. I mean
> > PHDs, not amateurs like myself.
Dear Marilyn, I am not so wise, more kin to a besserwisser.
Even simple American English is sometimes hard to follow.
I do know that PHB is the PointyHairedBoss in Dilbert.
How a PHD is different :-?
- lauri
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marilyn
>
> Marilyn:
> > > Again, I repeat my plea for some art historians to come forward. I mean
> > > PHDs, not amateurs like myself.
> lauri:
> Dear Marilyn, I am not so wise, more kin to a besserwisser.
> Even simple American English is sometimes hard to follow.
> I do know that PHB is the PointyHairedBoss in Dilbert.
> How a PHD is different :-?
> - lauri
>
Hi Lauri,
Mark wrote the above as he is looking for PHD art historians.
I wrote that I like to give you the last word. I actually speak
Canadian English, the spelling is British. You do very well
with your English.
"Hey , no problem, Dude." (that's American).
M.
mark webber
>
>
> Hi! This sounds quite interesting and as I am from this "North Country"
> too, I thought I'd take the liberty to add my thoughts.
Good, Ariane. It's nice to have another Canadian in the mix. (By the way,
I was in Montreal once a couple of years ago, and I have to say I found it
a terrific town. The customs agent at the airport closed her gate
and walked us out of the terminal to show us where to find a shuttle bus
which would take us to our hotel. Museums were excellent, and the food
amazing. Terrific city.
Anyway, regarding your post....
(snip)
>
> ** With respect to styles of painting, sculpture, and installation art, I
> think that you are right about this continuity, but when you consider this
> civilization more as a whole, I think that there is an overall ideological
> trend which is distinctly colouring our period.
No question. As usual, though, the operative word is trend. And trends
always give way to other trends.
> ** I like to think of modernist art as a time when artists like Picasso,
> Mondrian, Grosz etc., and art groups like the Bauhaus were still
> optimistic about our union with technology. They seemed to feel that art
> could say something about this new 20th century human condition, and
> perhaps even ensure that the human spirit would not get lost in this
> technological revolution which marks our century.
That's certainly a respectable angle, but I don't think of technology, or
even the human condition as being primary issues in the work of the
modernists who seem to be the most enduring. This is not to say your point
of view is at all invalid - I really think all of us, even those who
detest modernism - see in it what we want to see. (Including me.)
> I love the early cubist
> work by Picasso which followed immediately his "Desmoiselles d'Avignon".
Yes, I do too, and I think I've noticed a couple of requests of yours for
more discussion of this work. If I may, I would suggest two things: the
first is that I would look as much into Braque, and Cezanne's influence on
both Braque and Picasso, as African art. The second is that I would look
into the shift of emphasis (most clear, by the way, in "Les Demoiselles")
from subject matter to form. There are, I believe, photographs of "Les
Demoiselles D'Avignon" in earlier state(s) which show Picasso's shift of
interest.
> Anyway, now that we are in this post-industrial late 20th century
> period, after two world wars, and an atomic cold war as well, we are not
> so optimistic about the perseverance of the human spirit, and of the
> relevance of beauty in the face of the power of technology.
That may well be true. And for some, it may be even more relevant to find
that beauty.
> At least not
> like the modernists were at any rate. Therefore, perhaps this `approved'
> art today, is one that breaks with the modernist `naivetee' and expresses
> our contemporary sentiments much more accurately. We have no current
> aesthetic perhaps because we feel aesthetics in general to be somewhat
> impotent. And so....we have only anti-modernism.
One thing about approaching artistic epochs with a notion of sentiments of
all artists is that it can leave out wonderful individuals who don't feel
the same way. (Sorry about the clumsy sentence, there.)
> Have you noticed how
> much postmodern installations have in common with science fairs?
I haven't been to many science fairs, so I can say that I have, sorry.
> Maybe Hegel's a bit too romantic for our current situation. I feel that
> Derrida's work "Ecriture et Differance" (or writing and differance) is
> much more resonant. Anyway, we are far from art now and into the terrain
> of philosophie. If we are to consider Hegel's historical dialectic, then
> maybe he would be writing of technology and spirit today.
That's a good point.
> >
> > saluts! (My French isn't spectacular - is that spelled correctly, or
> > should I leave out the "s"?)
>
>
> Salut! (no `s').
Thanks! (I'm an effectual Francophile.)
