Publication of Fine Art Thesis
William Palmer
a word or two regarding what led to its development
1) Some very interesting posts in rec.arts.fine,
2) My little tour of the downtown La Jolla
art galleries, 3) Seeing some fascinating examples
of realist art reproduced in a book.
Heirs of Nineteenth Century Realism
1) Russian Communist "Heroic Realism" art.
Defective heir. Shows no genuine
advancement from 19th Century realism.
2) Nazi Idealistic art. Defective heir.
Boring and representative of nothing
much that had not been expressed in
19th Century art.
3) Maybe this should be called "beauteous
realism," "pretty realism," or "big bucks
art gallery realism." I am referring to
the sort of painting you often find in
expensive art galleries, pictures
generally housed in expensive gilt
rococco style frames. The type of
art I refer to can be an attractive
addition to an affluent middle-class
home. It is safe, sane, comfortable,
and represnts no advancement whatsoever
from 19th Century realism. Creatively,
it is a defective heir.
4) Well, those are the three bad heirs.
Now I have found the good one. I refer,
of course, to the realism of artists
like Don Eddy, Ricard Estes, Audrey
Flack, Robert Cottingham and several
others, the artists who once were
called "photorealists." Their school
of art represents an authentic creative
advance over 19th Century realism.
In fact, it could almost be said--
from my own observations, at least--
that their truly original art movement
can be directly traced to 19th Century
realism with no important art movements
in between the two.
So how about it, folks: Does my thesis get the
stamp of approval from the rec.arts.fine Committee
of Art Scholars?
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary publishing headquarters: rec.arts.fine)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
chris
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:Tc2F9.140$lw4.72128@newsfep2-gui...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Before " Shows no genuine advancement from.."
> you should have dwelt upon what is advancement,
> in your opinion.
It might have been even more help if he had defined what he considers to be
"19th Century Realism". The Academics like Bouguereau & Gerome?
Pre-Raphaelites? or maybe the real "Realists" (in the usual sense of the
word with a capital R) like Courbet,Manet, Homer? Our visiting 'genius'
might want to do a little reading:
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/r/realism.html
Cheers,
Chris
G*rd*n
| > you should have dwelt upon what is advancement,
| > in your opinion.
"chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca>:
| It might have been even more help if he had defined what he considers to be
| "19th Century Realism". The Academics like Bouguereau & Gerome?
| Pre-Raphaelites? or maybe the real "Realists" (in the usual sense of the
| word with a capital R) like Courbet,Manet, Homer? Our visiting 'genius'
| might want to do a little reading:
| http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/r/realism.html
If "realism" is to be given a trajectory, which seems to be
the case here, one might want to go back further than the
19th century to locate its origins and prior development,
if only in summary fashion.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/14/02 <-adv't
William Palmer
Chris, I thank you for your response, but you are
tending toward unnecessary complications, so I
will make things much simpler. My point is that
ANY painting done today that looks like it could
have been done in the 19th century, is not art
in the best sense of the word. ANY painting.
I don't care if looks at a glance like Homer might
have painted it or Manet might have painted it, or
whoever. It does not matter. If you know the least
little bit about art history, and you look at a painting
that was done this year and you conclude it would
have been perfect for a comfortable middle class
home one-hundred years ago, you are not seeing
art in the best sense of the word. You are seeing
an anachronism, though it may be a highly-profitable
anachronism for a skillful painter. Heck, I'm
sure that anyone who could paint puppies with anything
close to the realism of Landseer could get in some
big La Jolla galleries and make a fortune. But
if his paintings look like they might have been
painted in Landseer's day, again, I would call
that a profitable curiosity, or maybe kitsch,
but not at all art in the most authentic sense.
There is something about creativity and originality,
that, when present in artist endeavors, leads to
identifiable changes, be they for the better or
the worse.
You look at Cottingham's Busch's Jewelry sign
or Don Eddy's "New Shoes for H." (which includes
shoes and accessories in a store window in a
blaze of vibrant colors and all sorts of other
things) and you are seeing realism, but you
are seeing a vibrant realism that would have
been unimaginable in the 19th century.
Now, someone who still has not gotten it might
pipe up and say, "But Mr. Palmer, you are cheating
in your argument because the painters you have
mentioned focus on many things that did not even
exist in the 19th century. (That argument is
so simple to refute I am trying to help people
avoid the embarrassment of even trying to use it.)
The fact that you can see an electric sign in
the Cottingham painting I referred to and a
bus going by in the Don Eddy picture mentioned
is not at all significant. What IS significant
is that there are all sorts of things that set
these masterpices of realism apart from anything
that would be possible for an artist to dream up
in the 19th century. For one thing, of course
they had store windows and signs in the 19th
century. But a most painters would have
considered such subjects far too lowly for
use in a proper painting, although there are
no shortage of depictions of people shopping,
etc., in 19th century art. But to focus on
a large sign like Cottingham, no way. They
could not have dealt with that. We might
also note the influence of close-up and
zoom photography on Cottingham's signs, too.
Also, something that would have outraged
19th century critics about Don Eddy's
"New Shows" is his interesting, but
potentially confusing, use of what appear
to be both mirror and glass reflections.
For instance, we see a man who is fairly
prominent in the painting seeming to be--
at least at first glance--cut in half
because of the placement of the glass
store-window. That sort of thing would
have been unacceptable in the 19th century.
So, it is not a matter of these modern
masters of realism focusing on objects
that did not exist in the 19th century
at all. That is only a very small part
of what makes their work so different from
so many things you would associate with
19th century painting.
No offense, Chris, but I hope you can
see now you were a tad cavalier about
referring me to a website that contained
little I had not read or seen years ago...
a.g.b-p
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
Andrew Werby
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02112...@posting.google.com...
[Was that it, or is this a proposal for something you're planning on
developing further? Artistically speaking, the first two styles (Soviet and
Nazi) were offshoots of a larger movement that was influential in the
'thirties in more places than you list. Diego Rivera's murals, as well as
much work by WPA artists in the US, shared many stylistic affinities with
these totalitarian-sponsored schools.
As I pointed out previously in another thread, these didn't have a lot to do
with Realism, but were more an expression of idealism using representations
of stock figures to make political points. If you're going to talk about
this sort of art, it would be better if you took a wider view.
The third school you mention, the "pretty" style, as I envision it (since
you give no specific examples) encompasses a wide range of stylistic
influences, from Boucher and Fragonnard to the Dutch masters of still-life.
I don't think you can dismiss a whole type of art in such a blanket offhand
manner just because of your perception of its subject matter. Despite what
you say, significant advances were made in the early 20th century, mostly by
illustrators such as Pyle, Rackham, and Parrish, working within the confines
dictated by popular taste. Just because they made a living from their art
and had no need to court the critics and museums is no reason to exclude
them from consideration as serious artists.
>
The Photo-realist school you have favored with your approval has never much
appealed to me. While I'm not familiar with the specific artists you
enumerate (any online images you can point us to?), in general it seems to
consist of snapshots (that wouldn't garner a second look if published in a
magazine) laboriously transferred to canvas by hand. This is supposed to
embue them with an aura of Art, but the banality of the original images,
licensed by the cheap irony of PostModernism, is only magnified in the
examples I've seen. While there's nothing inherently wrong with the
technique, it doesn't, in and of itself, make a dowdy photograph into a
stunning work of art. But perhaps you have some examples that refute this?
I think you might have to look further afield than the galleries of La Jolla
to find art that extended the realist tradition into new aesthetic areas.
There are quite a few artists in the twentieth century who used the tools
afforded by classical art training to break new ground. Look for works by
the German Expressionists, like Otto Dix and Kathe Kollwitz, or by the
Fantastic Realists like Anton Lehmden or Ernst Fuchs. MC Escher, Rene
Magritte, and Pavel Tchelitchew each took realistic technique in a different
direction, and achieved stunning results. Get back to us when you've done
your homework, okay?]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Mani Deli
>x-no-archive: yes
>William Palmer wrote:
>
>> Before I publish my thesis, I would like to say
>> a word or two regarding what led to its development
>> 1) Some very interesting posts in rec.arts.fine,
>> 2) My little tour of the downtown La Jolla
>> art galleries, 3) Seeing some fascinating examples
>> of realist art reproduced in a book.
>
>Is the thesis for a degree-granting institution?
>
>>
>>
>> Heirs of Nineteenth Century Realism
>>
>> 1) Russian Communist "Heroic Realism"
>
>That is state-sponsored commissioned illustration.
>> 2) Nazi Idealistic art.
>
>Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration.
>
Raphael "Stanza"
"Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration.
Michaelangelo
"Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration."
Art done for the Medici
"Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration".
Delacroix Ingres
"Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration."
Picasso's Portrait of "Stalin" and "Massacar in Korea"
"Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration."
