Chelsea again
John Haber
about Chelsea's galleries last weekend. First, a quick list of things
that caught my eye.
At Wessel (out of the neighborhood's way east, toward Madison Square),
a worthwhile show centered around Jean Cocteau -- both drawings by him
and photos or drawings of him. The quality isn't quite enough to make
it a museum show, with no feel for his epic encounter with Picasso
just as Cubism was ending, but fun.
At Liebman-Magnum, Sonita Singwi has a way of making a thin, weaving
line contain varied colors, with that shape as if it were pouring from
a (very thin) hose. In my favorites, the curve crossed several small
canvases lined up, otherwise greyish white. It was like being asked
to follow color as it found its way. It made a nice contrast to those
more highly touted wiggles (the movements of a computer mouse) I
mentioned thinking kinda silly, from Jeff Elrod at Pat Hearn.
I mentioned a spare abstract painter at Thatcher. The name is Fran
Badur, and Patrick Wilson is next store at Stux. Maybe or maybe not
more viable, because enriched by conceptual links to history and
architecture, are the sort of neo-Bauhaus by Stig Brogger (at DCA).
At Devon, Jean Kirkland pursues that idea of homemade rectilinear
furniture design to the point where it becomes a room-filling monster;
clever, but it did not stick with me.
Also in architecture, Protech (of course) has studies by Zaha Hadid,
the pomo Israeli. I have trouble understanding this kind of design,
because it's hard to dismantle concepts of architecture while allowing
people to use the building. When, then inevitably, the funny business
has to become apart from the structural, a revival of the decorative,
perhaps it becomes even more pomo through the concept of the arbitrary
and the popular, but then it also penetrates less into its initial
vision, I think.
Photos were all over, often the documentation of cynicism -- such as
Charlie White's funny but annoying staged horror movies in LA
settings, at Andrea Rosen. Mike Kelley's still indulging in the same
themes, using installations that I just take as sophomoric, but maybe
I'm getting old. Those are just examples, though, so I better mention
the photos I liked best -- from Roni Horn (of all people), of the
Arctic Circle. She calls them Pi (as in circle), but that doesn't add
much for me. Maybe if it were the Greek Circle. I'll quit on others
while I'm ahead
Videos included one at Folin from Tom White that I wanted to call
"Saving Private Viola" -- oversized, slow motion, out of focus,
moving figures. Like Bill Viola, it couldn't decide whether to be
disorienting of ordinary experience or sentimentally the
larger-than-life artist, and the male theme didn't help.
On the other hand, my favorite show of the day, hands down, was a
video. Myriam LaPlante at Anina Nosei also includes photographs, all
on the theme of a woman photographed as a ghostly translucent image or
obscured by an unfamiliar pattern, perhaps wallpaper in a decorative
interior. It's already as if an aging person were left with a life in
which a sad, old-fashioned apartment had taken over and left her
hardly a ghost to feel flesh and time weighing down while others could
no longer even see her. I don't know if she's her own actor.
The video made this explicit, which can be a bad move, but here it
clearly improved on things that way. The translucent woman keeps
trying to leave a more solid and nearly cubical, almost bare room.
She walks toward the wall, knowing she's not part of that image's
world any longer, but always she bumps solid and must sit for rest.
Meanwhile others from time to time, apparently as solid and colorful
as the room, pass through the scene untouched. What makes its mix of
Kafka and nostalgia work is the humor. It undermines the simple
message, as does the video technique. For if she's not part of this
image, who is she to say she's hurt?
John
A.A. Raimes
<jh...@columbia.edu> writes
>
>I mentioned a spare abstract painter at Thatcher.
Pleeeeeeese John - tell this *eyes agog* Brit who on earth would show in
a gallery named after one of the most notorious fascists of the 20
century. Maybe I can come over with my plaques and block the door for a
couple of weeks with the words *hear the truth* on them !
>
>Videos included one at Folin from Tom White that I wanted to call
>"Saving Private Viola" -- oversized, slow motion, out of focus,
>moving figures. Like Bill Viola, it couldn't decide whether to be
>disorienting of ordinary experience or sentimentally the
>larger-than-life artist, and the male theme didn't help.
Well, on my list of memorable exhibitions, Bill Viola's *Messenger* at
Durham Cathedral here in England, rates just below Turner and Rothko at
the Tate, and Anish Kapoor at the Hayward. But maybe the sentimental in
me took over (I saw Viola's exhibition two days after my father died)
Nice to know what is going on in Chelsea over there ... I will try and
let you know what is happening in our Chelsea here too - got to keep the
balance eh ?
Cheers !
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
John Haber
with a gallery guide, and it was imposing -- things so spread out as
one got further east. I keep meaning to visit artist friends who
moved there recently from the burbs, too (St. Albans).
It's so funny the gallery here is called Margaret Thatcher, isn't it?
I concur totally with your throwing around the word "fascist" somewhat
loosely when it comes to this name! Anyhow, the gallery's owner, as
well as someone caring enough generally to be there near the desk, is
in fact a Margaret and a bit wide shouldered like your version, but
not _too_ unfriendly. If I were her, though, I'd have named the
gallery anything other than after myself. There must at least be an
anagram.
John
A.A. Raimes
<jh...@columbia.edu> writes
>Hi, Alison! I'd love to hear about London. I tried walking around
>with a gallery guide, and it was imposing -- things so spread out as
>one got further east. I keep meaning to visit artist friends who
>moved there recently from the burbs, too (St. Albans).
John: you need a guide ! It would be my honour if you decide to visit.
In fact you are in luck - for a living I deliver artists' work from
exhibitions, so I get to know all the galleries, especially those ones
that aren't listed in those glossy mags. Apart from the war to try and
even break even doing it (under the oppression of uniform wearing
fatherless gentlemen who are *only doing their job*), it is a great way
to meet lots of artists and to suss out the venues. Transport systems
can be difficult in unknown territories - in London you can get a pretty
cheap travel card that will take you all over London by bus, train and
tube on the one ticket. It is then a matter of map reading ... or
relying on an informed guide !
>
>It's so funny the gallery here is called Margaret Thatcher, isn't it?
>I concur totally with your throwing around the word "fascist" somewhat
>loosely when it comes to this name! Anyhow, the gallery's owner, as
>well as someone caring enough generally to be there near the desk, is
>in fact a Margaret and a bit wide shouldered like your version, but
>not _too_ unfriendly. If I were her, though, I'd have named the
>gallery anything other than after myself. There must at least be an
>anagram.
>
>John
Poor soul, how very unfortunate ! I will take down the placards
immediately and offer to paint her new signs. I am one of those Thatcher
baby bankrupts ... the ones she lead to the water and then pushed in to
drown. And now she has the audacity to stand next to the mass murderer
Pinochet and put her arms around him. I tell you ... if I had a gun ....
John Haber
>immediately and offer to paint her new signs.
ROFL. (Well, at least literally LOL.) And thanks. I keep hoping
I'll visit my friends soon, so I'll definitely catch you if I do. I
just had a friend from west of Oxford who had my living room for a
week, so I must invade England in revenge. And I can tell Barbara
that I'm there to help her husband and children adjust to London.
Seriously, her ex sued for custody of the kids, on the grounds that
the city isn't a fit place for children. It was dismissed as
frivolous, but think of the advantages: would relieve the
overcrowding if no children allowed, right-wing loonies wouldn't be
able to complain about immigrants taking over the nation....
John
Wynn Kramarsky
> Hi, Alison! I'd love to hear about London. I tried walking around
> with a gallery guide, and it was imposing -- things so spread out as
> one got further east. I keep meaning to visit artist friends who
> moved there recently from the burbs, too (St. Albans).
>
> It's so funny the gallery here is called Margaret Thatcher, isn't it?
> I concur totally with your throwing around the word "fascist" somewhat
> loosely when it comes to this name! Anyhow, the gallery's owner, as
> well as someone caring enough generally to be there near the desk, is
> in fact a Margaret and a bit wide shouldered like your version, but
> not _too_ unfriendly. If I were her, though, I'd have named the
> gallery anything other than after myself. There must at least be an
> anagram.
>
> John
The current show there, Frank Badur, is worth a visit. Ask to see the
goaches;they are spectacular.
A.A. Raimes
<jh...@columbia.edu> writes
>ROFL. (Well, at least literally LOL.) And thanks. I keep hoping
Calm down now John, can't have that suit getting dirty, can we eh ?!!
>I'll visit my friends soon, so I'll definitely catch you if I do. I
>just had a friend from west of Oxford who had my living room for a
>week, so I must invade England in revenge.
There are some good galleries in the Oxford area and Bath (just south)
has become a growing centre for arts outside London as well as being a
fascinating historical town. I have a show going up in Peterborough
(about 40 miles north of London) next month - they just opened an arts
centre there - so that area may be worth keeping an eye on. Yesterday I
discovered a new gallery in Chelsea that had some interesting work from
emerging artists - keeping an eye on that one too. London has many new
galleries opening up these days, which hopefully is a sign of recovery
from the late 1980's recession that devastated Britain. I have just
joined a co-op of artists - fifteen in all - who have leased premises at
Gabriel's Wharf close to the South Bank (at Waterloo) and between us we
run the gallery, each doing their share of the admin. and gallery
sitting. We get a space to show and pay rent, but no commission. It
seems to work well and I particularly like the idea that we work as a
team. Nothing like consolidating resources is there ? I suggested to
that we should try and register the gallery as a charity - all the
artists pay their own individual tax (or refunds in most cases) so it is
in fact a non-profit making organisation aimed at promoting art. Have
you ever come across this before ?
>And I can tell Barbara
>that I'm there to help her husband and children adjust to London.
>Seriously, her ex sued for custody of the kids, on the grounds that
>the city isn't a fit place for children. It was dismissed as
>frivolous, but think of the advantages: would relieve the
>overcrowding if no children allowed, right-wing loonies wouldn't be
>able to complain about immigrants taking over the nation....
>
>John
Well that would sure cut down the volume of traffic in London as the
school's close. Maybe I will write to our whimpy, thumb sucking prime
minister and propose it.
John, you seem like a pretty reasonable sort of a chap - can *you* tell
me who are considered to be the leading American contemporary artists
that are supposedly *leading* the art world - are we to assume that _Art
in America_ gives a true picture ? I am genuinely interested but when I
asked whoever made that statement to clarify it's grounding they didn't
answer.