Mark
mark webber
I don't remember what I said, really. I probabaly just smiled an nodded,
thinking something like "Then why bother with a gallery, you boob, why not
edit a theoretical journal?"
I'm a former student of of several Hoffmann students, so I was pretty much
puzzled.
Ariane
On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, mark webber wrote:
> From: mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: North Country Esthetics (was Re: Behind formal criteria)
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Ariane wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi! This sounds quite interesting and as I am from this "North Country"
> > too, I thought I'd take the liberty to add my thoughts.
>
> Good, Ariane. It's nice to have another Canadian in the mix. (By the way,
> I was in Montreal once a couple of years ago, and I have to say I found it
> a terrific town. The customs agent at the airport closed her gate
> and walked us out of the terminal to show us where to find a shuttle bus
> which would take us to our hotel. Museums were excellent, and the food
> amazing. Terrific city.
=== Merci bien.
> Anyway, regarding your post....
>
> (snip)
> >
> > ** With respect to styles of painting, sculpture, and installation art, I
> > think that you are right about this continuity, but when you consider this
> > civilization more as a whole, I think that there is an overall ideological
> > trend which is distinctly colouring our period.
>
> No question. As usual, though, the operative word is trend. And trends
> always give way to other trends.
=== It is interesting to speculate on what new styles of art making will
come to the fore in the new century. I feel that we are living in a
particularly exciting time for this and, if one wants to study this in
depth, then perhaps one may be able to be heard above the din so to speak.
> > ** I like to think of modernist art as a time when artists like Picasso,
> > Mondrian, Grosz etc., and art groups like the Bauhaus were still
> > optimistic about our union with technology. They seemed to feel that art
> > could say something about this new 20th century human condition, and
> > perhaps even ensure that the human spirit would not get lost in this
> > technological revolution which marks our century.
>
> That's certainly a respectable angle, but I don't think of technology, or
> even the human condition as being primary issues in the work of the
> modernists who seem to be the most enduring. This is not to say your point
> of view is at all invalid - I really think all of us, even those who
> detest modernism - see in it what we want to see. (Including me.)
=== I would like to know more about this. I think that the Bauhaus (of
which Klee & Kandinsky were members) was fairly explicit about their
intentions to spiritualize technology by marrying it to art. Do you think
that many of the most famous modernists, let's say, Picasso, Matisse,
Mondrian, Gauguin, Klee, and Kandinsky to isolate a few for the sake of
discussion, were primarily interested in creating works which the viewer
was free to interpret, or that despite the widely divergent styles of
these painters, they were somewhat singular of purpose in that they wanted
their work to impose itself on the viewer. Picasso in particular has said
as much as this.
> > I love the early cubist
> > work by Picasso which followed immediately his "Desmoiselles d'Avignon".
>
> Yes, I do too, and I think I've noticed a couple of requests of yours for
> more discussion of this work. If I may, I would suggest two things: the
> first is that I would look as much into Braque, and Cezanne's influence on
> both Braque and Picasso, as African art. The second is that I would look
> into the shift of emphasis (most clear, by the way, in "Les Demoiselles")
> from subject matter to form. There are, I believe, photographs of "Les
> Demoiselles D'Avignon" in earlier state(s) which show Picasso's shift of
> interest.
>
=== This is interesting. You are right about Braque & Cezanne and of
their primary importance on Picasso's pre-Cubist work. African art was
profoundly influential at this time in Paris nonetheless (Derain,
Matisse, Modigliani, etc.), and it is with this more often ignored
undercurrent that I am interested (because it is more enigmatic in a lot
of ways). "Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon" provides a good point of
reference from which to address this theme as a whole. Also, I really
love the forms in much African sculpture and I felt that an in-depth study
of them would add a new dimension to my own work.
> > Anyway, now that we are in this post-industrial late 20th century
> > period, after two world wars, and an atomic cold war as well, we are not
> > so optimistic about the perseverance of the human spirit, and of the
> > relevance of beauty in the face of the power of technology.
>
> That may well be true. And for some, it may be even more relevant to find
> that beauty.
=== Exactly. This is what many modern theorists are terming the return to
romanticism or `optimistic' postmodernism. The more pessimistic
postmodern artists are content to parody the mutation of meaning as
evident in the mass media dominated sphere of representation (see Jean
Baudrillard and his concept of the `hyper-real'). Yet, is beauty still
resonant in our culture? I like to consider the mass production of beauty
in one of painting's most sacred spheres: the beauty of women. Is it in
women's power to freely proclaim their beauty, or is this beauty being
assimilated into the technology of contemporary exchange and therefore
taken away from women's being per se?