Chagal Opera house and UN stuff
"Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration.
Etc.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
William Palmer
> "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> | > Before " Shows no genuine advancement from.."
> | > you should have dwelt upon what is advancement,
> | > in your opinion.
>
> "chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca>:
> | It might have been even more help if he had defined what he considers to be
> | "19th Century Realism". The Academics like Bouguereau & Gerome?
> | Pre-Raphaelites? or maybe the real "Realists" (in the usual sense of the
> | word with a capital R) like Courbet,Manet, Homer? Our visiting 'genius'
> | might want to do a little reading:
> | http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/r/realism.html
>
> If "realism" is to be given a trajectory, which seems to be
> the case here, one might want to go back further than the
> 19th century to locate its origins and prior development,
> if only in summary fashion.
The reason I did not do that is this: What
precipitated the thoughts leading to my thesis
grew out of the many postings in this group
relating to Nineteenth century realism. I
came in here hoping to discuss symbolism,
actually, but since it was plain the current
group of posters had more interest in discussing
realism, I began to focus on that a bit more.
(My new realism thesis is one day old already, and
two days ago I had no idea I would be developing
it. That's what I call the wonderful spontaneity
of life in the Usenet thoughtstream.) Further,
there is no shortage of the sort of information
you refer to available from various sources on
and off the net, and I'm sure with a little
effort we could take realism back pretty far,
as many scholars no doubt already have. After
all, much of the art of antiquity was realistic
too.
a.g.b-p
G*rd*n
| > | > Before " Shows no genuine advancement from.."
| > | > you should have dwelt upon what is advancement,
| > | > in your opinion.
"chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca>:
|>| It might have been even more help if he had defined what he considers to be
|>| "19th Century Realism". The Academics like Bouguereau & Gerome?
|>| Pre-Raphaelites? or maybe the real "Realists" (in the usual sense of the
|>| word with a capital R) like Courbet,Manet, Homer? Our visiting 'genius'
|>| might want to do a little reading:
|>| http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/r/realism.html
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > If "realism" is to be given a trajectory, which seems to be
| > the case here, one might want to go back further than the
| > 19th century to locate its origins and prior development,
| > if only in summary fashion.
willia...@prodigy.net (William Palmer):
| The reason I did not do that is this: What
| precipitated the thoughts leading to my thesis
| grew out of the many postings in this group
| relating to Nineteenth century realism. I
| came in here hoping to discuss symbolism,
| actually, but since it was plain the current
| group of posters had more interest in discussing
| realism, I began to focus on that a bit more.
| (My new realism thesis is one day old already, and
| two days ago I had no idea I would be developing
| it. That's what I call the wonderful spontaneity
| of life in the Usenet thoughtstream.) Further,
| there is no shortage of the sort of information
| you refer to available from various sources on
| and off the net, and I'm sure with a little
| effort we could take realism back pretty far,
| as many scholars no doubt already have. After
| all, much of the art of antiquity was realistic
| too.
| a.g.b-p
Different people have different ideas of what "realism"
is, though, and where it came from.
William Palmer
> Marilyn Welch wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >William Palmer wrote:
> >
> >> Before I publish my thesis, I would like to say
> >> a word or two regarding what led to its development
> >> 1) Some very interesting posts in rec.arts.fine,
> >> 2) My little tour of the downtown La Jolla
> >> art galleries, 3) Seeing some fascinating examples
> >> of realist art reproduced in a book.
> >
> >Is the thesis for a degree-granting institution?
No, it is for the Usenet thoughtstream. Let us
not forget that a thesis can be "a proposition
to be maintained or proved." Well, keeping in
mind that in a sense Usenet is "publication,"
I published my new thesis yesterday and I have
been trying my best to maintain it today.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Heirs of Nineteenth Century Realism
> >>
> >> 1) Russian Communist "Heroic Realism"
> >
> >That is state-sponsored commissioned illustration.
I like the "Six Apparitions" picture by Dali
where Lenin's elongated buttock is propped
up by a crutch! That infuriated the Communists,
but actually it was a hilariously brilliant
and highly perceptive portrayal.
>
> >> 2) Nazi Idealistic art.
> >
> >Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration.
> >
>
> Raphael "Stanza"
> "Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration.
>
> Michaelangelo
> "Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration."
>
>
> Art done for the Medici
> "Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration".
>
> Delacroix Ingres
> "Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration."
>
> Picasso's Portrait of "Stalin" and "Massacar in Korea"
> "Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration."
>
> Chagal Opera house and UN stuff
> "Also state-sponsored commissioned illustration.
I was hoping to hear your thoughts on
Cottingham, Flack, Ricard Estes, Don
Eddy, etc. And I am sincerely
interested in that, because I would
like to hear how you feel about their
realism. Anyway, thanks for responding.
a.g.b-p
chris
I do have say I find it rather amusing that your cure for artistic
anachronism is apparently a technique (photorealism) that peaked, what - 30,
40 years ago? Yawn. I hate to tell you that not only was the last century,
but the last millennium...
And what's all this vague nonsense about "art in the best sense?". Sorry,
but if you want others to pay attention to a thesis, you have to state it
first, not just carry on handwaving in the hope that somehow it'll pop out
of the hat.
Finally, your approach seems to be far more dominated by the past than even
the most conservative artists I know - for while they are simply borrowing
techniques, you are totally enveloped in reacting against it.. And in doing
so, simply repeating a stance common at the end of the 19th century. Talk
about anachronism!
Cheers;
Chris
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02112...@posting.google.com...
William Palmer
> Well William,
>
> I do have say I find it rather amusing that your cure for artistic
> anachronism is apparently a technique (photorealism) that peaked, what - 30,
> 40 years ago? Yawn. I hate to tell you that not only was the last century,
> but the last millennium...
The idea was to look over the various movements
and schools of Twentieth century art and then
decide which one most authentically carried
on the best traditions of 19th century realistic
art, the challenge, of course, being present in the
fact that those traditions included a recognition
for the the need for originality, not mimicry
of what was great art one-hundred or more years
ago. As a result, whether or not you feel that
the movement I argued for had "peaked" thirty
years ago has nothing to do with the matter.
On the contrary, an intelligent counter-
argument would have either asserted that
I was mistaken about one or more of the
three "bad heirs" or that I was wrong
in my selection of the "good heir."
You did neither, and most readers will
realize all you did was present a rather
hollow and superficial pose of feigned
superiority. My thesis stands unrefuted.
a.g.b-p
WILLIAM PALMER
"Marilyn Welch" <x...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3DE51106...@islandnet.com...
> William Palmer wrote:
[...]
>
> Audrey Flack and Estes are modernists. Realism exists in modernism.
> Check out Estes' lack of detail in his scenes of the city.
>
> >
> > So how about it, folks: Does my thesis get the
> > stamp of approval from the rec.arts.fine Committee
> > of Art Scholars?
>
> First of all are you a really good writer?
Good enough to take a bucket of sand and a wishing lamp
and write myself into a role as the best-known writer in
Usenet history.
Is your prose
> captivating?
Captivating enough to keep the folks coming back for more.
(But as to whether or not I can write literature, you have to
decide for yourself. If you know how to use Google,
you might check out my REVISED VERSION of
"Yes, MARY KENNEDY, you try to square things with the BIG boss!"
That is one of the stand alones which have made me so well known.
It was inspired by a panel in a 1940's crime comic. Illustrated
by Jack Cole.)
>
> Secondly, it depends on whether you take paintings out of
> their cultural and political context. It depends on whether
> you completely ignore 20th century art theory.
Well, I know a bit about art theory from reading books
about artists. I will quite be candid in telling you it is
very rare that I read an art book that is not profusely
illustrated. Yet Mr. Mattila had no cause for trying to
hurt my feelings over that, by his calling the two art
books I mentioned "coffee table books." They
are not. One was SURREALISTS AND
SURREALISM by Gaeton Picon and the other
was THE HISTORY OF SURREALIST PAINTING
by Marcel Jean. Those books both contain many
helpful pictures, but a generous and intellectually
stimulating portion of scholarly text as well. I am
sure I am not the only person in this group familiar
with them.
It depends
> on whether you completely ignore Modernism.
That's a big statement. I don't think I do that, if that is
what you are implying. The surrealists are representative
of 20th Century modernism. So are Cottingham, Estes,
Flack, and the others. So what's the problem?
People have been getting confused about the difference
between Modernism and Abstractionism. It is very
simple. The words are on different hierarchial
levels entirely. All you have to do is place
Modernism above Surrealism and Abstractionism,
and draw one line from Modernism to Surrealism
and another from Modernism to Abstractionism.