Cheers !
April Showers
says...
>I suggested to
>that we should try and register the gallery as a charity - all the
>artists pay their own individual tax (or refunds in most cases) so it is
>in fact a non-profit making organisation aimed at promoting art. Have
>you ever come across this before ?
Realizing you aren't fond of my responses, I carry on
anyway.
The non-profit art co-ops have been in existence in the
USA for many years now. There are some that have been
very long-lived and others that have floundered and failed.
Mis-management possibly being the reason for failed ones.
One of the more interesting is the one on the Potomac
near Washington, D.C. that took over an old WWII torpedo
factory. It reminds me somewhat of the Pompidou (sp?)
in Paris with all it's oddball factory pipes and such
showing. In San Antonio, TX there is an organization
known as Blue Star Art Space which started by taking
over abandoned and dilapidated wharehouse space. In recent
years the facilities have undergone complete renovation
and of course the rents went up. There is probably not
a major city in the USA that doesn't have similar art
co-op spaces.
April Showers
>Realizing you aren't fond of my responses, I carry on
>anyway.
>In San Antonio, TX there is an organization
>known as Blue Star Art Space
My own particular interest in San Antonio is
because I lived there for two years while completing
my MFA at the Univ. of Texas, SA.
Following is copied from the www.blue-star.net
web site:
Contemporary Art For San Antonio (Texas)
The Blue Star Arts Complex is an innovative adaption of historic warehouse
buildings into an arts-oriented mixed use development
which includes affordable loft/studio apartments, galleries, retail,
performance spaces, and artists' work spaces.
The Blue Star Arts Complex buildings sit on what used to be a downtown
warehouse terminal of the MKT (Katy) Railroad. The
Complex is on the San Antonio River on the Southern edge of the central
business district. Across the river lies the King William
Historic District, a neighborhood of restored turn of the century homes.
Since its rebirth in 1985, Blue Star's six acre campus has grown into a
combination gallery district, artist's colony, and fair grounds.
Blue Star's tenants include the non-profit Blue Star Art Space, the Blue Star
Brewing Company, the Jump Start Performance
Company, and a number of retail galleries exhibiting local, regional, national,
and international artists. Every month, the Art Space
and other galleries have a simultaneous opening attracting crowds of art lovers
from across South Texas.
In addition, Blue Star has approximately 30 artists' studios occupied by
painters, sculptors, and ceramists. While not luxurious, the
rents are low enough to make them affordable to a large segment of the working
artists's community.
Finally, Blue Star is also home to a vibrant residential community made up of
artists, architects, photographers, designers,
advertising professionals, and others whose professions and avocations relate
to the creative arts. This community lives in 47
rehabilitated loft apartments which, while providing modern convenience and
safety, have preserved the essence of the old
warehouse buildings with open joist ceilings, concrete floors, and exposed
masonry walls.
Over its short life, Blue Star has evolved into a unique commercial and
residential community whose diverse and complimentary
tenants draw both local and tourist patronage. The Blue Star experience has
provided those who live and work here opportunities for
interaction, collaboration, synergy, and business opportunities with each
other, and with each others' clients, customers, and
patrons.
April Showers
>The non-profit art co-ops have been in existence in the
>USA for many years now.
>One of the more interesting is the one on the Potomac
>near Washington, D.C.
What is the Torpedo Factory?
The Torpedo Factory Art Center, created
through the joint effort of a group of
local artists and the City of Alexandria,
Virginia in 1974, is considered the
largest and most successful visual
arts center in the U.S. and is open to the
public daily 10 am to 5 pm. We invite you to
come explore our 84 working studios,
8 group studios and 6 galleries. The Factory
is located at 105 North Union Street in Old
Town Alexandria, Virginia.
A.A. Raimes
<ali...@address.in.signature> writes
> I suggested to
>that we should try and register the gallery as a charity - all the
>artists pay their own individual tax (or refunds in most cases) so it is
>in fact a non-profit making organisation aimed at promoting art. Have
>you ever come across this before ?
Before the screens get bombarded with all our stories of co-ops and our
histories of them (no, it is not a new idea in UK either), the question
that I tried to put to John was whether or not he had come across co-ops
that were well organised enough to register as a *charity* - which is
what I have suggested to ours. This is a fairly normal procedure in UK
for non-profit making organisations and which entitles them to state
support - it does require some good management and stringent book
keeping however. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has
been directly involved in such an operation.
Hope that is clearer.
April Showers
says...
>Before the screens get bombarded with all our stories of co-ops and our
>histories of them (no, it is not a new idea in UK either), the question
>that I tried to put to John was whether or not he had come across co-ops
>that were well organised enough to register as a *charity* - which is
>what I have suggested to ours. This is a fairly normal procedure in UK
>for non-profit making organisations and which entitles them to state
>support - it does require some good management and stringent book
>keeping however. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has
>been directly involved in such an operation.
>
>Hope that is clearer.
Charities are synonymous with non-profits in the USA in the
sense that non-profits rely on grants and donations from
supporters. The only government 'gift' is through the NEA
or local arts funding programs such as 'percent for the arts
in public places' or such. I was involved with Blue Star
for the time I lived in San Antonio and am currently with the
Arts Commission of Lincoln County, NM. It is almost a full
time job for anyone involved with these organizations to
pursue funding in whatever form it can be found. Many businesses
in the USA are very supportive of arts orgs. NEA funding has
been discussed at great length in threads in this news group.
Kay Kane
artists in the world or to research who shows where is a task that is
incredibly time-consuming. I didn't know anyone would dispute this
well-known fact. Instead of John answering you, why not look up his web
site and you will find all the information you seek on this subject as well
as great writing in general.
--
Kay
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
A.A. Raimes wrote in message ...
>In article <37138822...@news.cc.columbia.edu>, John Haber
><jh...@columbia.edu> writes
>
>>ROFL. (Well, at least literally LOL.) And thanks. I keep hoping
>
>Calm down now John, can't have that suit getting dirty, can we eh ?!!
>
>>I'll visit my friends soon, so I'll definitely catch you if I do. I
>>just had a friend from west of Oxford who had my living room for a
>>week, so I must invade England in revenge.
>
>There are some good galleries in the Oxford area and Bath (just south)
>has become a growing centre for arts outside London as well as being a
>fascinating historical town. I have a show going up in Peterborough
>(about 40 miles north of London) next month - they just opened an arts
>centre there - so that area may be worth keeping an eye on. Yesterday I
>discovered a new gallery in Chelsea that had some interesting work from
>emerging artists - keeping an eye on that one too. London has many new
>galleries opening up these days, which hopefully is a sign of recovery
>from the late 1980's recession that devastated Britain. I have just
>joined a co-op of artists - fifteen in all - who have leased premises at
>Gabriel's Wharf close to the South Bank (at Waterloo) and between us we
>run the gallery, each doing their share of the admin. and gallery
>sitting. We get a space to show and pay rent, but no commission. It
>seems to work well and I particularly like the idea that we work as a
>team. Nothing like consolidating resources is there ? I suggested to
>that we should try and register the gallery as a charity - all the
>artists pay their own individual tax (or refunds in most cases) so it is
>in fact a non-profit making organisation aimed at promoting art. Have
>you ever come across this before ?
>
>>And I can tell Barbara
>>that I'm there to help her husband and children adjust to London.
>>Seriously, her ex sued for custody of the kids, on the grounds that
>>the city isn't a fit place for children. It was dismissed as
>>frivolous, but think of the advantages: would relieve the
>>overcrowding if no children allowed, right-wing loonies wouldn't be
>>able to complain about immigrants taking over the nation....
>>
>>John
>
>Well that would sure cut down the volume of traffic in London as the
>school's close. Maybe I will write to our whimpy, thumb sucking prime
>minister and propose it.
>
>John, you seem like a pretty reasonable sort of a chap - can *you* tell
>me who are considered to be the leading American contemporary artists
>that are supposedly *leading* the art world - are we to assume that _Art
>in America_ gives a true picture ? I am genuinely interested but when I
>asked whoever made that statement to clarify it's grounding they didn't
>answer.
>
>Cheers !
A.A. Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>It was me who didn't answer, Allison. To comprise a list of the "leading"
>artists in the world or to research who shows where is a task that is
>incredibly time-consuming. I didn't know anyone would dispute this
>well-known fact. Instead of John answering you, why not look up his web
>site and you will find all the information you seek on this subject as well
>as great writing in general.
>--
>Kay
Thank you Kay. Actually I was just interested in how you ascertained
that the USA was leading the art world today, more so now that you say
to comprise a *list* would be too time consuming. It is very
disconcerting when someone makes a claim to a world audience and then
cares not to back it up with evidence and I was interested in the names
that you consider to be a representation of leading US art or how you
come to the conclusion in the first place. Unfortunately, it is most
likely that British Contemporary Art is judged on the notoriety of
artists like Damien Hirst; Rachel Whiteread; Chris Olifi; Lucien Freud;
and Jenny Seville to name but a few. It is not a matter of who is
winning in the world but just general interest in how the rest of the
world views art and I find it hard to comprehend that you can find time
to write so much on this group but fail to clarify such important
statements as your opinions on how you feel the US is the *power* in
world art today.
The reason I asked John is that I knew him to be knowledgeable of the
history of art and realise him to also be a very reasonable man. In
asking him I had hoped to avoid the sneering remarks like "I didn't know
anyone would dispute this well-known fact". Frankly I do not take
anything for granted and in matter of fact I tend to question everything
that may not be the truth - I guess that comes from studying philosophy.
The reason I come to newsgroups like this is to discuss and expand on
opinions and to challenge claims such as yours, the nature of which have
been largely responsible the failure to exclude the peripheral countries
into mainstream art. John's website is excellent but that does not mean
I am in full agreement with him. I think he and I are both perceptive
enough to know that any dialogue between us is intended as mutual
exchange of information for no other reason than common ground of the of
love art. On that basis I suspect he and I will have some pretty
interesting and constructive debates in the future and still be able to
dig each other in the ribs afterwards.