> > At least not > like the modernists were at any rate. Therefore,
> perhaps this `approved' > art today, is one that breaks with the
> modernist `naivetee' and expresses > our contemporary sentiments much
> more accurately. We have no current > aesthetic perhaps because we feel
> aesthetics in general to be somewhat > impotent. And so....we have only
> anti-modernism.
>
> One thing about approaching artistic epochs with a notion of sentiments of
> all artists is that it can leave out wonderful individuals who don't feel
> the same way. (Sorry about the clumsy sentence, there.)
>
> One thing about approaching artistic epochs with a notion of sentiments of
> all artists is that it can leave out wonderful individuals who don't feel
> the same way. (Sorry about the clumsy sentence, there.)
>
=== Yes this is true, all generalizations are false, including this one.
(So maybe there's hope for generality?) Has there not, since the cultural
revolution of the sixties, been a profound turning away from modernism in
our culture? Do you think that art has mirrored this new condition (ie,
the Italian Transavantgardia)
>
> > Have you noticed how
> > much postmodern installations have in common with science fairs?
>
> I haven't been to many science fairs, so I can say that I have, sorry.
=== In their attempts to mirror the technological/spiritual reality of our
times, (pessimistic postmodernists?) I see a heavy use of video,
metamorphic imagery, and of postmodern theory (mostly Derrida). I have
read that the painting can no longer capture the attention of a generation
accustomed to moving images.
> > Maybe Hegel's a bit too romantic for our current situation. I feel that
> > Derrida's work "Ecriture et Differance" (or writing and differance) is
> > much more resonant. Anyway, we are far from art now and into the terrain
> > of philosophie. If we are to consider Hegel's historical dialectic, then
> > maybe he would be writing of technology and spirit today.
>
>
> That's a good point.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > saluts! (My French isn't spectacular - is that spelled correctly, or
> > > should I leave out the "s"?)
> >
> >
> > Salut! (no `s').
>
> Thanks! (I'm an effectual Francophile.)
>
> Mark
>
> webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
=== Anyway, it was nice to discuss this further with you. Salut!
A Bientot,
A.
Marilyn
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, mark webber wrote:
Here's a very contemporary site, you might find interesting:
www.coagula.com
Five years of their magazine "Coagula Art Journal" is compiled in a book:
"Most Art Sucks." The book launch is in NYC, Nov. 11, 1998.
Haven't read it, but the title seems appropriate these days.
It started as an underground journal and now it is getting "hot."
Haven't read it yet, but I asked for a sample ($5.00 US).
Marilyn
CROCUSDES
>www.coagula.com
Thanks for the pointer Marilyn, I'm thoroughly enjoying this site. Lot's of
strange stuff and behind the scenes shenanigans written about here. Lot's of
fun if nothing else.
mark webber
> > (snip)
> > >
> > > ** With respect to styles of painting, sculpture, and installation art, I
> > > think that you are right about this continuity, but when you consider this
> > > civilization more as a whole, I think that there is an overall ideological
> > > trend which is distinctly colouring our period.
> >
> > No question. As usual, though, the operative word is trend. And trends
> > always give way to other trends.
>
>
> === It is interesting to speculate on what new styles of art making will
> come to the fore in the new century. I feel that we are living in a
> particularly exciting time for this and, if one wants to study this in
> depth, then perhaps one may be able to be heard above the din so to speak.
>
That's true, and I know what you mean about speculating. I will also say,
though, that I agree with Philip's point (!) that when it's studio time,
the best thing is to try not to fit one's self into a percieved trend or
dogma and to just "interface" with one's work in the most personal way
possible. To my mind, that is the only authentic way to create.
>
> > > ** I like to think of modernist art as a time when artists like Picasso,
> > > Mondrian, Grosz etc., and art groups like the Bauhaus were still
> > > optimistic about our union with technology. They seemed to feel that art
> > > could say something about this new 20th century human condition, and
> > > perhaps even ensure that the human spirit would not get lost in this
> > > technological revolution which marks our century.
> >
> > That's certainly a respectable angle, but I don't think of technology, or
> > even the human condition as being primary issues in the work of the
> > modernists who seem to be the most enduring. This is not to say your point
> > of view is at all invalid - I really think all of us, even those who
> > detest modernism - see in it what we want to see. (Including me.)