The difference between Modernism and
Abstractionism is the difference between "fruit"
and "apple." It amazes me that some people
in this group have so much trouble getting
their terms straight. Actually, the whole debate
about Modernism in this group is silly. Show me
someone who has not been influenced in any way
by Modernism, and--if he can paint--I'll show you
next year's Kincade.
>
> Thirdly, I would find reading about the banal State prescribed
> paintings of the Communists and the Nazis very tiresome.
>
> Fourth, your ideas are too general.
>
> Therefore, I would deny your proposal.
Gee. Three minutes and thirty-five seconds worth of brain work
and typing down the tubes. Well, back to the old drawing board...
Anyway, thanks for responding. Sorry I had to remove the
X-no archive, but I have to feed the "Google-nova" (My little
portion of Google.)
a.g.b-p
>
WILLIAM PALMER
"Dan Fox" <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20021127091824.699$i...@newsreader.com...> Just curious: Who's the publisher?
Bill Palmer. It was published from my headquarters upstairs at
rec.arts.prose.
>Was it written for a degree requirement?
Yes, I wrote it to provide a high degree of enjoyment for all
intellectually inclined readers of this group. Seriously, this
wonderful spontaneity of Usenet is amazing, isn't it? The
day before I wrote that post, I had no idea I would be
writing it. I just sort of sat down at my keyboard on
the day I wrote it (for me just now, writing = posting)
thinking about posts I had read in this group, and my
tour of the downtown La Jolla galleries, and a book
I had just read. Then the thesis just sort of rolled
from my mind right into the net! Any other
questions I can help you with today?
a.g.b-p
>
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
WILLIAM PALMER
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:RIaF9.138241$WL3.62415@rwcrnsc54...
>
> "William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:cbc76035.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > So how about it, folks: Does my thesis get the
> > stamp of approval from the rec.arts.fine Committee
> > of Art Scholars?
>
> [Was that it, or is this a proposal for something you're planning on
> developing further?
Yes, and if you read the entire thread to date, you will see that it
has already developed since I first wrote it. In a sense, it was
proposal to help me learn while stirring up some additional
productive thought in this group. Which is not the same as
saying it was not a sincere expression of my thoughts,
because it certainly was.
Artistically speaking, the first two styles (Soviet and
> Nazi) were offshoots of a larger movement that was influential in the
> 'thirties in more places than you list. Diego Rivera's murals, as well as
> much work by WPA artists in the US, shared many stylistic affinities with
> these totalitarian-sponsored schools.
I think you are right. I have noticed the same thing myself.
> As I pointed out previously in another thread, these didn't have a lot to
do
> with Realism, but were more an expression of idealism using
representations
> of stock figures to make political points. If you're going to talk about
> this sort of art, it would be better if you took a wider view.
>
> The third school you mention, the "pretty" style, as I envision it (since
> you give no specific examples) encompasses a wide range of stylistic
> influences, from Boucher and Fragonnard to the Dutch masters of
still-life.
> I don't think you can dismiss a whole type of art in such a blanket
offhand
> manner just because of your perception of its subject matter. Despite what
> you say, significant advances were made in the early 20th century, mostly
by
> illustrators such as Pyle, Rackham, and Parrish, working within the
confines
> dictated by popular taste. Just because they made a living from their art
> and had no need to court the critics and museums is no reason to exclude
> them from consideration as serious artists.
I don't. While I don't care so much for Rackham, I think
that Parrish and Pyle are outstanding artists. However,
I simply think of them as 19th century artists, so I did not
have them in mind at all (in my third "bad heirs of 19th
century realism" category). I was thinking of certain people
whose paintings you can find right now in big commercial
galleries, such as Kincade, for one. His work provides
an excellent example of pretty, non-challenging art that
would be welcome in middle class homes of the
19th Century. He has escaped the curse of
Modernism, some in this group might say.
> >
> The Photo-realist school you have favored with your approval has never
much
> appealed to me.
I think Photo-realist is an outdated term. But they were originally
called photorealists, true. I am sure they all have a different view
of that word, and I don't know if any of them would feel the term
can be appropriately applied to them at this time.
While I'm not familiar with the specific artists you
> enumerate (any online images you can point us to?),
Not at this moment, but I will see if I can come up
anything for you.
in general it seems to
> consist of snapshots (that wouldn't garner a second look if published in a
> magazine) laboriously transferred to canvas by hand. This is supposed to
> embue them with an aura of Art,
You are simply mistaken. I am absolutely convinced that Cotttingham's
"Busch's Jeweler's Sign" is one of the most significant works of realist
art produced in the 20th century. And Don Eddy's "New Shoes for
H." is equally profound.
but the banality of the original images,
> licensed by the cheap irony of PostModernism, is only magnified in the
> examples I've seen. While there's nothing inherently wrong with the
> technique, it doesn't, in and of itself, make a dowdy photograph into a
> stunning work of art. But perhaps you have some examples that refute this?
Absolutely. I might mention Audry Flack's "Grand Rose," for instance.
I think Ralph Goings "Diner with Red Door," would be another good
example, as well as his "Unadilla Diner." I would also call into
evidence John Salt's "'58 Chevy Without Hood," because that
picture casts a strange spell while likely striking a familiar chord with
so many viewers. Tthe latter is not everyone's idea of a pretty
picture, but it gets back to this "beautiful/ugly" matter. It
is challenging, original and thought-provoking art.
>
> I think you might have to look further afield than the galleries of La
Jolla
> to find art that extended the realist tradition into new aesthetic areas.
> There are quite a few artists in the twentieth century who used the tools
> afforded by classical art training to break new ground. Look for works by
> the German Expressionists, like Otto Dix and Kathe Kollwitz,
I don't really care much for those two, any more than I care for
Kokoschka and Egon Schiele, their forerunners. I find all four
rather boring.
or by the
> Fantastic Realists like Anton Lehmden or Ernst Fuchs. MC Escher, Rene
> Magritte, and Pavel Tchelitchew each took realistic technique in a
different
> direction, and achieved stunning results. Get back to us when you've done
> your homework, okay?]
Except for Magritte, you list artists I don't particularly care
for and then tell me to go do my homework. Is that not
a bit patronzing and cavalier of you? Nothing against
Escher, who makes for a great brain-teaser, but as a
serious artist, Escher does not rate even being mentioned
in the same breath as Dali, for instance. As far as
realists go, I like Maynard Dixon, too, and an obscure
portrait painter named John Carroll.
a.g.b-p
>
> Andrew Werby
> www.unitedartworks.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
WILLIAM PALMER
> Marilyn Welch <x...@islandnet.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, I forgot to put the word 'ugly' in front of
> > "state sponsored illustration." And of course there
> > is a difference between painting and illustration
> > which you have not considered.
>
> Don't you know NOTHIN??? Painting and illustration are the same thing...
Who is bandying THAT nonsense around? Anyone I know? Illustration
can consist of painting, and illustration can be art too. Got it now?
> And giclee and inkjet are different things.... And the great modern
masters
> just produced junk as part of a vast conspiracy.....
No, but I think there is room for a good deal of debate as to
who the "great modern masters" actually were. For instance,
back in the Twenties Foujita was hailed as a modern master of
art. He took Paris by storm and was in some ways akin to a
pop hero of our day. I'll bet most people in this group have
never even heard of him. Why did he fade? It was not that
he did not have skill as a painter. It was simply that he was not
really all that original, so he didn't last. Is there any reason to
think Rothko, de Kooning and Kline will be any better known
in a few generations than Foujita is today? (Of course, there
could be a Foujita revival, just like a Frieda Kahlo revival.
All they would have to do is make a move about him, and
he was in fact a colorful character. They might revive him
as an interesting Paris figure, but whether or not they could
revive interest in his art is a horse of a different watercolor.)
In my view, two people who qualilfy as "great masters of
modern art" are Stuart Davis and Dali--totally different
artists in almost every way, including in politics, which is
irrelevant to the value of the their work anyway.
this time, I think the sort of critic who is annoying
to some of our readers would rank Davis below
Pollack, Rothko, de Kooning and Kline, but I would
argue there no good reason for doing that.
and you don't post to
> Usenet, you 'publish a thesis' (!).
Whee...
>Welcome to RAF
>
> (and happy thanksgiving, even though you're canadian -- we're off to visit
> friends for a few days.)
>
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
Erik A. Mattila
> No, but I think there is room for a good deal of debate as to
> who the "great modern masters" actually were. For instance,
> back in the Twenties Foujita was hailed as a modern master of
> art. He took Paris by storm and was in some ways akin to a
> pop hero of our day. I'll bet most people in this group have
> never even heard of him. Why did he fade? It was not that
> he did not have skill as a painter. It was simply that he was not
> really all that original, so he didn't last. Is there any reason to
> think Rothko, de Kooning and Kline will be any better known
> in a few generations than Foujita is today?