I feel no need to defend myself any further other than to say that forty
percent of my degree was in art history and that I am involved now in
several research projects on world art as well as my own painting. I am
simply here to listen, discuss and yes, argue about art, with people
from other parts of the world. It seems that mostly this group is
involved in a struggle for power rather than mutual benefit so I will
not, in the future, respond to people who look down their noses at
others by patronising or flaming, on the newsgroup. That game is a
futile waste of energy.
John Haber
>site and you will find all the information you seek on this
>subject as well as great writing in general.
Golly, I haven't been that flattered in a while (or not since finding
today that a book I love is important enough to Marilyn, too, that
she can quote it back to me <grin>). But thanks!!!!!!!!!
Not perfect advice, though, I warn you. Remember that I try to
navigate between just writing about shows that happen to running (and
I like) and saying grand and profound things about the state of the
universe. The first constraint, plus often my inability to grapple in
words with anyone I really really love, limits me. In other words,
I'm not that good.
(Irrelevant aside on my limits. You and Marilyn have probably figured
out that I write the longest here when it's to work out my thoughts
against the background of a post I enjoyed, even though it seems like
I'm getting defensive and arguing all the time. If it's not, my
apologies.)
I'll give just two examples of omissions I wish I hadn't made, to
protect Alison. I don't think I ever got to Nan Goldin, and there's
this neo-geo woman painter who I didn't respond to personally but
everyone I know is gushing over like crazy. I've been wracking my
brain for two weeks trying to remember her name.
(Oh, free association to another topic. I asked Marilyn a ways back
to help me remember a much older abstract painter not relevant here,
but I didn't describe him well enough for her to help. I finally got
over the brain block. I meant Robert Mangold.)
But thank you!! Would it make sense for Alison to find lists from the
last two Whitney Biennials, or is that too much an "insider's" short
list? Come to think of it, that's two years ago or so, too.
Maybe we should make it a party game here. I have friends who'd love
to play. Maybe it'd be an excuse to suck them into rec.arts.fine!
jh
John Haber
Whitebread ("sic" joke) is a true fave of mine. (You should have seen
her translucent water tower in the SoHo skyline last year. Unreal. I
first saw her in London at the Saatchi building, and she's all I
remember from there.) And we all know who Damien Hirst is. But I
don't even remember Olifi, so I've got to get my head straight.
Thanks.
I won't play nationalist politics, so I don't want to respond at all.
Seems to play right into the hands of the pomo critique of American
modernism as imperialist! For the same reason in reverse, however, I
wouldn't overstate the importance of the Brit pack invasion. (It
wouldn't be adult enough either, but then who uses the word adult when
Hirst and the Chapman brothers are at work. <grin>) They're another
recent bit art of art news here, I think, not the new center of the
universe. I have no idea if they've more popular installations than
Mike Kelley's or if there's a less-visible rise in painting In England
to start to compare with the continued strength of that here in
America.
Rather, I think the change (beginning even earlier than it became
obvious with the German neo-Ex stuff) lies elsewhere: it was a
natural outgrowth of American imperialism, ironically. It meant the
globalization of art, and I think that's what makes the old histories
and "the triumph of American painting" less relevant. Is there a
bigger screen for Bill Viola somewhere in Venice than the room for
British artists? That's because he's an international figure, a
different and nastier set of bogies for me to deal with than even
American art. I'm scared even to try.
Oh, Freud to me represents a much older generation in which the U.S.
in fact WAS dominant and the Brits were an annoying province. I still
don't get him.
jh
Kay Kane
John Haber wrote in message <37178764...@news.cc.columbia.edu>...
>>Instead of John answering you, why not look up his web
>>site and you will find all the information you seek on this
>>subject as well as great writing in general.
(snip)
>(Irrelevant aside on my limits. You and Marilyn have probably figured
>out that I write the longest here when it's to work out my thoughts
>against the background of a post I enjoyed, even though it seems like
>I'm getting defensive and arguing all the time. If it's not, my
>apologies.)
Yes, I noticed that we seem to argue when we are in agreement!
>I'll give just two examples of omissions I wish I hadn't made, to
>protect Alison. I don't think I ever got to Nan Goldin, and there's
>this neo-geo woman painter who I didn't respond to personally but
>everyone I know is gushing over like crazy. I've been wracking my
>brain for two weeks trying to remember her name.
I remember because I had objected to your ommission of women (hah!)
>(Oh, free association to another topic. I asked Marilyn a ways back
>to help me remember a much older abstract painter not relevant here,
>but I didn't describe him well enough for her to help. I finally got
>over the brain block. I meant Robert Mangold.)
>But thank you!! Would it make sense for Alison to find lists from the
>last two Whitney Biennials, or is that too much an "insider's" short
>list? Come to think of it, that's two years ago or so, too.
Just dig up some of your Art News and list some artists showing
internationally. I recently read about (I think Berlin) and another country
having problems with funding their museums with taxpayer's funds from that
particular country and then showing mainly artists from the U.S. and then
we have a lot of great artists here who aren't from the US originally but
have came here for career purposes. I'm thinking of (get ready for major
misspelling:) Ilya Kabakov??? "The Man who Flew into Space" (I can't even
remember the title) Russian installation artist. I really like the work.
Looks like an exploded apartment (or mine).
>Maybe we should make it a party game here. I have friends who'd love
>to play. Maybe it'd be an excuse to suck them into rec.arts.fine!
Try it John. When I tell my friends about 'rec.arts.fine' they roll their
eyes at me and make circling motions with their fingers around their ears.
They won't play and I believe that I've even described it truthfully: "There
are a bunch of artists and art critics of different educational backgrounds
and different approaches to art and some hate contemporary art and some hate
realistic art and some hate everything and you write a statement down and
other people you don't know write back to disagree with you and sometimes
insult you or you can do the same to others....It is really FUN!"
>jh
Really, John, you should be kind enough to do this. I don't have the time
or the inclination. How do you answer a question like that quickly? To me,
it is comparable with defending the assertion that France was the center for
Impressionism; it simply can't be done quickly. BTW: without referring to
reference materials, many of the international Biennials have countries that
have someone from the US representing them as in the case of Louise
Bourgeois (France) in the 2 x previous (?) Venice Biennial.
Kay
To reach me, remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
~Artist~
All businesses take comitment, I knew as I got deeper into the art
career, that all the comitment would start to pay off, if I worked
hard, smart and consistently. I also knew I would have to sacrifice
everything. I made those sacrifices and it was extremely hard but it
is turning out to be very very very worth it.
When I started showing my works, I just wanted to exhibit my art, I
had no idea that it would take off - who would have guessed you
could go from a tiny alley cafe in Silicon Valley to a cool review in
NYC with a first show, to the film of my paintings at the Cannes
Film Festival and Who's Who in the World, published in Japan
several times, artist residencies and invitations to France and Italy
in four short years after emerging your work ?
As things started to happen with my artwork it caused me to comit
more and take more risks. Risk is what it is all about in art and
success. My feeling is if I can do it, anyone can, you just have to get
out of your own way and do it ~Comit~Comit~ to your own art
and success!
My intuition about the comitment and risk over time has been right
and the hard work and unending sacrifices are starting to pay off.
At the same time I am often totally shocked about the luck in the
successes that have come to me. Success is wonderful and
chalenging and my headspins at times and I wish at times that
what it takes to gain these success milestones would not take so
much time away form the real work of working on my art. I know
though that unless you handle it all you will never make the big
leagues and I guess that is why there are the big leagues.
Success with abstract art is hard to understand. I try to be careful
with the power that comes with successes. I often do well with that
and often fail but, you have to fail to learn and to create more
value in the world around you and the art.
When success happens for you and you can watch your art receive
recognition and then start to triple in price, it is a feeling you
cannot describe. The most important thing about that moment is
how it causes you to comit to everything that involves the business
of art and artist.
The seriousness of your postiton and comitment as an artist being
recognized causes you to make even more comitment to the work
and the valuing of the work. It also makes you value yourself and
the seriousness of the community and the culutre. It is important
for an artist to experience this comitment to self, artwork and
culture as it aids in the success of the artist. When it happened to
me in my studio it made me shake and falter and grow and
recognize a dramatic moment in my life and career.
It is also important for an artist to recognize that art is a very very
very serious and important business. The more successes you have
in art, the more you learn this message. This message of art as a
serious viable business is a lesson artists need to give the world
and themselves. The better aritsts get at valuing oursleves as an
important and viable business then the better the world will get at
valuing art work.
Success in your art business coupled with the ability to make art is
an amazing and wonderful feeling. I can hardly explain it. When
success in art is tied to the total sacrifice of what it takes to really
do the work, it makes you strong.
Strength is important for an artist and it is important to build your
strength in everyway. As you start to achieve more in your career
you will need to call on the past experiences and strenghts you
have developed. These tapped strenghts will pull along the culture
you have created with your work and cause you to handle more
and creat work that is better with added depth, also very important
for your successes.
It is wondeful when you move thousands of dollars of art on one
weekend or in one month and you get the realization that the
successes have come from risk, after risk, after risk. It is
energizing and the risks get bigger and actually easier to make.
I have learned to crave the risks and take more and more.
The more risks I take with the art and the business the more I like to
take. Risks are really fun...and it makes you get better at taking
risks in your work too. It is all tied together and what part of being
a 'real' artist is ... I would not pass it up or go back or trade this art
world experience for anything. .
I highly recomend and wish success for every truley comited artist!
DO NOT BELIEVE THE MYTH THAT ARTISTS HAVE TO
STARVE!!!
MAKE YOURSELVES NEW MYTHS CREATE CREATE CREATE
YOUR OWN MYTH OF ART AND SUCCESS!
WRITING YOUR OWN MYTH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
THING YOU WILL EVER DO.
In fact, how would you have done it differently?
I would not change a thing so far...except carving more time to
make artwork but I see that in time this will come with the
successes.
Mattison Fitzgerald
Artist
http://www.rhinodev.com/M
A.A. Raimes
<jh...@columbia.edu> writes
>See how out of touch we are all of a sudden in the U.S.? Rachel
>Whitebread ("sic" joke) is a true fave of mine. (You should have seen
>her translucent water tower in the SoHo skyline last year. Unreal. I
>first saw her in London at the Saatchi building, and she's all I
>remember from there.) And we all know who Damien Hirst is. But I
>don't even remember Olifi, so I've got to get my head straight.
>Thanks.