>
> === I would like to know more about this. I think that the Bauhaus (of
> which Klee & Kandinsky were members) was fairly explicit about their
> intentions to spiritualize technology by marrying it to art.
I think that's certainly true - in part. There were plenty of mediocre
bauhaus (as well as other modernist) artists, though. And the ones that
seem to endure are the ones for whom the style is actually a personal
language and not a bandwagon. Cubism is another excellent case in point.
I only mean by this that bauhaus or cubist artists aren't simply
remembered for their theory or "avant guardness" but for their sublimely
personal, poetic sensiblities too.
> Do you think
> that many of the most famous modernists, let's say, Picasso, Matisse,
> Mondrian, Gauguin, Klee, and Kandinsky to isolate a few for the sake of
> discussion, were primarily interested in creating works which the viewer
> was free to interpret, or that despite the widely divergent styles of
> these painters, they were somewhat singular of purpose in that they wanted
> their work to impose itself on the viewer. Picasso in particular has said
> as much as this.
I wouldn't argue against those notions, but I would say that, regardless
of what they said about their audiences, they were making things that
looked good to them; they were expressing their sensibilities more than
they were expressing something about the culture that produced them.
>
> > > I love the early cubist
> > > work by Picasso which followed immediately his "Desmoiselles d'Avignon".
> >
> > Yes, I do too, and I think I've noticed a couple of requests of yours for
> > more discussion of this work. If I may, I would suggest two things: the
> > first is that I would look as much into Braque, and Cezanne's influence on
> > both Braque and Picasso, as African art. The second is that I would look
> > into the shift of emphasis (most clear, by the way, in "Les Demoiselles")
> > from subject matter to form. There are, I believe, photographs of "Les
> > Demoiselles D'Avignon" in earlier state(s) which show Picasso's shift of
> > interest.
> >
>
> === This is interesting. You are right about Braque & Cezanne and of
> their primary importance on Picasso's pre-Cubist work.
I think even more the cubist work itself -more than the pre-cubist work,
that is.
>
>
> > > Anyway, now that we are in this post-industrial late 20th century
> > > period, after two world wars, and an atomic cold war as well, we are not
> > > so optimistic about the perseverance of the human spirit, and of the
> > > relevance of beauty in the face of the power of technology.
> >
> > That may well be true. And for some, it may be even more relevant to find
> > that beauty.
>
> === Exactly. This is what many modern theorists are terming the return to
> romanticism or `optimistic' postmodernism. The more pessimistic
> postmodern artists are content to parody the mutation of meaning as
> evident in the mass media dominated sphere of representation.
Yes, and that's well put, too. Personally, I don't think pastiche is the
answer to questions of the role of the author.
> Yet, is beauty still
> resonant in our culture? I like to consider the mass production of beauty
> in one of painting's most sacred spheres: the beauty of women. Is it in
> women's power to freely proclaim their beauty, or is this beauty being
> assimilated into the technology of contemporary exchange and therefore
> taken away from women's being per se?
You lost me a little bit, there, because I know of many beautiful
paintings of not very beautiful women. The beauty of the subject is not,
for me, the explanation of the beauty of the painting.
>
> >
> > One thing about approaching artistic epochs with a notion of sentiments of
> > all artists is that it can leave out wonderful individuals who don't feel
> > the same way. (Sorry about the clumsy sentence, there.)
> >
>
> === Yes this is true, all generalizations are false, including this one.
> (So maybe there's hope for generality?) Has there not, since the cultural
> revolution of the sixties, been a profound turning away from modernism in
> our culture?
In some circles, I suppose. But not all of the ones I'm familiar with.
> Do you think that art has mirrored this new condition (ie,
> the Italian Transavantgardia)
I'm not familiar with this. Could you tell us more?
>
> >
> > > Have you noticed how
> > > much postmodern installations have in common with science fairs?
> >
> > I haven't been to many science fairs, so I can say that I have, sorry.
>
> === In their attempts to mirror the technological/spiritual reality of our
> times, (pessimistic postmodernists?) I see a heavy use of video,
> metamorphic imagery, and of postmodern theory (mostly Derrida). I have
> read that the painting can no longer capture the attention of a generation
> accustomed to moving images.
