What it takes to get into art history books...
Flying _Naked_People
achievements of -your- so called "masters" and their contributions to history.
Less than 20% made significant achievements, such as inventing a new style,
winning a prestigious award, earning the right to be a "court" artist, and so
forth.
The rest of -them- did trifling things, like "refusing to draw in a certain
manner," or "studying under the guide of another so-called master." Quite a
few earned a page in Art History 101 for being piss-ass poor and killing
themselves. Oh how impressive! And then, there were the ones (of course) who
painted upside-down, or "outside" the lines. Gee... Wow... I've even run into
a couple of artists who are in the archives because of their bloodline! Others
are in there I suspect because their last names sound just like that "other
guy's!"
What is this lunacy? Why is that "famous artist" on page 305? Because he
dropped out of school, got married, and lost all of his children to disease?
Or is it because HE *hung out with socialites*" (an actual achievement).
What crockery. The aliens will be sorely disappointed to see what you have
deemed accomplishments.
Lauri Levanto
Flying _Naked_People wrote:
> ...
> Quite a
> few earned a page in Art History 101 for being piss-ass poor and killing
> themselves.
...
Strongly recommended here.
Seriously, skip over the text and look at the pictures.
You may find out something.
-lauri
Flying _Naked_People
<3F4C4F97...@netti.fi>...
For the purpose of my database, I preferred to look at the text and skip the
pictures. It's amazing what you can "find out" by doing the opposite of what
everyone else does.
> -lauri
>
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:vko2kqe...@corp.supernews.com...
> Making a database of such requirements - I've become *disgusted* at the
> achievements of -your- so called "masters" and their contributions to
history.
> Less than 20% made significant achievements, such as inventing a new
style,
> winning a prestigious award, earning the right to be a "court" artist, and
so
> forth.
>
People generally are remembered for both noble and ignoble reasons. A list
of famous novelists includes many who wrote dreadful and unoriginal novels,
and even trite ones, a list of powerful people includes many idiots. Public
acclaim or historical record are really rather trivial matters. Read Gray's
Elegy, written in a Country Churchyard, (Stoke Poges, actually, quite a
pretty village even now, despite being almost next door to the ghastly
slough) to get some perspective.
--
Hark, wretches! how I mean to martyr you. This one hand yet is left to cut
your throats, Whilst that Lavinia 'tween her stumps doth hold the baisin
that receives your guilty blood. -Titus Andronicus (Hastivibrax)
Gud E.Tushus
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm says...
>
>Making a database of such requirements -
You need to find another hobby to occupy
your time. Spending all this time dreaming
up troll subjects is not healthy for you.
Flying _Naked_People
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: What it takes to get into art history books...
> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 12:27 AM
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> To which thread does this post refer?
> In my Outlook Express it is a new thread.
> Although the following posts have Re: in
> front.
> Thur
It refers to the "What it takes to get into art history books..." thread. My
news poster could have screwed it up. Sorry.
Flying _Naked_People
<bihnjf$rsg$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
> "Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
> message news:vko2kqe...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Making a database of such requirements - I've become *disgusted* at the
> > achievements of -your- so called "masters" and their contributions to
> history.
> > Less than 20% made significant achievements, such as inventing a new
> style,
> > winning a prestigious award, earning the right to be a "court" artist,
and
> so
> > forth.
> >
> Why does it worry you so much?
Because the human race will be judged by its values and its accomplishments.
If not by aliens... If not by God... then by a future rebellious, intelligent
species called children. It also bothers me because these meager attempts at
art belittles the profession.
> People generally are remembered for both noble and ignoble reasons. A
list
> of famous novelists includes many who wrote dreadful and unoriginal
novels,
> and even trite ones, a list of powerful people includes many idiots.
Public
> acclaim or historical record are really rather trivial matters. Read
Gray's
> Elegy, written in a Country Churchyard, (Stoke Poges, actually, quite a
> pretty village even now, despite being almost next door to the ghastly
> slough) to get some perspective.
And what part of perspective dictates that I should accept litter along side
gold, as the apex of human accomplishment?
DNALJM
You could commit mass murder. A lot of those people are in the history
books.
: /
Jane
Robert Lee
you or anyone else know what the future brings, or what it might consider
trash vs gold? To think oneself wise enough to discern what a future
generation will consider golden is probably arrogant folly.
Without a rigid path dictated to us to follow, we must search both within
and without ourselves for what we believe is good, and let the future take
care of itself.