Notoriety in the UK is *measured* by the Tate Galleries *Turner Prize*,
John, as I presume the Whitney Biennials does. The Turner Prize is
supposed to indicate which contemporary artist has contributed most to
British art during the previous year (and comes with a huge cheque to
boot). Whiteread, Hirst and Olifi have all one (Olifi is this years
winner who stands his paintings on elephant dung). As always, the award
is always shrouded in controversy and politics so it will never give a
true indication of what is actually going on. The *Britpack* rose to
fame because of Saatchi financial backing, not on quality of work. They
are a trend, a fashion - backed by money - and in no way represent the
force (the majority) of contemporary British Art - they only cloud it.
A.A. Raimes
<jh...@columbia.edu> writes
>But thank you!! Would it make sense for Alison to find lists from the
>last two Whitney Biennials, or is that too much an "insider's" short
>list? Come to think of it, that's two years ago or so, too.
>
>Maybe we should make it a party game here. I have friends who'd love
>to play. Maybe it'd be an excuse to suck them into rec.arts.fine!
John: the point was, as I said before, that it was claimed that the US
is currently the *power* in art. It was not intended to invite a game.
For me, this attitude is seriously disturbing - art is not sport, there
are no winners. That statement made was bantered around quite easily and
the author has refused to clarify it - in fact she went further by
sneering and saying she can't be bothered. I am a researcher by nature
and I can go to any of the resources available and find out who is
considered to be a leading US artist - and I do regularly. What I am
really interested in is how a statement like this can be made so
flippantly. Let's say I am playing Devil's advocate for the Rest of the
World, shall we. How can the *power* of art be measured ? Is it by the
effect it has on trends/fashions - influences on young and new artists ?
Is it financial ? What is *power* in terms of art as made in the
original statement ? It was and still is a genuine inquiry. It was easy
to name a couple of British artists - I included one of the old guys and
the newest guy - and I presumed that the American contingency would be
able to do the same without much effort. I can certainly name my
favourite American artists ... one of which is certainly not yours ! I
saw _The Messenger_ at Durham Cathedral three days after my father died
and it was one of the most emotional experiences I ever had, but perhaps
that was not necessarily because of the art.
In my opinion, advocating *power* in art is negative when one considers
that power can only be achieved by repressing, as it has done in the
past. More alarming is *copycat* art driven by the desire for fame which
simply does not represent the individuality in art that the twentieth
century has encouraged. There is significant and poignant art being made
all over the world, much of which simply isn't getting included into the
mainstream for financial or political reasons. This is where the real
art is being made. Art not driven by desire for success or the need for
notoriety. One has to go in search of this art and it is one hell of an
enlightening experience along the way.
Regards.
A.A. Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Try it John. When I tell my friends about 'rec.arts.fine' they roll their
>eyes at me and make circling motions with their fingers around their ears.
>They won't play and I believe that I've even described it truthfully: "There
>are a bunch of artists and art critics of different educational backgrounds
>and different approaches to art and some hate contemporary art and some hate
>realistic art and some hate everything and you write a statement down and
>other people you don't know write back to disagree with you and sometimes
>insult you or you can do the same to others....It is really FUN!"
Newsgroups are what the contributors make them. If persistently
patronising those whose academic or artistic abilities may not have
reached those of your own, then inevitably it will exclude any sensible
contributions by those who have a lot of good things to say simply by
frightening them off - people differ in levels of confidence and some
simply don't write at all. Intelligent people will simply leave. It
isn't much fun to have someone look down their nose at you when
addressing such an audience. All opinions are equal, independent of
intellectual level and this is a world forum for people interested in a
variety of different topics relating to the art world. If someone comes
here to play and have some fun in order to break up the monotony of
their life at the expense of others, they will be pretty transparent in
their posts - personally I make use of my *kill author* facilities which
means my browser no longer collects posts by them. It might be worth
considering that for every poster there are at least six lurkers reading
you. Perhaps some consideration for them is worthwhile here. However, if
the majority of the group are willing to appreciate that there are
people here with genuine interests in sharing global views and
information then maybe the tone can be adjusted and some mutual ground
for human respect can be reached.
Alison A Raimes
Winning is for losers and losers never win.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
mark webber
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, ~Artist~ wrote:
(snip bulk of enthusiastic post)
>
> WRITING YOUR OWN MYTH IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
> THING YOU WILL EVER DO.
Clearly!
Mattison, I'm delighted that you are so delighted.
warmly,
Mark
mark webber
Thank you, Alison, for three very lucid and clear-headed posts!
You have upped the ante.
Mark
~Artist~
John Haber
of my consciousness. I went over my Web page, and I've a huge portion
of European names (French, German, Dutch, ...) but actually nothing on
the English. So I guess it's a sign that a dumb American hasn't THAT
strongly felt the invasion, even if we know it exists.
I'll tell you that the most important shows for me this year of living
artists after that water tower were Americans -- Richard Serra's
Torqued Elllpses, Robert Irwin's gauze-divided vast room at DIA,
Jennifer Bartlett's Rhapsody. Characteristically, I didn't write any
of them up directly. Last year was probably a floating hand by Gary
Hill, another American. And then we've had previous generations
reminding us of America's continued meaning -- the gallery show I just
got knocked out by from Krasner, the retrospectives of Pollock, and
Rothko.
So the country, for better or for worse, is still all over the art
world's wakened consciousness.
No big nationalist thing. I hate that game. The French were all over
the world's mind when Modernism was becoming international in the
'20s. But we're definitely something that won't go away easily, not
in the future either, especially as this country's economic clout
continues. It affects who sells and buys where, which museums branch
into Europe. Can't be helped.
John
A.A. Raimes
<jh...@columbia.edu> writes
>I'll tell you that the most important shows for me this year of living
>artists after that water tower were Americans -- Richard Serra's
>Torqued Elllpses, Robert Irwin's gauze-divided vast room at DIA,
>Jennifer Bartlett's Rhapsody. Characteristically, I didn't write any
>of them up directly. Last year was probably a floating hand by Gary
>Hill, another American. And then we've had previous generations
>reminding us of America's continued meaning -- the gallery show I just
>got knocked out by from Krasner, the retrospectives of Pollock, and
>Rothko.
Thank you. It wasn't that difficult was it ?
>
>So the country, for better or for worse, is still all over the art
>world's wakened consciousness.
>
>No big nationalist thing. I hate that game. The French were all over
>the world's mind when Modernism was becoming international in the
>'20s. But we're definitely something that won't go away easily, not
>in the future either, especially as this country's economic clout
>continues. It affects who sells and buys where, which museums branch
>into Europe. Can't be helped.
>
>John
And you have confirmed for me in that last sentence that the *power* of
art, is measured in money. Please re-read my previous comments on that.
John Haber
>art, is measured in money.
I hope it was clear I meant that little postscript in my note to bear
a rueful tone. I hope it won't thus totally invalidate my personal
tastes stated just before. Besides, it was about European money as
much as the American empire. (Even Dia, where Irwin showed, is
European run.) Be careful: you risk the Peter/Brian double-bind
tactic when it comes to distrusting American art whether its imposed
or sought! :)
John
A.A. Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
And you persist in taking the liberty of assuming that I am protecting
British art or condemning American art ... which is simply NOT the case
- I think my posts are particularly clear on that. I advocate art that
does not exclude the peripheral countries because of limitations imposed
from financial or political restraints. The hegemonic structure of the
art world and the world in general is abhorrent. It is false. How can we
possibly consider the force in *art* today when we are only viewing it
from one standpoint - a capitalist one.
A.A. Raimes
>European run.) Be careful: you risk the Peter/Brian double-bind
>tactic when it comes to distrusting American art whether its imposed
>or sought! :)
I think Peter and Brian have some interesting concerns regarding art and
I respect their opinions ... however, as neither of them have included
themselves in this discussion I fail to see the relevance of including
this remark. Please, don't offer me this sort of advise in the future.
Marilyn
Your respect of their opinions diminishes my respect for your
opinions.
Marilyn
A.A. Raimes
>> I think Peter and Brian have some interesting concerns regarding art and
>> I respect their opinions ... however, as neither of them have included
>> themselves in this discussion I fail to see the relevance of including
>> this remark. Please, don't offer me this sort of advise in the future.
>>
>> Alison A Raimes
>> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
>> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
>
>
>Your respect of their opinions diminishes my respect for your
>opinions.
>
>Marilyn
Marilyn: am I supposed to be deeply troubled by this ? The popularity
game so many of you love to play on recs.arts.fine is not my cup of tea
- I don't take sides or worry about 'who' is saying 'what' about others.
Personal conflicts will only cloud my judgement concerning what others
have to say and that would inevitably result in blinkered vision. If
someone has something constructive to say based on their beliefs, and
they are prepared to back it up with decent and intelligent arguments,
then I will listen. It doesn't have anything to do with *taking sides*.
If your respect for my opinions is *diminished* because of this respect
I have for other people's opinions, then I don't think you understand
what *respect* is.
Don't expect me to play this futile game folks.
Marilyn
> >
> >Your respect of their opinions diminishes my respect for your
> >opinions.
> >
> >Marilyn
>
> Marilyn: am I supposed to be deeply troubled by this ?
No but you might be objective, and have a sense of humour about this.
>The popularity
> game so many of you love to play on recs.arts.fine is not my cup of tea
> - I don't take sides or worry about 'who' is saying 'what' about others.
> Personal conflicts will only cloud my judgement concerning what others
> have to say and that would inevitably result in blinkered vision.
And yet, here you are attempting to create a personal conflict.
My comment said nothing about you as a person, it was concerning
your opinion of Peter's & Brian's opinions.
>If
> someone has something constructive to say based on their beliefs, and
> they are prepared to back it up with decent and intelligent arguments,
> then I will listen.
I guess you weren't reading their posts too carefully or you would
not be using the word 'intelligent' to describe them. Notice I say
nothing about their characters, I'm discussing their posts.
>It doesn't have anything to do with *taking sides*.
> If your respect for my opinions is *diminished* because of this respect
> I have for other people's opinions, then I don't think you understand
> what *respect* is.
Now this is you being personal by telling me what I understand or do not
understand. Remember, read carefully, I was talking about opinions
expressed here in posts.
> Don't expect me to play this futile game folks.