As far as video is concerned, that seems to be a new medium that is the
result of new tech. Same as photography or fresco in their respective
infancies. So it doesn't seem to me that we are more technogically
influenced than the past. The printing press, oil paint, cinema - all
technological developments that eventually yield great art.
>
> === Anyway, it was nice to discuss this further with you. Salut!
>
Pour moi aussi,
Mark
Ariane
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, mark webber wrote:
> From: mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: North Country Esthetics (was Re: Behind formal criteria)
>
> On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Ariane wrote:
>
> > > (snip)
> > > >
> > > > ** With respect to styles of painting, sculpture, and installation art, I
> > > > think that you are right about this continuity, but when you consider this
> > > > civilization more as a whole, I think that there is an overall ideological
> > > > trend which is distinctly colouring our period.
> > >
> > > No question. As usual, though, the operative word is trend. And trends
> > > always give way to other trends.
> >
> >
> > === It is interesting to speculate on what new styles of art making will
> > come to the fore in the new century. I feel that we are living in a
> > particularly exciting time for this and, if one wants to study this in
> > depth, then perhaps one may be able to be heard above the din so to speak.
> >
>
> That's true, and I know what you mean about speculating. I will also say,
> though, that I agree with Philip's point (!) that when it's studio time,
> the best thing is to try not to fit one's self into a percieved trend or
> dogma and to just "interface" with one's work in the most personal way
> possible. To my mind, that is the only authentic way to create.
>
=== Very true. I guess I'm of the opinion that this intensely personal
interface should be filtered through my being as an artist, alive here
and now, and then once again through my chosen medium. Of course all
these cultural/material concerns tends to dilute the artwork and what
seems to be needed is a certain amount of mastery. But I guess that's
every artist's goal.
> > > > ** I like to think of modernist art as a time when artists like Picasso,
> > > > Mondrian, Grosz etc., and art groups like the Bauhaus were still
> > > > optimistic about our union with technology. They seemed to feel that art
> > > > could say something about this new 20th century human condition, and
> > > > perhaps even ensure that the human spirit would not get lost in this
> > > > technological revolution which marks our century.
> > >
> > > That's certainly a respectable angle, but I don't think of technology, or
> > > even the human condition as being primary issues in the work of the
> > > modernists who seem to be the most enduring. This is not to say your point
> > > of view is at all invalid - I really think all of us, even those who
> > > detest modernism - see in it what we want to see. (Including me.)
> >
> > === I would like to know more about this. I think that the Bauhaus (of
> > which Klee & Kandinsky were members) was fairly explicit about their
> > intentions to spiritualize technology by marrying it to art.
>
> I think that's certainly true - in part. There were plenty of mediocre
> bauhaus (as well as other modernist) artists, though. And the ones that
> seem to endure are the ones for whom the style is actually a personal
> language and not a bandwagon. Cubism is another excellent case in point.
=== Without question.
> I only mean by this that bauhaus or cubist artists aren't simply
> remembered for their theory or "avant guardness" but for their sublimely
> personal, poetic sensiblities too.
=== Or a profound union of the two. But I think that your point is well
made.
> > Do you think
> > that many of the most famous modernists, let's say, Picasso, Matisse,
> > Mondrian, Gauguin, Klee, and Kandinsky to isolate a few for the sake of
> > discussion, were primarily interested in creating works which the viewer
> > was free to interpret, or that despite the widely divergent styles of
> > these painters, they were somewhat singular of purpose in that they wanted
> > their work to impose itself on the viewer. Picasso in particular has said
> > as much as this.
>
> I wouldn't argue against those notions, but I would say that, regardless
> of what they said about their audiences, they were making things that
> looked good to them; they were expressing their sensibilities more than
> they were expressing something about the culture that produced them.
=== Again, your comments are making me realize that perhaps I am striving
after a unification of these personal and cultural sensibilities; without
compromising the power of the artwork itself. History, soulfulness,
mastery of the medium, all combined in one artistic statement. Not an
easy road to follow I suppose.
=== No, me neither. Maybe there is no `answer,' to this. There are only
new artistic visions and statements to develop.
> > Yet, is beauty still
> > resonant in our culture? I like to consider the mass production of beauty
> > in one of painting's most sacred spheres: the beauty of women. Is it in
> > women's power to freely proclaim their beauty, or is this beauty being
> > assimilated into the technology of contemporary exchange and therefore
> > taken away from women's being per se?