Yes, there is a very good reason. Pick up any art history text and it
will be right in front of you. Foujita was spit-out of the competition
because he was a 'sentimentalist,' much like Walter and Margaret Keene,
not to mention his inconsistency and eclecticism. His desire to 'return
painting to its former state' didn't work for him. He did a few nice
paintings, but a lot of really hideous ones.
(Of course, there
> could be a Foujita revival, just like a Frieda Kahlo revival.
> All they would have to do is make a move about him, and
> he was in fact a colorful character. They might revive him
> as an interesting Paris figure, but whether or not they could
> revive interest in his art is a horse of a different watercolor.)
> In my view, two people who qualilfy as "great masters of
> modern art" are Stuart Davis and Dali--totally different
> artists in almost every way, including in politics, which is
> irrelevant to the value of the their work anyway.
> this time, I think the sort of critic who is annoying
> to some of our readers would rank Davis below
> Pollack, Rothko, de Kooning and Kline, but I would
> argue there no good reason for doing that.
But no critic worth her/his salt would embark on the foolish adventure
of 'ranking' artists. That's kid's stuff. Ranking Davis against de
Kooning is like ranking ice cream against two-by-fours.
You should forget this "masters" bullshit. You're just building prison
walls around yourself. It almost sounds as if the only way you can
'like' something is to 'hate' something it's not. That's pitiful.
> and you don't post to
>
>>Usenet, you 'publish a thesis' (!).
>
>
> Whee...
It's just another form of 'vanity press.' Dan's right. Additionally,
the outline you wrote doesn't fill the criteria of a 'thesis' by any
stretch of the imagination, and even your poorly defined central
premise, "heirs to 19th realism" fails for two important reasons: 1)
there is no such thing as "19th Century realism" and 2) you cannot argue
lineage/influence in art history based on appearance without committing
the "like begets like" fallacy. That's the work of the art
historian/critic - to show by +documentation+ that a Russian artist who
painted Socialist Realism was influenced by a 19th century painter.
That both painted a military figure on a horse does not satisfy the
credibility requirement.
And a 'thesis' in most contexts asks for originality. What is
"original" about your idea?
I think you should simply call your idea a 'essay' or 'proposal' instead
of attempting to pump it up with pomposity by declaring it a 'thesis.'
Erik
chris
little virtual gallery - at least for those who like cats...
http://www.kattenkabinet.nl/html/kattenkabinet_dhtml.html
Cheers;
Chris
chris
>
> The idea was to look over the various movements
> and schools of Twentieth century art and then
> decide which one most authentically carried
> on the best traditions of 19th century realistic
> art, the challenge, of course, being present in the
> fact that those traditions included a recognition
> for the the need for originality, not mimicry
> of what was great art one-hundred or more years
> ago.
Well William, we are still waiting for that definition of "the best
traditions of 19th Century realistic art". Given that you want to be taken
seriously, and that this definition is pivotal to your 'thesis', is that
really too much to ask? Though - in that you seem unfamiliar with even the
basic forms of 19th century representational work - I suspect it may well
be.
OTOH, if you are just doing this for entertainment value, perhaps you should
consider a collaboration with Nilges, that could provide us all with lots of
amusement...
Cheers;
Chris
William Palmer
Nonsense. In fact, by stating that you simply
give yourself away as a hidebound, ulta-conservative,
reactionary print-world fossil. The old vanity
press model does not fit Usenet, and I will try
to set you straight in as few words as possible.
Basically, people used vanity press (paid their
own publishing and printing costs) because they
wanted the satisfaction of seeing themselves in
print. The needed that to validate their self
image as a writer, in other words. Yet, as far
as what is really significant about making someone
a writer, they usually lacked an essential ingredient:
readers. Yes, it is true you can make 15,000 Usenet
posts and still be whistling up the chimney
as far as readers. But by the time you can
demonstrate you are entertaining enough to
inspire many thousands of DIFFERENT people to
take time from their busy days to follow you
up, you can safely assume you are better-known
as a writer than ninety-five percent of the
authors listed in BOOKS IN PRINT. You are
talking to the Wordscreen Man here, Mr.
Mattila. Try to remember that.
Dan's right. Additionally,
> the outline you wrote doesn't fill the criteria of a 'thesis' by any
> stretch of the imagination,
I suggest you get hold of a good dictionary.
For instance, THE NEW SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH
DICTIONARY makes it very clear that one
perfectly valid sense of the word "thesis"
is "A proposition laid down or stated, esp., one
maintained or put forward in an argument..."
By trying to force me to use the only sense
you know of a word with several important
senses, you are putting your limited vocabularly
on parade, Mr. Mattila.
and even your poorly defined central
> premise, "heirs to 19th realism" fails for two important reasons: 1)
> there is no such thing as "19th Century realism" and
That's a silly argument. You are up to your
old trick of trying to force me to abide by
your verbal limitations. OF COURSE there is
a "19th century realism." Half the people
reading this could immediately name at least
one dozen examples of artists who whose work
could be said to fit such a description.
2) you cannot argue
> lineage/influence in art history based on appearance without committing
> the "like begets like" fallacy. That's the work of the art
> historian/critic - to show by +documentation+ that a Russian artist who
> painted Socialist Realism was influenced by a 19th century painter.
> That both painted a military figure on a horse does not satisfy the
> credibility requirement.
Never read such a silly bundle of horsefeathers!
>
> And a 'thesis' in most contexts asks for originality. What is
> "original" about your idea?
Another sophomorically-tricky question from Mr. Mattila!
I would say that it is original unless YOU the challenger
can let your fingers do the walking over to Google and
find an example where someone else has posted the same
thing, or can find an example from the print world
where someone published it earlier. You can't, of
course, because it only developed last week based
on the three things I have already explained.
>
> I think you should simply call your idea a 'essay' or 'proposal' instead
> of attempting to pump it up with pomposity by declaring it a 'thesis.'
Exactly who the heck are YOU to tell ME that
I cannnot use a perfectly valid sense of a
word, as the result of nothing other than
your own limited vocabulary?
alt.genius.bill-palmer
(Temporary publishing headquarters: upstairs at rec.arts.prose)
wil...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Erik
Mani Deli
Palmer) wrote:
>I was hoping to hear your thoughts on
>Cottingham, Flack, Ricard Estes, Don
>Eddy, etc.
Only seen Flack and Estes.
Flack doesn't look bad in reproduction. I've seen originals, mediocre.
She has't that much technical ability.
Estes is another matter. He is very original, capable of complexity
and has good color and composition. His technique is excellent. Even
Dali commented that he liked Estes.
William Palmer
> "William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:cbc76035.0211...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The idea was to look over the various movements
> > and schools of Twentieth century art and then
> > decide which one most authentically carried
> > on the best traditions of 19th century realistic
> > art, the challenge, of course, being present in the
> > fact that those traditions included a recognition
> > for the the need for originality, not mimicry
> > of what was great art one-hundred or more years
> > ago.
>
> Well William, we are still waiting for that definition of "the best
> traditions of 19th Century realistic art". Given that you want to be taken
> seriously, and that this definition is pivotal to your 'thesis', is that
> really too much to ask? Though - in that you seem unfamiliar with even the
> basic forms of 19th century representational work - I suspect it may well
> be.
I don't know where you got that loopy notion. I would say
that I am quite familiar with the better known art of the
19th century, certainly when restricted to Western
civilization, and the areas where I have the most
knowledge are regarding U. S. art, British, French,
German, Belgian, Dutch, Italian, Russian, and more,
and even some non-Western art, such as Japanese.
Further, I have considerably more depth in certain
speciality areas than the average student of art
history does, having paid particular attention to
Victorian art, Symbolism, Orientalism, and some other
movements. I might add that I posted my Bibliography
of Symbolism in this group over five years ago.
This is not merely a list, but I actually give a
brief description of each book, along with my
evaluation, and it includes all the books available
(certainly not "in print," because only a couple of
them may still be in print). So, you can take your
cheap shots, but the Google-nova (my name for my
little corner of Google) will obliterate you and
your silly allegations.
>
> OTOH, if you are just doing this for entertainment value,
Well, I certainly post to entertain myself and a
great many others, but that in no way detracts from
my arguments. When I make what would look to any
reasonable person like a serious post in a serious
group, I mean what I say, and that goes for the
propositions set forth in my thesis.
perhaps you should
> consider a collaboration with Nilges, that could provide us all with lots of
> amusement...
>
a.g.b-p
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
Andrew Werby
"WILLIAM PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:aZEF9.1139$hi5.60...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
> news:RIaF9.138241$WL3.62415@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > "William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:cbc76035.02112...@posting.google.com...
> [...]
(since
> > you give no specific examples) encompasses a wide range of stylistic
> > influences, from Boucher and Fragonnard to the Dutch masters of
> still-life.