No game here, just a comment about some opinions which were not
intelligently backed up.
Marilyn
April Showers
>Now this is you being personal by telling me what I understand or do not
>understand. Remember, read carefully, I was talking about opinions
>expressed here in posts.
I know this sounds repetitious, but
you people who take 'attack' stances need to
look in the mirror and assess who is doing
the preaching while you are doing it. Most
of the time the faults you are so quick to find
with others are echoed by your own. Funny to
me to read what people write in these forums
while fulfilling the very image they are
denouncing.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
nom...@aintnonesuch.com (April Showers) wrote:
> I know this sounds repetitious, but
> you people who take 'attack' stances need to
> look in the mirror and assess who is doing
> the preaching while you are doing it. Most
> of the time the faults you are so quick to find
> with others are echoed by your own. Funny to
> me to read what people write in these forums
> while fulfilling the very image they are
> denouncing.
>
>
Do you mean like the Zen Monks in their mountain retreat? The monks had
agreed to go to the mountains for meditation for two weeks, during which time
they would observe a vow of silence. They assigned tasks beforehand so they
would have no need of verbal communication. On the second night, the lamp
went out. One Monk turned to the Monk in charge of lamps, and said "You
fool, you've let the lamp go out. Another Monk said "But you're a greater
fool, you broke the vow of silence." Another said "But you are even a
greater fool than that, for knowing he broke the vow, you also broke it."
And the next said....
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marilyn Welch
>
>
>I know this sounds repetitious, but
>you people who take 'attack' stances need to
>look in the mirror and assess who is doing
>the preaching while you are doing it. Most
>of the time the faults you are so quick to find
>with others are echoed by your own. Funny to
>me to read what people write in these forums
>while fulfilling the very image they are
>denouncing.
Mirror mirror on the wall:
Nice little sermonette above with
lots of hyperbole, like "attack" & "denounce."
I disagreed with Alison's saying she respected the
opinions of a couple of posters
One of those 'respected' opinions was the comparison
of abstract painting to vomit on the carpet.
Now, if you respect that opinion, line up behind Alison.
Marilyn
Marilyn
Uh before anyone thinks "Some of them..."
he was referring to the work of Jackson Pollock,
may he rest in peace.
M.
April Showers
>Nice little sermonette above with
>lots of hyperbole, like "attack" & "denounce."
>
>I disagreed with Alison's saying she respected the
>opinions of a couple of posters
>
>One of those 'respected' opinions was the comparison
>of abstract painting to vomit on the carpet.
>
>Now, if you respect that opinion, line up behind Alison.
You're referring to the sermon, and I was referring
to the preacher. Don't mix your metaphors mudear.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> April wrote:
> >
> >
> >I know this sounds repetitious, but
> >you people who take 'attack' stances need to
> >look in the mirror and assess who is doing
> >the preaching while you are doing it. Most
> >of the time the faults you are so quick to find
> >with others are echoed by your own. Funny to
> >me to read what people write in these forums
> >while fulfilling the very image they are
> >denouncing.
>
> Mirror mirror on the wall:
:) Well said.
>
> Nice little sermonette above with
> lots of hyperbole, like "attack" & "denounce."
>
> I disagreed with Alison's saying she respected the
> opinions of a couple of posters
I think you're wrong here. Anyone can respect the opinions
of a couple of posters. All that is required is one person
other than yourself.
> One of those 'respected' opinions was the comparison
> of abstract painting to vomit on the carpet.
Much of it isn't that good.
The problem abstracts have is that it's difficult to reach
a consensus on what "good" is. With realistic paintings, you
have a reference point.
A lot of failed realistic painters switch to abstract or
expressionism or some such.
Abstract painters need to recognize this and stop defending
everyone who claims to be an abstract painter.
> Now, if you respect that opinion, line up behind Alison.
Everyone is allowed to have an opinion -- even when it differs
from yours.
>
> Marilyn
Over...@orion.com
> In article <37232...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> > April wrote:
<snip>
Mr. Chrome (or may I call you Burning?)-
There is a lot of truth in your post; I'll add my own opinions ...
> > One of those 'respected' opinions was the comparison
> > of abstract painting to vomit on the carpet.
>
> Much of it isn't that good.
True. The same must be said for figurative art. The junk I see on
most websites (and coffee shop walls, etc., etc.,) includes all forms
and styles. Remember: *90 percent of everything is crap.*
> The problem abstracts have is that it's difficult to reach
> a consensus on what "good" is. With realistic paintings, you
> have a reference point.
If you mean that the external world is the reference point, this would
only apply to conventional realism. But your point is well-taken. There
is no getting around it: it is very difficult to create good abstract art,
and difficult to define what is good.
> A lot of failed realistic painters switch to abstract or
> expressionism or some such.
Yes. And they end up making lousy abstract art as well. I painted
figuratively (and very successfully) for over ten years until my skill
increased to the point where I could create abstract art that pleased me. I
never looked back.
> Abstract painters need to recognize this and stop defending
> everyone who claims to be an abstract painter.
I think most abstract painters realize that there is good and bad abstract
art. Most of the abstract art I see suffers from the flaws you cited. Then,
occasionally, I see something that knocks my socks off.
The Overlord
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Over...@Orion.com wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <37232...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> > wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> > > April wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Mr. Chrome (or may I call you Burning?)-
Either is fine; I'm often called worse :P
>
> There is a lot of truth in your post; I'll add my own opinions ...
>
> > > One of those 'respected' opinions was the comparison
> > > of abstract painting to vomit on the carpet.
> >
> > Much of it isn't that good.
>
> True. The same must be said for figurative art. The junk I see on
> most websites (and coffee shop walls, etc., etc.,) includes all forms
> and styles. Remember: *90 percent of everything is crap.*
I'd raise it a bit from 90% :P
>
> > The problem abstracts have is that it's difficult to reach
> > a consensus on what "good" is. With realistic paintings, you
> > have a reference point.
>
> If you mean that the external world is the reference point, this would
> only apply to conventional realism.
Yes.
> But your point is well-taken. There
> is no getting around it: it is very difficult to create good abstract art,
> and difficult to define what is good.
And from this fact arises the constant debates which rage here :P
>
> > A lot of failed realistic painters switch to abstract or
> > expressionism or some such.
>
> Yes. And they end up making lousy abstract art as well.
A tendency for which realistic painters are eternally grateful :P
It reduces the number of bad realistic paintings.
> I painted
> figuratively (and very successfully) for over ten years until my skill
> increased to the point where I could create abstract art that pleased me. I
> never looked back.
If someone can produce good figurative paintings, even if one doesn't
agree/understand abstract pieces from the same person, it is irrational
to dismiss the work.
>
> > Abstract painters need to recognize this and stop defending
> > everyone who claims to be an abstract painter.
>
> I think most abstract painters realize that there is good and bad abstract
> art.
Yes. Unless they are discussing their personal hot-button :P
> Most of the abstract art I see suffers from the flaws you cited. Then,
> occasionally, I see something that knocks my socks off.
Agreed. I've seen some that I thought was worth the price tag.
Over...@orion.com
> In article <19990426124029.783$z...@newsreader.com>,
> Over...@Orion.com wrote:
> > burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > In article <37232...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> > > wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> >The junk I see on
> > most websites (and coffee shop walls, etc., etc.,) includes all forms
> > and styles. Remember: *90 percent of everything is crap.*
>
> I'd raise it a bit from 90% :P
I must agree. Some days I think it approaches 100%.
> > There
> > is no getting around it: it is very difficult to create good abstract
> > art, and difficult to define what is good.
>
> And from this fact arises the constant debates which rage here :P
I think the debates here (the ones that center around art, anyway) arise
from disagreements about what makes a good painting. Some here dismiss
Picasso and Matisse along with Pollack, Rothko, etc.
> > > A lot of failed realistic painters switch to abstract or
> > > expressionism or some such.
> >
> > Yes. And they end up making lousy abstract art as well.
>
> A tendency for which realistic painters are eternally grateful :P
> It reduces the number of bad realistic paintings.
I am convinced that NOTHING (short of a selective plague) will reduce the
number of bad realistic paintings.
> > I painted
> > figuratively (and very successfully) for over ten years until my skill
> > increased to the point where I could create abstract art that pleased
> > me. I never looked back.
>
> If someone can produce good figurative paintings, even if one doesn't
> agree/understand abstract pieces from the same person, it is irrational
> to dismiss the work.
I didn't mean to dismiss good figurative painting. (I use the term
*figurative painting* to include all work that includes recognizable forms
- realism is part of this category but not all of it.) For me, abstract
painting is the way to go - but this depends on the artist. I look up to
figurative painters such as Giacometti and Picasso (who said there was no
such thing as abstract painting), as well as guys like Pollack, de Kooning,
and Twombly. I think the realist Gregory Gillespie is a sensational
painter.
> > > Abstract painters need to recognize this and stop defending
> > > everyone who claims to be an abstract painter.
> >
> > I think most abstract painters realize that there is good and bad
> > abstract art.
>
> Yes. Unless they are discussing their personal hot-button :P
That pretty much goes for all painters.
> > Most of the abstract art I see suffers from the flaws you cited. Then,
> > occasionally, I see something that knocks my socks off.
>
> Agreed. I've seen some that I thought was worth the price tag.
And I see realism that I like. The key is that the work is good.
Overlord
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Over...@Orion.com wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <19990426124029.783$z...@newsreader.com>,
> > Over...@Orion.com wrote:
> > > burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > In article <37232...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> > > > wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> > > There
> > > is no getting around it: it is very difficult to create good abstract
> > > art, and difficult to define what is good.
> >
> > And from this fact arises the constant debates which rage here :P
>
> I think the debates here (the ones that center around art, anyway) arise
> from disagreements about what makes a good painting. Some here dismiss
> Picasso and Matisse along with Pollack, Rothko, etc.
You missed the perenial favorite: Cezanne. :P
To be fair, I can't remember of any fledgling painter saying, "I'd love
to be able to paint like Pollack!". Maybe it's the company I keep.
> I am convinced that NOTHING (short of a selective plague) will reduce the
> number of bad realistic paintings.
There are many who feel that abstract painting is a "selective plague" :P
> >
> > If someone can produce good figurative paintings, even if one doesn't
> > agree/understand abstract pieces from the same person, it is irrational
> > to dismiss the work.