I remember some wise man once said: "Do not judge and you will not be judged."
Perhaps this applies to us today.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:31:48 +0000, Flying _Naked_People wrote:
> Because the human race will be judged by its values and its accomplishments.
> If not by aliens... If not by God... then by a future rebellious, intelligent
> species called children. It also bothers me because these meager attempts at
> art belittles the profession.
> ...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in article
> <bihnjf$rsg$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> >
> > "Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
> > message news:vko2kqe...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Making a database of such requirements - I've become *disgusted* at
the
> > > achievements of -your- so called "masters" and their contributions to
> > history.
> > > Less than 20% made significant achievements, such as inventing a new
> > style,
> > > winning a prestigious award, earning the right to be a "court" artist,
> and
> > so
> > > forth.
> > >
> > Why does it worry you so much?
>
> Because the human race will be judged by its values and its
accomplishments.
> If not by aliens... If not by God... then by a future rebellious,
intelligent
> species called children. It also bothers me because these meager attempts
at
> art belittles the profession.
>
difference to that judgement - I also wonder why such a judgement should
bother you, it will be long after we are dead. I'd imagine that any alien
would consider the human race such a violent, sadistic and savage collection
of low lives (as it is in general) not to bother looking at its art.
Today's meagre attempt might be tomorrow's delight, it may remain rubbish,
who knows, so a comprehensive collection is the most useful to the future
art historian. Though there are indeed professional artists (anybody who
sells a work of art is one, anybody who never has is an amateur, that is the
definition), but art is not a profession - there is no legally recognised
professional body setting exams that make membership exclusive as there are
for the professions, law, medicine and so forth.
>
> > People generally are remembered for both noble and ignoble reasons. A
> list
> > of famous novelists includes many who wrote dreadful and unoriginal
> novels,
> > and even trite ones, a list of powerful people includes many idiots.
> Public
> > acclaim or historical record are really rather trivial matters. Read
> Gray's
> > Elegy, written in a Country Churchyard, (Stoke Poges, actually, quite a
> > pretty village even now, despite being almost next door to the ghastly
> > slough) to get some perspective.
>
> And what part of perspective dictates that I should accept litter along
side
> gold, as the apex of human accomplishment?
>
That's an easy one!
Gold isn't a human accomplishment, it is an element found in the ground.
Litter is a human accomplishment. So there is no perspective in which you
consider the former the apex of human accomplishment whilst, if you have a
mind to it, there might be in the latter.
Remember that archeologists use litter to learn how the ancients lived - so
a clay pot thrown away as useless probably has told us more about the
Etruscans than the urns they considered their most elegant.
--
Middle age is when you're sitting at home on a Saturday night and the
telephone rings and you hope that it isn't for you - 'It takes all sorts'
Milton Shulman
Dik F. Liu
<rob...@cyntrum.com> writes:
>I remember some wise man once said: "Do not judge and you will not be judged."
Perhaps this applies to us today.<
Judge not, that ye be not judged. - Matthew 007:001
Dik
Robert Lee
> Judge not, that ye be not judged. - Matthew 007:001
>
> Dik
Thank you for that precise quote!
DNALJM
>accomplishments.
>> If not by aliens... If not by God... then by a future rebellious,
>intelligent
>> species called children.
Maybe a race of aliens would view any sort of destruction or hinderance of
life to be the most dispicable thing, and the opposite the most venerated.
Maybe they will view artists as self-absorbed assholes for using so many paper
towels and pouring paint thinner into the ground where worms choke on it.
Value judgements are very subjective. For example I find the fact that Van
Gogh couldn't draw to inhibit my enjoyment of his work. I saw a drawing of a
skull he did, bright colors, middle of the page, badly drawn, I thought it
really sucked and too bad it survived the trash heap of history. However, a
lot of people love him and like to buy posters and note cubes with his stuff on
it and would think that I am an arrogant shmuck for not liking him.
So really you have to see that it doesn't matter, art history is flawed
and subjective like everything else, so you have to make it worthwhile for
yourself and work from there.
Jane
www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
<--- figurative art and exobiology links
Flying _Naked_People
<20030829152545...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
> >> Because the human race will be judged by its values and its
> >accomplishments.
> >> If not by aliens... If not by God... then by a future rebellious,
> >intelligent
> >> species called children.
>
> Maybe a race of aliens would view any sort of destruction or hinderance
of
> life to be the most dispicable thing, and the opposite the most venerated.