> > I don't think you can dismiss a whole type of art in such a blanket
> offhand
> > manner just because of your perception of its subject matter. Despite
what
> > you say, significant advances were made in the early 20th century,
mostly
> by
> > illustrators such as Pyle, Rackham, and Parrish, working within the
> confines
> > dictated by popular taste. Just because they made a living from their
art
> > and had no need to court the critics and museums is no reason to exclude
> > them from consideration as serious artists.
>
> I don't. While I don't care so much for Rackham, I think
> that Parrish and Pyle are outstanding artists. However,
> I simply think of them as 19th century artists, so I did not
> have them in mind at all (in my third "bad heirs of 19th
> century realism" category).
[You're considering them to be 19th century artists because they used
techniques evolved in the 19th century? You don't feel they advanced these
techniques in any significant manner?]
I was thinking of certain people
> whose paintings you can find right now in big commercial
> galleries, such as Kincade, for one. His work provides
> an excellent example of pretty, non-challenging art that
> would be welcome in middle class homes of the
> 19th Century. He has escaped the curse of
> Modernism, some in this group might say.
[So why is he classed as an "heir" at all? There are plenty of artists who
paint in the styles of previous eras. Wouldn't "throwback" be a more
appropriate term? Why spend time denouncing the art of the past? These 3
schools you mention as having made no perceptible advance over the 19th
century have plenty of company in this regard. In the galleries, you can
find Impressionist work done last year that would fit right into a 19th
century salon. Some people make neo-petroglyphic art that looks like it
would be more at home on a cave wall, for that matter. ]
> > The Photo-realist school you have favored with your approval has never
> much
> > appealed to me.
>
> I think Photo-realist is an outdated term. But they were originally
> called photorealists, true. I am sure they all have a different view
> of that word, and I don't know if any of them would feel the term
> can be appropriately applied to them at this time.
[They certainly seem to fit the original definition- artists whose work
consists of photographs meticulously copied in paint.]
>
> While I'm not familiar with the specific artists you
> > enumerate (any online images you can point us to?),
>
> Not at this moment, but I will see if I can come up
> anything for you.
>
> in general it seems to
> > consist of snapshots (that wouldn't garner a second look if published in
a
> > magazine) laboriously transferred to canvas by hand. This is supposed to
> > embue them with an aura of Art,
>
> You are simply mistaken. I am absolutely convinced that Cotttingham's
> "Busch's Jeweler's Sign" is one of the most significant works of realist
> art produced in the 20th century. And Don Eddy's "New Shoes for
> H." is equally profound.
[I did a Google image search for Robert Cottingham, who seems like a
photorealist in the original sense of the term, and what I found (not
Busch's Jewelers, but numerous other signs) seems to confirm what I said
earlier. I did not see any particular advance over the photographic
original, although, admittedly, I'm looking at photographs of the paintings
reduced to small dimensions. Perhaps the paintings themselves have more
impact- but on the other hand, an equivalent-sized photographic print might
match it. Don Eddy's work affects me in exactly the same way. I'm not sure
if this is the one you mean, but
(http://www.artregisterpress.com/DonEddy/Img/Chapter3/shoeshmsm.jpeg) this
image seems like a rather nondescript example of photography, perhaps with a
Photoshop filter applied. Instead of using your "thesis" to put down art
which nobody who cares about art today particularly likes anyway, I think
your time would be better spent in explaining exactly what's so "profound"
about this art which you apparently do like. If you are absolutely certain
that this is great art, why don't you put your considerable polemic powers
to work by convincing the rest of us to share your view? Until that time, I
suppose I'll continue to be "mistaken".]
>
> but the banality of the original images,
> > licensed by the cheap irony of PostModernism, is only magnified in the
> > examples I've seen. While there's nothing inherently wrong with the
> > technique, it doesn't, in and of itself, make a dowdy photograph into a
> > stunning work of art. But perhaps you have some examples that refute
this?
>
> Absolutely. I might mention Audry Flack's "Grand Rose," for instance.
> I think Ralph Goings "Diner with Red Door," would be another good
> example, as well as his "Unadilla Diner."
[Nothing there to compare with Hopper's treatment of the same theme, I'm
afraid.]
I would also call into
> evidence John Salt's "'58 Chevy Without Hood," because that
> picture casts a strange spell while likely striking a familiar chord with
> so many viewers. Tthe latter is not everyone's idea of a pretty
> picture, but it gets back to this "beautiful/ugly" matter. It
> is challenging, original and thought-provoking art.
[So you say, but saying so doesn't make it true for the rest of us. Where
did you see these pictures? At the size I'm finding them on the net, they lo
ok exactly like they must have when they started out- dull snapshots. If, as
you seem to contend, the act of copying these images meticulously onto
canvas somehow, magically, infuses them with new qualities; what are these
qualities? Do they reside in the scale of the resulting image, or in the
fact that being oil on canvas they must be looked upon as art? Or do you
contend that in the act of copying, the artist has brought new insight to
bear, and with tiny details that are escaping my notice has given them fresh
life? Do you think that if a machine were constructed to do this
automatically, that the impact would be the same? What if they were done in
a factory in Singapore, by humans? Are you confident that you would be able
to tell the difference? Or are you saying that the art is in the photograph
itself, and the work of the artist is merely to develop it, as it were?]
> >
> > I think you might have to look further afield than the galleries of La
> Jolla
> > to find art that extended the realist tradition into new aesthetic
areas.
> > There are quite a few artists in the twentieth century who used the
tools
> > afforded by classical art training to break new ground. Look for works
by
> > the German Expressionists, like Otto Dix and Kathe Kollwitz,
>
> I don't really care much for those two, any more than I care for
> Kokoschka and Egon Schiele, their forerunners. I find all four
> rather boring.
[Is that due to their limitations, or your own? I could say you're
"mistaken" here, but I'm willing to concede that these are matters of
personal taste, perhaps subject to change with personal growth. ]
>
> or by the
> > Fantastic Realists like Anton Lehmden or Ernst Fuchs. MC Escher, Rene
> > Magritte, and Pavel Tchelitchew each took realistic technique in a
> different
> > direction, and achieved stunning results. Get back to us when you've
done
> > your homework, okay?]
>
> Except for Magritte, you list artists I don't particularly care
> for and then tell me to go do my homework. Is that not
> a bit patronzing and cavalier of you?
[I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I value your contributions, and didn't
mean to be insulting. I have no way of knowing where your tastes lie, but
thought I'd mention some heirs of the realist tradition who, unlike most of
the examples you cite, did make advances in the 20th century. And it was you
who started using pedagogical metaphors in this "thesis". I do think that
any serious survey of contemporary realist art will have to be based on more
research than you've told us about so far.]
Nothing against
> Escher, who makes for a great brain-teaser, but as a
> serious artist, Escher does not rate even being mentioned
> in the same breath as Dali, for instance. As far as
> realists go, I like Maynard Dixon, too, and an obscure
> portrait painter named John Carroll.
>
> a.g.b-p
[I won't get into the game of who's to be mentioned in a breath with whom. I
share your appreciation of Maynard Dixon, although I find his output uneven.
His landscapes, though, are a convincing example of what a real painter
brings to a subject that a photographer cannot, even if he should
subsequently transfer his photos to canvas.]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
William Palmer
> > that Parrish and Pyle are outstanding artists. However,
> > I simply think of them as 19th century artists, so I did not
> > have them in mind at all (in my third "bad heirs of 19th
> > century realism" category).
>
> [You're considering them to be 19th century artists because they used
> techniques evolved in the 19th century? You don't feel they advanced these
> techniques in any significant manner?]
Parrish was born in 1870. Since he started
painting fairly early in life, I think his
basic technique was pretty well established
by the end of the 19th century. That is not
to suggest he did not refine his technique
at all after that, but I really don't think
the movements of the 20th century had much
effect on his art. And, frankly, I am glad
they didn't, because those strong 19th century
influences were perfect for the path he chose
to take with his work, which resulted in some
of the most imaginative illustration ever done
to this day. Howard Pyle, born in 1853, was
of course even more of the 19th century than
Maxfield Parrish. One of the thing I love
about Pyle is the way he illustrated pirates.
I don't any artist has ever captured the
look of the pirates the way Pyle did. The
man was an absolute genius of illustration.
> I was thinking of certain people
> > whose paintings you can find right now in big commercial
> > galleries, such as Kincade, for one. His work provides
> > an excellent example of pretty, non-challenging art that
> > would be welcome in middle class homes of the
> > 19th Century. He has escaped the curse of
> > Modernism, some in this group might say.
>
> [So why is he classed as an "heir" at all? There are plenty of artists who
> paint in the styles of previous eras. Wouldn't "throwback" be a more
> appropriate term? Why spend time denouncing the art of the past?