>
> I didn't mean to dismiss good figurative painting.
I didn't think you were.
> (I use the term
> *figurative painting* to include all work that includes recognizable forms
> - realism is part of this category but not all of it.)
Agreed.
> For me, abstract
> painting is the way to go - but this depends on the artist.
Agreed.
> I look up to
> figurative painters such as Giacometti and Picasso (who said there was no
> such thing as abstract painting), as well as guys like Pollack, de Kooning,
> and Twombly. I think the realist Gregory Gillespie is a sensational
> painter.
There are others who share you opinion. I only point out that it is much
easier to make a claim for "genius" when there is evidence that the person
in question did have the technical ability to do what they wanted.
> > Yes. Unless they are discussing their personal hot-button :P
>
> That pretty much goes for all painters.
Say it isn't so! :P
Over...@orion.com
<snip of entirely too much agreement for this ng>
> > I think the debates here (the ones that center around art, anyway)
> > arise from disagreements about what makes a good painting. Some here
> > dismiss Picasso and Matisse along with Pollack, Rothko, etc.
>
> You missed the perenial favorite: Cezanne. :P
Oops.
> To be fair, I can't remember of any fledgling painter saying, "I'd love
> to be able to paint like Pollack!". Maybe it's the company I keep.
I probably is (seriously). I have had numerous students who aspired to
paint like Pollack, de Kooning, Tapies, etc. Not to copy them, but to
create work in the same spirit. If you're a realist you probably attract
students and rookies of the same ilk. I've also had talented kids who
wanted to produce figurative work. Since I taught the fundamentals first,
all the rookies got the same course - the aspiring abstractionists kicking
and screaming, since they thought they should be able to dive right into
non-objective work.
> > I am convinced that NOTHING (short of a selective plague) will reduce
> > the number of bad realistic paintings.
>
> There are many who feel that abstract painting is a "selective plague" :P
There are also those who think that copying nature went out when cameras
came in (grin).
<snip of *more* agreement>
> > I look up to
> > figurative painters such as Giacometti and Picasso (who said there was
> > no such thing as abstract painting), as well as guys like Pollack, de
> > Kooning, and Twombly. I think the realist Gregory Gillespie is a
> > sensational painter.
>
> There are others who share you opinion. I only point out that it is much
> easier to make a claim for "genius" when there is evidence that the
> person in question did have the technical ability to do what they wanted.
This is the crux of the matter. The technical ability to create what one
wants is a necessary but not sufficient condition for genius. Velasquez,
Vermeer, Picasso, Matisse, Pollack, Rothko - all were doing what they
wanted to do. The recent Pollack retrospective illustrates the years of
work that went into Pollack's development of his mature style - and his
failure to produce what he wanted when alcoholism and depression took its
toll. This is true whether you think his efforts were worthwhile or not.
Then there is the case of painters like Giacometti and, yes, Cezanne -
hailed as geniuses by (almost!) everyone, they were frustrated until the
day they died by not being able to produce what they wanted to see.
The other side of the coin is the outdoor art show painting we all see that
is embarrassingly bad - but the painters are delighted with their work.
They have the technical ability to produce what they want - but lack the
sensibility to judge it accurately, and thus flunk the genius test.
>
> > > Yes. Unless they are discussing their personal hot-button :P
> >
> > That pretty much goes for all painters.
>
> Say it isn't so! :P
It is. Except for me, of course.
The Overlord
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Over...@Orion.com wrote:
> burningchrome wrote:
>
> <snip of entirely too much agreement for this ng>
Please don't tell anyone that I'm being agreeable... hate to ruin
my image :P
> > To be fair, I can't remember of any fledgling painter saying, "I'd love
> > to be able to paint like Pollack!". Maybe it's the company I keep.
>
> I probably is (seriously).
Reasonable.
> > > I am convinced that NOTHING (short of a selective plague) will reduce
> > > the number of bad realistic paintings.
> >
> > There are many who feel that abstract painting is a "selective plague" :P
>
> There are also those who think that copying nature went out when cameras
> came in (grin).
:P Touche'
> This is the crux of the matter. The technical ability to create what one
> wants is a necessary but not sufficient condition for genius.
Yes.
> The other side of the coin is the outdoor art show painting we all see that
> is embarrassingly bad - but the painters are delighted with their work.
> They have the technical ability to produce what they want - but lack the
> sensibility to judge it accurately, and thus flunk the genius test.
But the probably destroy a lot less paintings :P
> >
> > Say it isn't so! :P
>
> It is. Except for me, of course.
That went unsaid. :P
mdeli
> I have had numerous students who aspired to
>paint like Pollack, de Kooning, Tapies, etc. Not to copy them, but to
>create work in the same spirit. If you're a realist you probably attract
>students and rookies of the same ilk. I've also had talented kids who
>wanted to produce figurative work. Since I taught the fundamentals first,
>all the rookies got the same course - the aspiring abstractionists kicking
>and screaming, since they thought they should be able to dive right into
>non-objective work.
I doubt that you know the "fundamentals." Lots of teachers claim they
are teaching fundamentals. A look at the student work generally shows
otherwise.
>> > I look up to
>> > figurative painters such as Giacometti and Picasso (who said there was
>> > no such thing as abstract painting), as well as guys like Pollack, de
>> > Kooning, and Twombly. I think the realist Gregory Gillespie is a
>> > sensational painter.
Sure!
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On 27 Apr 1999 20:12:31 GMT, Over...@Orion.com wrote:
>
> > I have had numerous students who aspired to
> >paint like Pollack, de Kooning, Tapies, etc. Not to copy them, but to
> >create work in the same spirit. If you're a realist you probably attract
> >students and rookies of the same ilk. I've also had talented kids who
> >wanted to produce figurative work. Since I taught the fundamentals first,
> >all the rookies got the same course - the aspiring abstractionists kicking
> >and screaming, since they thought they should be able to dive right into
> >non-objective work.
>
> I doubt that you know the "fundamentals." Lots of teachers claim they
> are teaching fundamentals. A look at the student work generally shows
> otherwise.
Given that overlord is posting under a nom de net, it's unlikely that
you are familiar with either his work or that of his students....
(yes, "his" is an assumption. I know.)
If that is the case, your conclusion is based on your personal dislike
for the artists mentioned above -- which invalidates your conclusion.
Note that I am not defending Pollack et al.
I would allow for the possibility that someone could be a good technical
painter and still like abstracts.
BTW, if you do come out with a hard copy of your book, I would like
one autographed.
Over...@orion.com
> In article <37271517...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > I doubt that you know the "fundamentals." Lots of teachers claim they
> > are teaching fundamentals. A look at the student work generally shows
> > otherwise.
>
> Given that overlord is posting under a nom de net, it's unlikely that
> you are familiar with either his work or that of his students....
>
> (yes, "his" is an assumption. I know.)
Thanks, fella (or ma'am!). I, too, wondered how Mani could ascertain my
credentials or that of my students. To quote you, Mani, *Please do explain
to us exactly how you became aware of my credentials or work?* Telepathy,
perhaps? It is recorded in certain arcane medical texts that extreme mental
pathology turns some men into seers. Maybe you're one of them?
>
> If that is the case, your conclusion is based on your personal dislike
> for the artists mentioned above -- which invalidates your conclusion.
>
> Note that I am not defending Pollack et al.
>
> I would allow for the possibility that someone could be a good technical
> painter and still like abstracts.
You are using reason and logic. Normally a reasonable stance, but useless
in this case.
>
> BTW, if you do come out with a hard copy of your book, I would like
> one autographed.
Save a copy for me as well. I want to know how to judge other artists
from a distance, too.
Chrome - I'm going to NYC for a few days to supervise hanging a show
(abstraction, natch!). Catch you when I get back. (Maybe Mani will come to
my show!)
Truckin'
The Ovelord
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Over...@Orion.com wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <37271517...@news.interlog.com>,
> > hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > >
> > > I doubt that you know the "fundamentals." Lots of teachers claim they
> > > are teaching fundamentals. A look at the student work generally shows
> > > otherwise.
> >
> > Given that overlord is posting under a nom de net, it's unlikely that
> > you are familiar with either his work or that of his students....
> >
> > (yes, "his" is an assumption. I know.)
>
> Thanks, fella (or ma'am!).
De nada.
> I, too, wondered how Mani could ascertain my
> credentials or that of my students. To quote you, Mani, *Please do explain
> to us exactly how you became aware of my credentials or work?* Telepathy,
> perhaps? It is recorded in certain arcane medical texts that extreme mental
> pathology turns some men into seers. Maybe you're one of them?
Hmmmm.... don't think that's me... seems appropriate for the case, though.
I'm not usually that suble in insulting someone :P
Mani gets attacked a lot, and much of what is said to him is also
baseless.
My intent was really to point it out to him.
(...)
> You are using reason and logic. Normally a reasonable stance, but useless
> in this case.
Nawh. I think Mani's OK most days... just don't get him started on
politics :P
I'd buy him a beer.
> Chrome - I'm going to NYC for a few days to supervise hanging a show
> (abstraction, natch!). Catch you when I get back. (Maybe Mani will come to
> my show!)
Good food. Crime rate's way down. Nice place to visit but I'd never
live there.
Have fun w/the show.
Over...@orion.com
> In article <19990429112044.549$q...@newsreader.com>,
> Over...@Orion.com wrote:
> > burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I, too, wondered how Mani could ascertain my
> > credentials or that of my students. To quote you, Mani, *Please do
> > explain to us exactly how you became aware of my credentials or work?*
> > Telepathy, perhaps? It is recorded in certain arcane medical texts that
> > extreme mental pathology turns some men into seers. Maybe you're one of
> > them?
>
> Hmmmm.... don't think that's me... seems appropriate for the case,
> though. I'm not usually that suble in insulting someone :P
I was speaking to Mani's statements - what I wrote was ambiguous, though
....
>
> Mani gets attacked a lot, and much of what is said to him is also
> baseless.
True.
>
> My intent was really to point it out to him.
>
> (...)
>
> > You are using reason and logic. Normally a reasonable stance, but
> > useless in this case.