> Maybe they will view artists as self-absorbed assholes for using so many
paper
> towels and pouring paint thinner into the ground where worms choke on it.
Yes. We should all burn in hell for this.
> Value judgements are very subjective. For example I find the fact that
Van
> Gogh couldn't draw to inhibit my enjoyment of his work. I saw a drawing of
a
> skull he did, bright colors, middle of the page, badly drawn, I thought it
> really sucked and too bad it survived the trash heap of history. However, a
> lot of people love him and like to buy posters and note cubes with his stuff
on
> it and would think that I am an arrogant shmuck for not liking him.
No, not arrogant, but an absolutist of sorts.
> So really you have to see that it doesn't matter, art history is flawed
> and subjective like everything else, so you have to make it worthwhile for
> yourself and work from there.
That's what a lot of people say. But I wanna fight.
Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight.
Flying _Naked_People
> Value judgements are very subjective. For example I find the fact that
Van
> Gogh couldn't draw to inhibit my enjoyment of his work. I saw a drawing of
a
> skull he did, bright colors, middle of the page, badly drawn, I thought it
> really sucked and too bad it survived the trash heap of history. However, a
> lot of people love him and like to buy posters and note cubes with his stuff
on
> it and would think that I am an arrogant shmuck for not liking him.
<strike> No, not arrogant, but an absolutist of sorts. </strike>
Let me append... People who like Van Gag and others like'm are the arrogant
shmucks. They actually think that those who don't, are stupid. (Of course,
they like to use words such as "unevolved," "limited," etc.).
I should put a sign on my door... a print out of his type of artwork inside a
circle with a slash over it.
DNALJM
>paper
>> towels and pouring paint thinner into the ground where worms choke on it.
>
>Yes. We should all burn in hell for this.
>
Well, it is a trifle compared to what some big companies do, and as far as
myself I rejected buying a car and having children which does a lot to reduce
waste and pollution.
BUT, can you honestly say that the aliens will forgive you for thowing out
so many paper towels? I am thinking that you don't know how unforgiving aliens
are when it comes to paper towel usage. What if they can only see things in
the infrared? Then your art will look like black squares to them and they
won't care at all!
>No, not arrogant, but an absolutist of sorts.
I see that you modified your statement later but I will respond to all those
people who are thinking the same thing: why is it ok to hate pizza and love
cheeseburgers but it makes you a snob if you don't like an artist?
It's so stupid that you're discouraged from having an opinion about art.
They guy died a long time ago, he's not going to care what I say. It would
probably bitch him off more to know his work is on trashcans and he never saw a
dime from his art.
Jane
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
Flying _Naked_People
> >> Maybe they will view artists as self-absorbed assholes for using so many
> >paper
> >> towels and pouring paint thinner into the ground where worms choke on it.
> >
> >Yes. We should all burn in hell for this.
> >
>
> Well, it is a trifle compared to what some big companies do, and as far
as
> myself I rejected buying a car and having children which does a lot to
reduce
> waste and pollution.
>
> BUT, can you honestly say that the aliens will forgive you for thowing
out
> so many paper towels? I am thinking that you don't know how unforgiving
aliens
> are when it comes to paper towel usage. What if they can only see things in
> the infrared?
Then we can all (finally) enjoy the end to racism, as we will be exterminated
equally.
> Then your art will look like black squares to them and they
> won't care at all!
>
> >No, not arrogant, but an absolutist of sorts.
>
> I see that you modified your statement later but I will respond to all
those
> people who are thinking the same thing: why is it ok to hate pizza and love
> cheeseburgers but it makes you a snob if you don't like an artist?
> It's so stupid that you're discouraged from having an opinion about
art.
> They guy died a long time ago, he's not going to care what I say. It would
> probably bitch him off more to know his work is on trashcans and he never
saw a
> dime from his art.
LoL - You got that right!
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > the infrared?
>
> Then we can all (finally) enjoy the end to racism, as we will be
exterminated
> equally.
>
In any event seeing that people do appear different colours is not the
foundation of racism! People can exploit all sorts of differences to
discriminate negatively against people on the grounds of race - many German
Jews were exactly the same colour as German Christians remember. Also the
racist genocide in Rwanda was between two tribes who were also much the same
colour.
Flying _Naked_People
> How can you be sure? Some people may appear infraredder than others.
Infared measures heat, doesn't it? So we *all* are 98.7 degrees (or something)
hot.