I am not denouncing the art of the past. I am
simply asserting that true artists always move
in new directions. They don't paint pictures
to look like their predecessors from a century--
or a generation, for that matter--back painted
them. Did Delacroix paint in such a manner as
to suggest to viewers that the pictures he,
Delacroix, painted were painted by David instead?
If Delacroix painted like David, we would not have
Delacroix masterpieces. We would have David and
we would have some guy (we would not remember his
name) who came along a couple of generations later
and painted second-rate David. I don't understand
why some people have a hard time wrestling with
that. The highest order of artists always do
"make it new," but that refers to genuine artistic
advancement, not novelty and gimmickry.
These 3
> schools you mention as having made no perceptible advance over the 19th
> century have plenty of company in this regard. In the galleries, you can
> find Impressionist work done last year that would fit right into a 19th
> century salon.
I certainly can't deny that, since I saw some of it
in those La Jolla galleries I mentioned last week.
That gets back to the one of the reasons why
Impressionism triumphed for so long. Art dealers
were quick to realize that it was easy to produce
and easy to imititate, so when the original
Impressionists passed from the scene, there would
be others doing the same sort of thing in order to
keep the money flowing.
Some people make neo-petroglyphic art that looks like it
> would be more at home on a cave wall, for that matter. ]
Sad but true.
a.g.b-p.
William Palmer
> "WILLIAM PALMER" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:aZEF9.1139$hi5.60...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > > The Photo-realist school you have favored with your approval has never
> much
> > > appealed to me.
> >
> > I think Photo-realist is an outdated term. But they were originally
> > called photorealists, true. I am sure they all have a different view
> > of that word, and I don't know if any of them would feel the term
> > can be appropriately applied to them at this time.
>
> [They certainly seem to fit the original definition- artists whose work
> consists of photographs meticulously copied in paint.]
Well, that is more a popular misconception than
a fact. Their work--or at least their Seventies
work--shows photographic influences, but that is
about all. In the case of all of them worth
mentioning, the photography is only a jumping
off place--their art takes over. And really,
it is not fair to lump them together (which
I myself have done at times) because they are
actually very different in many respects,
including the way the influence of photography
shows itself in their work. Characteristically
for me, the so called "photorealist" whose work
I enjoy the least, is the one who currently
receives the most attention from the critics:
Chuck Close. His art does not do that much for
me. I like Cottingham, Estes, Flack and some
others far better.
Interesting thoughts well worth considering!
> >
> > but the banality of the original images,
> > > licensed by the cheap irony of PostModernism, is only magnified in the
> > > examples I've seen. While there's nothing inherently wrong with the
> > > technique, it doesn't, in and of itself, make a dowdy photograph into a
> > > stunning work of art. But perhaps you have some examples that refute
> this?
> >
> > Absolutely. I might mention Audry Flack's "Grand Rose," for instance.
> > I think Ralph Goings "Diner with Red Door," would be another good
> > example, as well as his "Unadilla Diner."
>
> [Nothing there to compare with Hopper's treatment of the same theme, I'm
> afraid.]
Again, I simply disagree. While I enjoy some Hopper,
I think he is vastly overrated. Sometimes I find
him to be downright soporific. I put him in the
same category as certain other famous painters: While
I recognize that they have created a few masterpieces,
I don't find them consistently interesting the way
I find Mucha, Bocklin, and Stuart Davis, for instance.
>
> I would also call into
> > evidence John Salt's "'58 Chevy Without Hood," because that
> > picture casts a strange spell while likely striking a familiar chord with
> > so many viewers. Tthe latter is not everyone's idea of a pretty
> > picture, but it gets back to this "beautiful/ugly" matter. It
> > is challenging, original and thought-provoking art.
>
> [So you say, but saying so doesn't make it true for the rest of us. Where
> did you see these pictures?
I saw them at the rich man's library, in a book called
PHOTOREALISM by Louis K. Meisel. The reproductions
are excellent.
At the size I'm finding them on the net, they lo
> ok exactly like they must have when they started out- dull snapshots. If, as
> you seem to contend, the act of copying these images meticulously onto
> canvas somehow, magically, infuses them with new qualities; what are these
> qualities? Do they reside in the scale of the resulting image, or in the
> fact that being oil on canvas they must be looked upon as art? Or do you
> contend that in the act of copying, the artist has brought new insight to
> bear, and with tiny details that are escaping my notice has given them fresh
> life? Do you think that if a machine were constructed to do this
> automatically, that the impact would be the same? What if they were done in
> a factory in Singapore, by humans? Are you confident that you would be able
> to tell the difference? Or are you saying that the art is in the photograph
> itself, and the work of the artist is merely to develop it, as it were?]
Challenging questions, to be sure. Perhaps I will
work up the ambition to try and answer them in some
future post.
> > >
> > > I think you might have to look further afield than the galleries of La
> Jolla
> > > to find art that extended the realist tradition into new aesthetic
> areas.
> > > There are quite a few artists in the twentieth century who used the
> tools
> > > afforded by classical art training to break new ground. Look for works
> by
> > > the German Expressionists, like Otto Dix and Kathe Kollwitz,
> >
> > I don't really care much for those two, any more than I care for
> > Kokoschka and Egon Schiele, their forerunners. I find all four
> > rather boring.
>
> [Is that due to their limitations, or your own? I could say you're
> "mistaken" here, but I'm willing to concede that these are matters of
> personal taste, perhaps subject to change with personal growth. ]
> >
> > or by the
> > > Fantastic Realists like Anton Lehmden or Ernst Fuchs. MC Escher, Rene
> > > Magritte, and Pavel Tchelitchew each took realistic technique in a
> different
> > > direction, and achieved stunning results. Get back to us when you've
> done
> > > your homework, okay?]
> >
> > Except for Magritte you list artists I don't particularly care
> > for and then tell me to go do my homework. Is that not
> > a bit patronzing and cavalier of you?
>
> [I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I value your contributions, and didn't
> mean to be insulting. I have no way of knowing where your tastes lie, but
> thought I'd mention some heirs of the realist tradition who, unlike most of
> the examples you cite, did make advances in the 20th century. And it was you
> who started using pedagogical metaphors in this "thesis". I do think that
> any serious survey of contemporary realist art will have to be based on more
> research than you've told us about so far.]
I suspect you are quite right. Anyway,
thanks much for responding with the
well-expressed and challenging thoughts.
Erik A. Mattila
>>It's just another form of 'vanity press.'
>
>
> Nonsense. In fact, by stating that you simply
> give yourself away as a hidebound, ulta-conservative,
> reactionary print-world fossil. The old vanity
> press model does not fit Usenet, and I will try
> to set you straight in as few words as possible.
Yes, please set me straight on this....
> Basically, people used vanity press (paid their
> own publishing and printing costs) because they
> wanted the satisfaction of seeing themselves in
> print.
And you do not pay for your computer, isp charges, electricity and so
on? Are you not writing your pseudo-thesis for satisfaction of seeing
yourself in print?
The needed that to validate their self
> image as a writer, in other words.
You do not have this need?
Yet, as far
> as what is really significant about making someone
> a writer, they usually lacked an essential ingredient:
> readers. Yes, it is true you can make 15,000 Usenet
> posts and still be whistling up the chimney
> as far as readers. But by the time you can
> demonstrate you are entertaining enough to
> inspire many thousands of DIFFERENT people to
> take time from their busy days to follow you
> up, you can safely assume you are better-known
> as a writer than ninety-five percent of the
> authors listed in BOOKS IN PRINT. You are
> talking to the Wordscreen Man here, Mr.
> Mattila. Try to remember that.
So you are saying that you have a entourage of loyal readers?
>>the outline you wrote doesn't fill the criteria of a 'thesis' by any
>>stretch of the imagination,
>
>
> I suggest you get hold of a good dictionary.
> For instance, THE NEW SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH
> DICTIONARY makes it very clear that one
> perfectly valid sense of the word "thesis"
> is "A proposition laid down or stated, esp., one
> maintained or put forward in an argument..."
> By trying to force me to use the only sense
> you know of a word with several important
> senses, you are putting your limited vocabularly
> on parade, Mr. Mattila.
Do you know what the 'senses' represent in OED, in terms of etomology?
> and even your poorly defined central
>>premise, "heirs to 19th realism" fails for two important reasons: 1)
>>there is no such thing as "19th Century realism" and
>
>
> That's a silly argument. You are up to your
> old trick of trying to force me to abide by
> your verbal limitations. OF COURSE there is
> a "19th century realism." Half the people
> reading this could immediately name at least
> one dozen examples of artists who whose work
> could be said to fit such a description.
Well, let me put it another way. Is there a "19th Century non-realism?"
The point is that in citing "19th Century realism" as an artistic
tradition you are more or less citing +all+ paintings done in the 19th
Century. Granted, there are a few niches of non-objective works of art
such as Islamic symbolism and Ukranian decoration.