>
> Nawh. I think Mani's OK most days... just don't get him started on
> politics :P
Thanks for the tip! My problem with Mani is not his opinions on art, but
the kind of post we were just responding to - irrationality and insults
without any basis, and no sense of humor whatever. You and I disagree on
a lot, but we're both pretty reasonable people and can toss the ideas
around without rancor. And with a bit of fun.
>
> I'd buy him a beer.
I don't drink, myself.
>
> > Chrome - I'm going to NYC for a few days to supervise hanging a show
> > (abstraction, natch!). Catch you when I get back. (Maybe Mani will come
> > to my show!)
>
> Good food. Crime rate's way down. Nice place to visit but I'd never
> live there.
>
> Have fun w/the show.
Thanks- I used to live there and may again - it's just so damned expensive
now. Catch you next week.
Overlord
Glenn Geist
>Please, don't offer me this sort of advise in the future.
>
Would spelling advice be OK? <s>
mdeli
>> I doubt that you know the "fundamentals." Lots of teachers claim they
>> are teaching fundamentals. A look at the student work generally shows
>> otherwise.
>
>Given that overlord is posting under a nom de net, it's unlikely that
>you are familiar with either his work or that of his students....
That is precisely why I used the words "I doubt," I make no claims
that I know. However I still doubt it.
>(yes, "his" is an assumption. I know.)
>
>If that is the case, your conclusion is based on your personal dislike
>for the artists mentioned above -- which invalidates your conclusion.
I didn't come to a conclusion I just expressed doubt. Perhaps Overlord
would like to post some painting and quell all doubts?
In my experience when I have seen the paintings of those who express
Modern Academic tastes I have been immediately struck by the lack of
technical fundamentals in their work.
I have also seen the work of students in universities and art schools.
They all attended courses called "Drawing, painting, etc." The result
is usually abominable. Most art schools are academies for failures run
by academic poseurs who lack any inkling of fundamentals. They usually
teach a creed instead of a craft.
>I would allow for the possibility that someone could be a good technical
>painter and still like abstracts.
Anything is possible. I expressed my doubt on the basis of
probability.
~Artist~
Another RAF Showdown...and
Mattison
Right in the middle!!!!
LOL
I love that...
LOL
ggglz till tummy hurts....
Just tell them I am on Vacation!
Mattison
ggglz
and
all I got is a red paint brush and the truth!
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:48:37 GMT, burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >> I doubt that you know the "fundamentals." Lots of teachers claim they
> >> are teaching fundamentals. A look at the student work generally shows
> >> otherwise.
> >
> >Given that overlord is posting under a nom de net, it's unlikely that
> >you are familiar with either his work or that of his students....
>
> That is precisely why I used the words "I doubt," I make no claims
> that I know. However I still doubt it.
You have no *reason* to doubt it either. He seems reasonable. Why not
take him at his word?
My opinion of Pollack etc. isn't particularly high. However, I'm willing
to acknowledge that there are people who don't share that view. You can
make a reasonable case for a lack of technical skill, that doesn't
remove their historical value...
>
> >(yes, "his" is an assumption. I know.)
> >
> >If that is the case, your conclusion is based on your personal dislike
> >for the artists mentioned above -- which invalidates your conclusion.
>
> I didn't come to a conclusion I just expressed doubt.
Fair enough.
> Perhaps Overlord
> would like to post some painting and quell all doubts?
That would remain his decision.
>
> In my experience when I have seen the paintings of those who express
> Modern Academic tastes I have been immediately struck by the lack of
> technical fundamentals in their work.
I would agree this is often true.
>
> I have also seen the work of students in universities and art schools.
> They all attended courses called "Drawing, painting, etc." The result
> is usually abominable. Most art schools are academies for failures run
> by academic poseurs who lack any inkling of fundamentals. They usually
> teach a creed instead of a craft.
Again, agreed -- noting that "usually" doesn't mean all.
> >I would allow for the possibility that someone could be a good technical
> >painter and still like abstracts.
>
> Anything is possible. I expressed my doubt on the basis of
> probability.
If we were gambling, I'd agree probability was the best course of action.
I'm more interested in good paintings than gambling so I'll give the person
the benefit of the doubt.
Think of what a pleasant surprise it would be if your doubts were proved
wrong and you got to look at another good painting.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
mdeli
>In article <3728701f...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:48:37 GMT, burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> >> I doubt that you know the "fundamentals." Lots of teachers claim they
>> >> are teaching fundamentals. A look at the student work generally shows
>> >> otherwise.
>> >
>> >Given that overlord is posting under a nom de net, it's unlikely that
>> >you are familiar with either his work or that of his students....
>>
>> That is precisely why I used the words "I doubt," I make no claims
>> that I know. However I still doubt it.
>
>You have no *reason* to doubt it either. He seems reasonable. Why not
>take him at his word?
The reason for my doubt is due to reading his messages.
>My opinion of Pollack etc. isn't particularly high. However, I'm willing
>to acknowledge that there are people who don't share that view.
There is complete evidence for that. I never argued that point.
> You can
>make a reasonable case for a lack of technical skill, that doesn't
>remove their historical value...
>
Hysterical value! I believe AE has great historical value as a fashion
gone economically banannas. However its artistic value is a few
notches above garbage.
>>
>> >(yes, "his" is an assumption. I know.)
>> >
>> >If that is the case, your conclusion is based on your personal dislike
>> >for the artists mentioned above -- which invalidates your conclusion.
>>
>> I didn't come to a conclusion I just expressed doubt.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>> Perhaps Overlord
>> would like to post some painting and quell all doubts?
>
>That would remain his decision.
>
>>
>> In my experience when I have seen the paintings of those who express
>> Modern Academic tastes I have been immediately struck by the lack of
>> technical fundamentals in their work.
>
>I would agree this is often true.
>
>>
>> I have also seen the work of students in universities and art schools.
>> They all attended courses called "Drawing, painting, etc." The result
>> is usually abominable. Most art schools are academies for failures run
>> by academic poseurs who lack any inkling of fundamentals. They usually
>> teach a creed instead of a craft.
>
>Again, agreed -- noting that "usually" doesn't mean all.
I certainly doesn't. That is precisely why I advise students to find
places where they can learn the fundamentals instead of pseudo
philosophical bullshit.
>
>> >I would allow for the possibility that someone could be a good technical
>> >painter and still like abstracts.
>>
>> Anything is possible. I expressed my doubt on the basis of
>> probability.
>
>If we were gambling, I'd agree probability was the best course of action.
>I'm more interested in good paintings than gambling so I'll give the person
>the benefit of the doubt.
>
>Think of what a pleasant surprise it would be if your doubts were proved
>wrong and you got to look at another good painting.
>
That is why I wrote the above; Perhaps Overlord
would like to post some painting and quell all doubts?
You might recall that I complimented the work of Never Phil Ayres who
called me an idiot etc. As I have often said the ultimate judgment
pertains to what's on the wall. It doesn't mean I have to agree with
his opinions.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:16:02 GMT, burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3728701f...@news.interlog.com>,
> > hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999 12:48:37 GMT, burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I doubt that you know the "fundamentals." Lots of teachers claim they
> >> >> are teaching fundamentals. A look at the student work generally shows
> >> >> otherwise.
> >> >
> >> >Given that overlord is posting under a nom de net, it's unlikely that
> >> >you are familiar with either his work or that of his students....
> >>
> >> That is precisely why I used the words "I doubt," I make no claims
> >> that I know. However I still doubt it.
> >
> >You have no *reason* to doubt it either. He seems reasonable. Why not
> >take him at his word?
>
> The reason for my doubt is due to reading his messages.
What do his words have to do with his paintings?
>
> >My opinion of Pollack etc. isn't particularly high. However, I'm willing
> >to acknowledge that there are people who don't share that view.
>
> There is complete evidence for that. I never argued that point.
OK.
>
> > You can
> >make a reasonable case for a lack of technical skill, that doesn't
> >remove their historical value...
> >
> Hysterical value! I believe AE has great historical value as a fashion
> gone economically banannas. However its artistic value is a few
> notches above garbage.
It's artistic value isn't relevant to it's historical value. That is,
something may be good or bad and still have historical value.
(...)
> >> I have also seen the work of students in universities and art schools.
> >> They all attended courses called "Drawing, painting, etc." The result
> >> is usually abominable. Most art schools are academies for failures run
> >> by academic poseurs who lack any inkling of fundamentals. They usually
> >> teach a creed instead of a craft.
> >
> >Again, agreed -- noting that "usually" doesn't mean all.
>
> I certainly doesn't. That is precisely why I advise students to find
> places where they can learn the fundamentals instead of pseudo
> philosophical bullshit.
I would agree. However, the presence of "pseudo philosophical bullshit"
doesn't automatically imply the lack of talent.
I've seen people who were good painters with a long line of shit for
customers... they even managed to keep a straight face while delivering
it :P
> >Think of what a pleasant surprise it would be if your doubts were proved
> >wrong and you got to look at another good painting.
> >
> That is why I wrote the above; Perhaps Overlord
> would like to post some painting and quell all doubts?
His decision. I don't feel the need. It's quite possible he doesn't
either.
>
> You might recall that I complimented the work of Never Phil Ayres who
> called me an idiot etc.
And why should he treat you any differently than he does everyone else? :P
Philip's work is good -- even though I don't personally like it.
> As I have often said the ultimate judgment
> pertains to what's on the wall. It doesn't mean I have to agree with
> his opinions.
My point exactly: "his opinions..." "his words..."
They aren't his paintings.
Glenn Geist
>I certainly doesn't. That is precisely why I advise students to find
>places where they can learn the fundamentals instead of pseudo
>philosophical bullshit.
>>
And that, of course would be at your feet, oh great one.
Don't forget the "effete pseudo-intellectual snobs" Tell me, you're
really Spiro Agnew behind the fake name, aren't you? Is Nixon down
there with you?
Such arrogance can only come from deep humilation - Did Clement
Greenberg steal your parking space or something?
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
> >I certainly doesn't. That is precisely why I advise students to find
> >places where they can learn the fundamentals instead of pseudo
> >philosophical bullshit.
> >>
>
> And that, of course would be at your feet, oh great one.
> Don't forget the "effete pseudo-intellectual snobs" Tell me, you're
> really Spiro Agnew behind the fake name, aren't you? Is Nixon down
> there with you?