>
> You lost me a little bit, there, because I know of many beautiful
> paintings of not very beautiful women. The beauty of the subject is not,
> for me, the explanation of the beauty of the painting.
>
=== I can't argue with that. I have always assumed a sort of inherent
beauty to painting the female form which the painting `borrows' so to
speak; and then to which it actually adds by a masterful use of the
medium. The sensuousness of the female form & the sensuousness of oil
paint. But then again, this is just an assumption. All I was really
saying was that beauty doesn't seem to be at a premium these days unless
it is used to support cosmetics industries, and sexual desire. Apart from
this, it seems to be almost a second-rate sensibility in the eyes of the
many (media?).
> > > One thing about approaching artistic epochs with a notion of sentiments of
> > > all artists is that it can leave out wonderful individuals who don't feel
> > > the same way. (Sorry about the clumsy sentence, there.)
> > >
> >
> > === Yes this is true, all generalizations are false, including this one.
> > (So maybe there's hope for generality?) Has there not, since the cultural
> > revolution of the sixties, been a profound turning away from modernism in
> > our culture?
>
> In some circles, I suppose. But not all of the ones I'm familiar with.
>
>
> > Do you think that art has mirrored this new condition (ie,
> > the Italian Transavantgardia)
>
> I'm not familiar with this. Could you tell us more?
=== Yes but this is almost a topic unto itself. I'm referring to artists
who have attempted to give expression to what they feel are the dominant
"Cultural" sensibilities of our times. There is a great book by Achille
Bonito Oliva called "The Italian Tranavanguardia," published in the
eighties. He speaks in depth on this fascinating movement. Maybe this
could be another discussion topic.
> > > > Have you noticed how
> > > > much postmodern installations have in common with science fairs?
> > >
> > > I haven't been to many science fairs, so I can say that I have, sorry.
> >
> > === In their attempts to mirror the technological/spiritual reality of our
> > times, (pessimistic postmodernists?) I see a heavy use of video,
> > metamorphic imagery, and of postmodern theory (mostly Derrida). I have
> > read that the painting can no longer capture the attention of a generation
> > accustomed to moving images.
>
>
> As far as video is concerned, that seems to be a new medium that is the
> result of new tech. Same as photography or fresco in their respective
> infancies. So it doesn't seem to me that we are more technogically
> influenced than the past. The printing press, oil paint, cinema - all
> technological developments that eventually yield great art.
>
=== Good points, this is very true. I guess that, as an oil painter, I'm
beginning to wonder about the modern vitality of this medium. In art
school I was told by many fellow artists & instructors to branch out into
the newer, more contemporary media. But there's something about oil
painting, a communion of sorts..... I can't really explain it. It's
really my own apprehensions I suppose.
A Bientot, A.
Marilyn
Hi Chris,
Glad you like it. It's fun to keep in touch with the young -
sure keeps one up-to-date. My daughter went to grad school
(Cal. State) with the publisher.
CROCUSDES
>sure keeps one up-to-date. My daughter went to grad school
>(Cal. State) with the publisher.
Well, they are a fiesty little bunch of characters and I love it when they pull
down the panties of all those pretentious and fawning blowhards engaged in the
New York art scene. The emperor has no clothes and should be paraded about
more often than he is.
Ariane
On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, mdeli wrote:
> From: mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: North Country Esthetics (was Re: Behind formal criteria)
>
==== Hi there Mani, I have to reply to this post to express my complete
diagreement with much what you are saying.
The "New York school" may have been the `cat's ass' as you put it
in America but the world is a big place. What happens in New York does
not overshadow the work of artists all over the rest of the globe I'm
afraid.
Secondly, I get the impression that you believe that anyone who
takes enough pleasure in viewing art to be inspired to both think and
communicate about it in language is somehow a moron for doing this. This
is simply self-evident prejudice and a hatred for any art outside of your
craft definition of painting and drawing. Poets and philosophers are
often artists on par with the greatest painters in their own media. I
don't like the pretentiousness of the art world any more than you, but to
discount discussion about art as `meaningless drivel'....? Not all
valuable knowledge comes in a scientific package, nor does thoughts have
to be objective to be valuable.