> 2) you cannot argue
>
>>lineage/influence in art history based on appearance without committing
>>the "like begets like" fallacy. That's the work of the art
>>historian/critic - to show by +documentation+ that a Russian artist who
>>painted Socialist Realism was influenced by a 19th century painter.
>>That both painted a military figure on a horse does not satisfy the
>>credibility requirement.
> Never read such a silly bundle of horsefeathers!
I wouldn't expect so, Bill. It's not a difficult concept, though.
"Like begets like" is proposed as a fundamental rule in biology, for
example. Mom and Dad will reproduce and Junior who will be close to a
carbon copy. That's self evident enough, but apply it to paleontology,
and it's a different thing altogether. A cambrian fossil resembles a
juraisic fossil, and the two are assumed to be phylogenically related
across time. Other diciplines beside morphology intervene - say,
cladistics - and show that the two fossils are not related, but rather
share morphological traits that evolved in parallel.
In art history, the same weakness in the like begets like inference is
present and is likely to produce a fallacy, since there are myriad
strategies involved in the decisions artists and societies make about
art. So the fundamental requirement of the art historians work is to
document the factors that led to the production of a work of art. Just
saying one painting from one context resembles another painting in
another context is not sufficient to establish a credible argument for
influnence.
Let me give you an example. I would like to write a paper that would
show that Mexican artists were influenced by the Barbizon Painters.
Several pieces exist to use for this argument. Rivera, Orozco, Goitia
and others were in Paris in 1912 hobnobbing with the rest of the Avant
Garde, especially Spanish speakers like Picasso, Juan Gris and others.
Perhaps the Mexicans were the models for Ibañez' Latino artists in "Four
Horseman of the Apocalpse." And the particular quality of the figures in
Rivera and Orozco, which is often cited as the "Indian" influence,
really looks more like Barbizon figures. Both the Mexican's and
Barbizons were out to valorize the working man and peasant, so that fits
too. Also, the precolumbian Mexican figures are actually quite
different that you see in the Mexican artist's work. But that is all
based on resemblance and the "like begets like" inference. What I would
have to do to write a credible paper on this is to show that the
Barbizon's were being exhibited in Paris while the Mexican's were there.
This might be the case, in fact - but that is a speculation. The
Barbizons were thoroughly discredited in the 19th century because they
wanted to valorize peasants and manual labor and that was considered
much to raw and offensive by the art viewing public. Furthermore, it
would be a really good paper I found some documented writings by any of
the Mexicans that they viewed and admired Barbizon paintings. But I
would have to learn French and research in France to write the paper.
That's what I mean by "the work of the art historian."
>>And a 'thesis' in most contexts asks for originality. What is
>>"original" about your idea?
>
> Another sophomorically-tricky question from Mr. Mattila!
> I would say that it is original unless YOU the challenger
> can let your fingers do the walking over to Google and
> find an example where someone else has posted the same
> thing, or can find an example from the print world
> where someone published it earlier. You can't, of
> course, because it only developed last week based
> on the three things I have already explained.
But the concept is not original, Bill. In fact, if you read George
Kubler's "The Shape of Time" you will see the same argument, but applied
more broadly than yours. He proposed "formal sequences" in art history
that transversed time, such as "landscape painting." The problem with
this is that it would suggest an evolutionary development between Roman
landscape painting and, say, Richard Diebenkorn's "Ocean Park" series.
It just doesn't work. In violates Irwin Panofsky's "disjunction" rule,
which shows that there was no continuity between the Romans and the
independent invention of landscape paintings in...where was it,
Flanders, Netherlands...in the 16th Century. Artists have been
continually reinventing things since they first started in the caves.
>>I think you should simply call your idea a 'essay' or 'proposal' instead
>>of attempting to pump it up with pomposity by declaring it a 'thesis.'
> Exactly who the heck are YOU to tell ME that
> I cannnot use a perfectly valid sense of a
> word, as the result of nothing other than
> your own limited vocabulary?
If you will re-read my sentence with care, you will see that I am not
"telling" you anything - just suggesting. Humility is a virtue, after
all. When Wayne Thieubaud sold his first million dollar painting, I saw
him interviewed on TV and he said that he did not consider himself an
artist - that was for others to decide, because an "artist" was
something very special that few attain. "I am a painter" he said. "I
can paint your house."
Erik
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
>
> >>It's just another form of 'vanity press.'
> >
> >
> > Nonsense. In fact, by stating that you simply
> > give yourself away as a hidebound, ulta-conservative,
> > reactionary print-world fossil. The old vanity
> > press model does not fit Usenet, and I will try
> > to set you straight in as few words as possible.
>
> Yes, please set me straight on this....
>
> > Basically, people used vanity press (paid their
> > own publishing and printing costs) because they
> > wanted the satisfaction of seeing themselves in
> > print.
> And you do not pay for your computer, isp charges, electricity and so
> on? Are you not writing your pseudo-thesis for satisfaction of seeing
> yourself in print?
No, sir, I am not. I put my proposition forward
in order that I might learn something interesting
while stirring up a bit of new thinking in the
minds of some others. Does that meet with your
approval?
>
> The needed that to validate their self
> > image as a writer, in other words.
>
> You do not have this need?
No, sir, I do not.
>
> Yet, as far
> > as what is really significant about making someone
> > a writer, they usually lacked an essential ingredient:
> > readers. Yes, it is true you can make 15,000 Usenet
> > posts and still be whistling up the chimney
> > as far as readers. But by the time you can
> > demonstrate you are entertaining enough to
> > inspire many thousands of DIFFERENT people to
> > take time from their busy days to follow you
> > up, you can safely assume you are better-known
> > as a writer than ninety-five percent of the
> > authors listed in BOOKS IN PRINT. You are
> > talking to the Wordscreen Man here, Mr.
> > Mattila. Try to remember that.
>
> So you are saying that you have a entourage of loyal readers?
I think the Google-nova makes that pretty clear
that they don't call me the tarbaby of the net
for nothing. You do a group search with "Bill
Palmer" plus about any general vocabulary word
in the dictionary and you come up with something
informative or at least amusing. Open sesame!
(And don't bother coming back with a lot of dirty
words vindictive flame war losers have spit out
trying in vain to sully my good name. That is
to be expected when you are the world champion of
internet flaming four years in a row. On the other
hand,you can keyword "Bill Palmer" and "dictionary";
"Bill Palmer" and "dissertation"; "Bill Palmer"
and "philosophy"; and even "Bill Palmer" and
"sesquipedalian" and find lots of astonishing
reading. Funny thing, this wonderful world
of words we call Usenet. You've got all the
words in the world whirling around in a
chudov.wordy cementmixer and you can find
most of them by keywording "Bill Palmer" plus
"whatever word." How that happened, why it
should happen, I could not begin to tell you,
but it should give you a hint that your
sophomoric word games are only feeding the
Google-nova, Mr. Mattila, and what even
terrifies ME sometimes is that the Google-
nova seems to be getting hungrier and
hungrier...though this is no place to speculate
on the "vast man of words like the humonculous
in the Great Wall of Galaxies" metaphor. But,
sir, I digress...
>
> >>the outline you wrote doesn't fill the criteria of a 'thesis' by any
> >>stretch of the imagination,
> >
> >
> > I suggest you get hold of a good dictionary.
> > For instance, THE NEW SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH
> > DICTIONARY makes it very clear that one
> > perfectly valid sense of the word "thesis"
> > is "A proposition laid down or stated, esp., one
> > maintained or put forward in an argument..."
> > By trying to force me to use the only sense
> > you know of a word with several important
> > senses, you are putting your limited vocabularly
> > on parade, Mr. Mattila.
>
> Do you know what the 'senses' represent in OED, in terms of etomology?
Yes, I do. If you read more, you would realize
that "thesis" (in the sense I used it) represents
perfectly correct standard English usage. The
sense I used the word in is not labeled "archaic,"
"obsolete," etc. You are hampered by your limited
reading habits, Mr. Mattila. The example sentence
my OXFORD gives (for the sense of the word that I
used) is "The thesis of this book is that there
is a...nurishment our souls crave." (H. Kushner)
[...]
a.g.b-p
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
[...] Snip of some recently posted commentary from
Erik. Some of it was quite interesting, in
my view, and I have no quarrel with a number
of his assertions.
> >>And a 'thesis' in most contexts asks for originality. What is
> >>"original" about your idea?
> >
> > Another sophomorically-tricky question from Mr. Mattila!
> > I would say that it is original unless YOU the challenger
> > can let your fingers do the walking over to Google and
> > find an example where someone else has posted the same
> > thing, or can find an example from the print world
> > where someone published it earlier. You can't, of
> > course, because it only developed last week based
> > on the three things I have already explained.