Actually, Mani is pretty far to the left on the political scale.
A much more appropriate and timely insult for Mani would be to use
Clinton. Clinton is also much easier to make fun of and there are
a lot more double entendres involved with "down there" in his case.
Do you have a point here or did you just feel the need to be
mean-spirited and hateful?
> Such arrogance can only come from deep humilation - Did Clement
> Greenberg steal your parking space or something?
Well, since you've introduced psycho-babble into the conversation,
one can only wonder why it is that prompts you to speculate so....
mdeli
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>
>>I certainly doesn't. That is precisely why I advise students to find
>>places where they can learn the fundamentals instead of pseudo
>>philosophical bullshit.
>>>
>
>And that, of course would be at your feet, oh great one.
>Don't forget the "effete pseudo-intellectual snobs" Tell me, you're
>really Spiro Agnew behind the fake name, aren't you? Is Nixon down
>there with you?
Do tell us more.
I love Artzy fartzy fantasies like yours. I wonder if my writing
inspires other artzy fartzies here to have visions of law criminals
like Nixon and Agnew. I'm waiting for the usual mention of Hitler etc.
>
>Such arrogance can only come from deep humilation - Did Clement
>Greenberg steal your parking space or something?
>
Glad you mentioned Greenberg. He helped me win a McDowell grant which
allowed me a years trip to Europe at a time when I had very little
money. My big schmier painting got me his vote. Note that I also
painted big schmiers for those as gullible as you.
I think it would be more interesting if you were to address my points
rather than fanaticizing about those who disagree with you.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
(...)
> Glad you mentioned Greenberg. He helped me win a McDowell grant which
> allowed me a years trip to Europe at a time when I had very little
> money. My big schmier painting got me his vote. Note that I also
> painted big schmiers for those as gullible as you.
>
> I think it would be more interesting if you were to address my points
> rather than fanaticizing about those who disagree with you.
I'll assume you're not holding your breath? :P
Glenn Geist
>> Glad you mentioned Greenberg. He helped me win a McDowell grant which
>> allowed me a years trip to Europe at a time when I had very little
>> money. My big schmier painting got me his vote. Note that I also
>> painted big schmiers for those as gullible as you.
>>
>> I think it would be more interesting if you were to address my points
>> rather than fanaticizing about those who disagree with you.
>
>I'll assume you're not holding your breath? :P
It might be a good idea, the stench of mendacity is overwhelming.
I am the only one here addressing his points. You're just calling
names. Let's go over them.
His points:
He hates rothko and Pollock
he hates people who don't think AbEx is the death of art.
He hates people who think they know something about art
He hates people who think he doesn't know the most about art
He hates people who like art (Artzy Fartzy
He hates people who ask him why.
He hates academics
he hates museums
he hates
Have I left out any? he has directly expressed each of these views,
and to my knowledge absolutely nothing else resembling a "point"
How do I address them? All attempts have resulted in insult and
vituperation - agree and you're an Artzy Fartzy or disagree and be
called a schmuck or "provincial bozo?" What do I say when I'm called
a schmuck (this means penis in yiddish) for failing to "understand"
him? or for thinking I understand something he cannot - that ther *IS
anything he cannot understand. He hides under a fake name and *I am a
phoney?
Are you sure you want to defend him?
He methodically insults me and everyone else who disagrees with him or
purports to know anything at all. He insults lineage, intelligence,
honesty and education, but if we ask about his, we are fantasozing?
Introducing psychobabble? Artspeak? If we respond *we are picking on
him?
Have you ever met a more disingenuous person? I doubt that I have.
How can you hold your head up after defending this?
If you are honest, you cannot.
I have not been accusing half the world of being stupid deluded,
stupid and mendacious All else who have questioned the royal nonsuch
have received the same treatment. .He doesn't stop, he doesn't change
the subject - if someone is talking about the weather, he butts in
with Rothko -over and over. No one can say anything about art
without inviting him to screech about AbEx and the "Academics" that
ar persecuting him. How can you excuse this, explain this, condone
this?
Call this mean-spirited of me. Tell me I'm fantasizing about *him.
I don't intend to "win" anything here - that became unnecessary some
time ago, None of this is about me or about art. Mani has contributed
nothing but venom and insult and inept cynicism. How can you defend
him?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My first thought was: he lied in every word
-Childe Roland-
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Glenn Geist
>Actually, Mani is pretty far to the left on the political scale.
>A much more appropriate and timely insult for Mani would be to use
>Clinton. Clinton is also much easier to make fun of and there are
>a lot more double entendres involved with "down there" in his case.
Not surprising if he adheres to yet another lost and discredited
cause, but I don't care if he's Leon Trotsky in drag - It wasn't a
political slur - more to the point of rhetorical style and
deviousness. Both talked about law and stole, and had fantasies about
persecution by intellectuals. Both those men were mean, spiteful
andobsessed. It was a warning that he was sounding like them.
I don't need to do potty jokes - he's already cornered the market
there.
>
>Do you have a point here or did you just feel the need to be
>mean-spirited and hateful?
Oh that's really precious. But I;m glad you brought it up. Here in
the same day we have him accusing me of being several distasteful
things for mocking people who don't like art and calling someone else
a "provincial bozo" because he made a reasonable request for
discussion. Do you really want to defend this guy? He can deride us
for ignorance, but we cant whisper about his arrogance? Basically we
just can't have an opinion withuot risking his insults
He is the worst thing about this group and the worst thing for this
group It has nothing to do with art - it's the abusiveness of this
masked man - How can you defend him?
I made a facetious comment about his holier than thou
authoritarianism and a better man would have responded perhaps with
wit, or explanation or at least a "that's my opinion and here's why I
think that way" Intead I get instant, unrestrained and vicious
insult, coupled with wild fantasy designed to portray me as the enemy
he's so practiced at attacking., I've seen only a handful of meaner,
more evasive, braggarts than this guy. Perhaps Ive just been lucky
Do you really think he's not just a bitter thwarted crank who insults
people right and left and then pouts and acts the martyr when anyone
asks him to back up his proclamations?
>> Such arrogance can only come from deep humilation - Did Clement
>> Greenberg steal your parking space or something?
>
>Well, since you've introduced psycho-babble into the conversation,
>one can only wonder why it is that prompts you to speculate so...
It's a bit captious to call this psychobabble, - particularly when it
follows such a diatribe about MY psychology, my education, my social
status, my penis. Again, this argument was fully outlined by you know
who in his opening salvo. Don't blame anyone by responding in kind.
unless you, like mani are mostly interested in shooting at your stock
targets. He has made what should have and could have been a aducated
discussion about art into an Orwellian hate session and why? Who
cares that much to make his point that he passes all boundries of
decency? It's not idle or malicious speculation - he attacks people
for no reason and there must be a motivation for him to care so damned
much abouit an old irrelevant argument and passe' school of art.
I mean he's jumping into peaceful discussions, between two other
people about finding beauty in the universe - insulting harmless
people and trotting out the same crapulous straw man and stuffing him
into every single discussion. Pollock, Rothko, Pollock, Rothko - like
some frenzied Stravinskian ostenato. How can one not speculate?
He's a bully and delusionary and if you want to support him, it
surely reflects on your character as well. I don't like bullies nor
people who defend them.
Go ahead, insult me some more - you only make my case for me.
Glenn Geist
>
>I think it would be more interesting if you were to address my points
>rather than fanaticizing about those who disagree with you.
>
You know, that was precisely what I was going to say - you're so far
into the ozone, it isn't possible to reason with you.
You don't *make* points - you hurl invective and insult. I I don't
care what you like or don't like or why - I care that you think you
win arguments by being more annoying than the next guy.
All I have questioned is your credentials to make proclamations about
taste - all I get in return is baby-talk, insult and lurid fantasies
about my taste, literacy, class affiliation and education.
For shame.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >> Glad you mentioned Greenberg. He helped me win a McDowell grant which
> >> allowed me a years trip to Europe at a time when I had very little
> >> money. My big schmier painting got me his vote. Note that I also
> >> painted big schmiers for those as gullible as you.
> >>
> >> rather than fanaticizing about those who disagree with you.
> >
>
> It might be a good idea, the stench of mendacity is overwhelming.
> I am the only one here addressing his points. You're just calling
> names. Let's go over them.
(...)
Another long, rambling whine from Mr. Geist on why mani's unpleasant
comments to him are unacceptable while his unpleasant comments to mani
are rational and agreed to by every sentient being in the universe
deleted.
Mr. Geist, you really are getting to be more than a bit obsessed with
Mr. Deli.
Consider logging out and going for a walk or something while you still
have a modicum of sanity remaining.
Glenn Geist
>Another long, rambling whine from Mr. Geist on why mani's unpleasant
>comments to him are unacceptable while his unpleasant comments to mani
>are rational and agreed to by every sentient being in the universe
>deleted.
>
>Mr. Geist, you really are getting to be more than a bit obsessed with
>Mr. Deli.
>
>Consider logging out and going for a walk or something while you still
>have a modicum of sanity remaining.
>
>
I'm disarmed by your wit and the novelty of your reposte - and
(although I can't see it) your presumed ability to post that with a
straight face.
And thanks for the laugh. keep it coming.
Glenn (insane and obsessed, just can't stop talking about Rothko, the
Artzy Fartzys and the Academics and how the world just isn't fair and
the art babblers, the psychobabblers and people who can't draw or who
think they know something) Geist
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Meet ya round the corner - in a half an hour
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >Another long, rambling whine from Mr. Geist on why mani's unpleasant
> >comments to him are unacceptable while his unpleasant comments to mani
> >are rational and agreed to by every sentient being in the universe
> >deleted.
> >
> >Mr. Geist, you really are getting to be more than a bit obsessed with
> >Mr. Deli.
> >
> >Consider logging out and going for a walk or something while you still
> >have a modicum of sanity remaining.
> >
> >
> I'm disarmed by your wit and the novelty of your reposte - and
> (although I can't see it) your presumed ability to post that with a
> straight face.
You misjudge me: I was quite serious.
> And thanks for the laugh. keep it coming.
Suit yourself. You're quite easy to ignore.
Glenn Geist
>Suit yourself. You're quite easy to ignore.
>
Says he, having flung dung at everything or anyone disagreeing with
him or his buddy.
Ignore this