And finally, Cezanne, Matisse, Picasso, Gauguin, etc. are
absolutely not incompetent. Like you put it, "if you are brought up with
a myth," (i.e., the superiority of representational art), "you get into
the habit of remaining uncritical and not looking too closely." Good
point. It applies to your position as well. If you can do as well as
Matisse, Picasso, Cezanne well then I commend you on your skills. Now go
and convince the rest of the world of this fact. These modernists are
great because they didn't shy away from thinking (although Picasso hated
`talk' about art as much as you do I think), and from expanding the
painted language left to them by earlier generations. But it is easier to
criticize artists then to bring oneself to appreciate the reasons why they
captivated our civilization. And thereby grow as an artist. None of
these modern masters mentioned above were academics by the way, they were
all anti-academics, with a profound appreciation for the aesthetics of all
forms of expression.
A Bientot,
La Montrealaise
P.S. Maybe you could add this to your signature:
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art.... AND ***(No heart, no art!!)
mdeli
Our geriatric member of this conference complains about the NY scene.
It all reminds me of the Modern Academic art school I once attended.
There were the oldies and the youngies. Neither knew their craft or
could draw and they all considered themselves religiously modern. The
NY school was the cat's ass at the time. The three Bergs who Wolf pooh
poohs were competing for the papal position in MA criticism. (Their
line of bullshit is now passe' and a younger set of morons now
expostulate a more modern line of drivel.)
Some of the oldies there who taught Picasso Matisse and Bauhaus were
appalled. "Vot is diss," some exclaimed with their remains of a German
accent.
It all makes me wonder. How can anyone complain about de Kooning,
Rothko, and all those other schmierers, drippers and stripe painters
and defend the utter incompetence of Cezanne and Matisse etc.?
I suspect it is someting like religion. If you are brought up with a
myth which you are expected not to question you get into the habit of
remaining uncritical and not looking too closely. In art there is an
other attraction to the incompetence of the modern masters namely the
subconscious "I can do as well as that syndrome."
Mr Ray's work isn't that much better or more interesting than any NY
scene put-on and even less competent and more conventional than most
classical modernism. He like the other Modern's here imagines that
Picasso, Matisse and Cezanne etc. are just great because he was
brought up with them. At the same time he can sense that the NY scene
stuff is the Emperors New Clothes (who in their right mind can't?)
because its all to new for him and they won the Modern Academic Art
lottery while he didn't.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Philip Ayers
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
Mani's latest victim. The guys got a one track mind.
"no skill, if I say so"
mdeli
> Secondly, I get the impression that you believe that anyone who
>takes enough pleasure in viewing art to be inspired to both think and
>communicate about it in language is somehow a moron for doing this.
I wouldn't be writing here if I thought that.
> This
>is simply self-evident prejudice and a hatred for any art outside of your
>craft definition of painting and drawing.
What is my "craft" definition?
> Poets and philosophers are
>often artists on par with the greatest painters in their own media. I
>don't like the pretentiousness of the art world any more than you, but to
>discount discussion about art as `meaningless drivel'....?
Because I find much discussion here to be drivel you can't conclude
that all of it is.
>Not all
>valuable knowledge comes in a scientific package, nor does thoughts have
>to be objective to be valuable.
So?
snip
> If you can do as well as
>Matisse, Picasso, Cezanne well then I commend you on your skills. Now go
>and convince the rest of the world of this fact.
Take your own advice and see how far you get.
> These modernists are
>great because they didn't shy away from thinking (although Picasso hated
>`talk' about art as much as you do I think), and from expanding the
>painted language left to them by earlier generations.
What is "expanding the painted language."
> But it is easier to
>criticize artists then to bring oneself to appreciate the reasons why they
>captivated our civilization. And thereby grow as an artist. None of
>these modern masters mentioned above were academics by the way, they were
>all anti-academics, with a profound appreciation for the aesthetics of all
>forms of expression.
I refer to them as Academics because it is their styles and
incompetence which is now taught in schools and praised by in critics.
It is their styles alone to the exclusion of all other styles which
are allowed to inhabit our museums. The situation is analogous to
historians complaints about 19th century academics.
>A Bientot,
>
>La Montrealaise
>
>P.S. Maybe you could add this to your signature:
>
>> --
>> Mani DeLi
>> ...no skill no art.... AND ***(No heart, no art!!)
>
& All heart no art.
mdeli
>
>Mani's latest victim. The guys got a one track mind.
Ayers assumes he has a two track mind. Both are very rusty and lead
nowhere.
>"no skill, if I say so"
I don't see you refraining from critical judgment. Tell us your
complaints about Warhol. Philip imagines that only his criticisms
count.