>
> But the concept is not original, Bill.
I've got news for you. You can't copyright a concept.
You can only copyright the expression (in some
traditional literary form) or the development
of the concept. And I think you are intelligent
enough to see that expression and development is
is strictly Bill Palmer. The fact that someone
may have thought of the general idea before does
not matter. If it did, we would have to say that
the thousands of "alien invasion" books, comics,
and movies have all stolen the concept H. G. Wells
used in WAR OF THE WORLDS.
In fact, if you read George
> Kubler's
KUBLER? I'm not interested in that "K". If you
talk about Khnopff, Kubin, Klinger, or Keller, then
maybe we can get back on the same wavelength here.
"The Shape of Time" you will see the same argument, but applied
> more broadly than yours. He proposed "formal sequences" in art history
> that transversed time, such as "landscape painting." The problem with
> this is that it would suggest an evolutionary development between Roman
> landscape painting and, say, Richard Diebenkorn's "Ocean Park" series.
> It just doesn't work. In violates Irwin Panofsky's "disjunction" rule,
> which shows that there was no continuity between the Romans and the
> independent invention of landscape paintings in...where was it,
> Flanders, Netherlands...in the 16th Century. Artists have been
> continually reinventing things since they first started in the caves.
>
> >>I think you should simply call your idea a 'essay' or 'proposal' instead
> >>of attempting to pump it up with pomposity by declaring it a 'thesis.'
>
> > Exactly who the heck are YOU to tell ME that
> > I cannnot use a perfectly valid sense of a
> > word, as the result of nothing other than
> > your own limited vocabulary?
>
> If you will re-read my sentence with care, you will see that I am not
> "telling" you anything - just suggesting. Humility is a virtue, after
> all. When Wayne Thieubaud sold his first million dollar painting, I saw
> him interviewed on TV and he said that he did not consider himself an
> artist - that was for others to decide, because an "artist" was
> something very special that few attain. "I am a painter" he said. "I
> can paint your house."
I like Thiebaud and his pies. Thiebaud is what I
call one of the "good pop artists," the ones who
paint both representationally and imaginatively.
The "bad pop artists," are the ones who paint
abstract crap. Yet, as I say that, it occurs to
me that it is somewhat interesting that pop art
split in a manner that parallels the division in
modern art in general, between the abstractionists,
expressionists, cubists, etc., on one side, and the
surrealists, the so-called photojournalists, etc.,
on the other. Hmm...that may call for a thesis
of some sort... a.g.b-p.
>
> Erik
Erik A. Mattila
>>>>the outline you wrote doesn't fill the criteria of a 'thesis' by any
>>>>stretch of the imagination,
>>>
>>>
>>>I suggest you get hold of a good dictionary.
>>>For instance, THE NEW SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH
>>>DICTIONARY makes it very clear that one
>>>perfectly valid sense of the word "thesis"
>>>is "A proposition laid down or stated, esp., one
>>>maintained or put forward in an argument..."
>>>By trying to force me to use the only sense
>>>you know of a word with several important
>>>senses, you are putting your limited vocabularly
>>>on parade, Mr. Mattila.
>>
>>Do you know what the 'senses' represent in OED, in terms of etomology?
>
>
> Yes, I do. If you read more, you would realize
> that "thesis" (in the sense I used it) represents
> perfectly correct standard English usage. The
> sense I used the word in is not labeled "archaic,"
> "obsolete," etc. You are hampered by your limited
> reading habits, Mr. Mattila. The example sentence
> my OXFORD gives (for the sense of the word that I
> used) is "The thesis of this book is that there
> is a...nurishment our souls crave." (H. Kushner)
Well, it doesn't have to be archaic to be out of style. But seriously,
word use standards ought to address what people who read your posts
understand. If you're using a sense 3 or 4 notches down the list,
you're out of date - but more importantly, likely to be misunderstood.
That's the problem with reading too much 19th Century English Literature
...you'll start talking weird (just kidding).
Just like the "Mr. Mattila" you like to use, and the 'sir' - that's
straight out of old fashioned rhetorical device. I've done it myself,
so I'm not saying it is a word crime. It just sounds somewhat
'affected' by today's vernacular. I know, I know...I'm being sophomoric
- I just can't help myself. Look, we've been arguing enough to be
friendly about it. My name is Erik. When you write "Mr. Mattila, Sir!"
I read "Hey, asshole..." since that's the connotation. But the
Victorians were like that...saying one thing but meaning another. The
vulgarity is just "understood." It's inherently dishonest.
But dang, you ignored my argument in favor of ego defense, which is
disappointing. That's the only part of my post that has to do with art
and art history. Regretfully I'll have to add this to your shopping
list of superficiality.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
First, Bill, let me apologise for claiming that you didn't repond to my
argument in my previous post. I didn't see this lurking down the list.
But you limit yourself if you think of 'originality' only in the sense
of copyrightable concepts. You can rewright Bernard Berenson to your
hearts content, but your product will not be "original." Your examples
are interesting, because they underscore one important basis of
popularity, and that is redundancy. From mythology to TV shows, people
love seeing the 'same old story' over and over again, with different
embellishments.
>
>>Kubler's
>
>
> KUBLER? I'm not interested in that "K". If you
> talk about Khnopff, Kubin, Klinger, or Keller, then
> maybe we can get back on the same wavelength here.
Well, I know you are interested in art and art history, even beyond the
pale of western civilization, so George Kubler would probably snag your
interest if you gave him a whirl. His magnum opus is "Art and
Architecture of Ancient America" Yale University Press: 1984 "The Shape
of Time" is his only theory piece, and while I find it lacking, I his
art history work is outstanding. For example, he was the first to
define the Mexican cathedrals as unique, due to the precolumbian stone
masonry that was used in their construction by native tradesmen. Also,
he fought to classify Spanish cathredrals as a unique form of Rococo,
due to their Arab influence.
Yes, but Wayne told me that he didn't accept being typecast as a
pop-artist, since he wasn't. The mistake was based on a really bland
superficiality, i.e. an assumption made entirely by virtue of
appearances - not even 'painterly' appearances, just subject matter.
Pop Art and Thibaud paintings share hardly any other attributes.
But I'm confused. Do you mean "Pop Art" or just "modern art" that you
are calling "pop art." If you mean "Pop Art" the "split" you are
speaking of is very suspect, as there was not "abstract" painting
assiciated with PopArt.
And you still didn't address the argument I made, which I made to refute
your so-called "thesis."
Erik
William Palmer
> William Palmer wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DE87E40...@oco.net>...
> > I like Thiebaud and his pies. Thiebaud is what I
> > call one of the "good pop artists," the ones who
> > paint both representationally and imaginatively.
> > The "bad pop artists," are the ones who paint
> > abstract crap. Yet, as I say that, it occurs to
> > me that it is somewhat interesting that pop art
> > split in a manner that parallels the division in
> > modern art in general, between the abstractionists,
> > expressionists, cubists, etc., on one side, and the
> > surrealists, the so-called photojournalists, etc.,
> > on the other. Hmm...that may call for a thesis
> > of some sort... a.g.b-p.
>
> Yes, but Wayne told me that he didn't accept being typecast as a
> pop-artist, since he wasn't. The mistake was based on a really bland
> superficiality, i.e. an assumption made entirely by virtue of
> appearances - not even 'painterly' appearances, just subject matter.
> Pop Art and Thibaud paintings share hardly any other attributes.
>
> But I'm confused. Do you mean "Pop Art" or just "modern art" that you
> are calling "pop art." If you mean "Pop Art" the "split" you are
> speaking of is very suspect, as there was not "abstract" painting
> assiciated with PopArt.
I suppose the truth of it is, I am letting other
people define "pop art" for me. I have read
several books on pop-art, including POP ART by
Jamie James (Borders); POP ART by Tilman
Osterwald (Taschen); and the very thorough study
by Marco Livenstone POP ART: A CONTINUING HISTORY
(Thames and Hudson). All give considerable
attention to Thiebaud. However, I certainly
understand why an artist would not want to be
pigeonholed. My suspicion is that most of
the artists who are usually called "photo-
realists" see themselves as having moved beyond
that too. Both terms (pop artist and photorealist)
seem limiting, somehow
>
> And you still didn't address the argument I made, which I made to refute
> your so-called "thesis."
You fell apart because you were overly broad in
your attack.
a.g.b-p
>
> Erik
Erik A. Mattila
>>And you still didn't address the argument I made, which I made to refute
>>your so-called "thesis."
>
>
> You fell apart because you were overly broad in
> your attack.
>
>
> a.g.b-p
That can't be true. It was specifically addressed to the problem of
claiming affinity and/or relationships in art history. That's not broad
in any sense. And the need for documented evidence is even narrower.
Erik