> In any event seeing that people do appear different colours is not the
> foundation of racism! People can exploit all sorts of differences to
> discriminate negatively against people on the grounds of race - many
German
> Jews were exactly the same colour as German Christians remember. Also the
> racist genocide in Rwanda was between two tribes who were also much the
same
> colour.
When we see that the aliens are killing us regardless of skin color, religion,
sex, or financial status, we will - at that moment awaiting death - realize
there isn't a damned bit of difference.
Flying _Naked_People
> Protesting against the current view of art history isn't going to make
any
> difference to that judgement - I also wonder why such a judgement should
> bother you, it will be long after we are dead.
I will continue to live in the thoughts and genes of millions after *I* die.
(IF I die!)
> I'd imagine that any alien
> would consider the human race such a violent, sadistic and savage
collection
> of low lives (as it is in general) not to bother looking at its art.
That is not completely true. I believe there is a small percentage that the
aliens favor - and will spare for their entertainment purposes.
> Today's meagre attempt might be tomorrow's delight, it may remain
rubbish,
> who knows, so a comprehensive collection is the most useful to the future
> art historian. Though there are indeed professional artists (anybody who
> sells a work of art is one, anybody who never has is an amateur, that is
the
> definition), but art is not a profession - there is no legally recognised
> professional body setting exams that make membership exclusive as there
are
> for the professions, law, medicine and so forth.
Art IS a profession. It is a activity that requires special education, it is
an activity that can be taxed, and it is an activity listed in the U.S.
Occupational Handbook.
> Gold isn't a human accomplishment, it is an element found in the ground.
> Litter is a human accomplishment. So there is no perspective in which you
> consider the former the apex of human accomplishment whilst, if you have
a
> mind to it, there might be in the latter.
You know what I was talking about.
> Remember that archeologists use litter to learn how the ancients lived -
so
> a clay pot thrown away as useless probably has told us more about the
> Etruscans than the urns they considered their most elegant.
Hm... true.
Flying _Naked_People
<pan.2003.08.28....@cyntrum.com>...
> I'm concerned that perhaps you feel as if you are being judged. How would
> you or anyone else know what the future brings, or what it might consider
> trash vs gold? To think oneself wise enough to discern what a future
> generation will consider golden is probably arrogant folly.
>
> Without a rigid path dictated to us to follow, we must search both within
> and without ourselves for what we believe is good, and let the future
take
> care of itself.
>
judged."
> Perhaps this applies to us today.
I think this is a complacent approach to explaining the behavior of your
fellow apes - punishable by alien law.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in article
> <bipi4h$him$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
> > How can you be sure? Some people may appear infraredder than others.
>
> Infared measures heat, doesn't it? So we *all* are 98.7 degrees (or
something)
> hot.
>
they use Farenheight? I only know about Farenheight because of a scientific
background.
>
> > In any event seeing that people do appear different colours is not the
> > foundation of racism! People can exploit all sorts of differences to
> > discriminate negatively against people on the grounds of race - many
> German
> > Jews were exactly the same colour as German Christians remember. Also
the
> > racist genocide in Rwanda was between two tribes who were also much the
> same
> > colour.
>
> When we see that the aliens are killing us regardless of skin color,
religion,
> sex, or financial status, we will - at that moment awaiting death -
realize
> there isn't a damned bit of difference.
>
--
'It's a trifle if twenty millions or so die.' - Lenin on the 1921 Soviet
famine, reported in is Obituary in The Times
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > would consider the human race such a violent, sadistic and savage
> collection
> > of low lives (as it is in general) not to bother looking at its art.
>
> That is not completely true. I believe there is a small percentage that
the
> aliens favor - and will spare for their entertainment purposes.
>
I think not - aliens are likely to be civilised if they have the technology
to make it to earth.
--
Dulce et decorum est prope mare sedere boglatin for it is a sweet and seemly
thing to sit down by the sea - J Joyce Let. 20 May (1957) 254
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:vl2d4tr...@corp.supernews.com...
is
> an activity that can be taxed, and it is an activity listed in the U.S.
> Occupational Handbook.
>
is not - for the reasons I have explained..
--
"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde
Flying _Naked_People
> >
> > > How can you be sure? Some people may appear infraredder than others.
> >
> > Infared measures heat, doesn't it? So we *all* are 98.7 degrees (or
> something)
> > hot.
> >
> How delightfully old fashioned! What part of Africa do you come from where
> they use Farenheight? I only know about Farenheight because of a scientific
> background.
Are you off your rocker? What gave you the idea that I'm from Africa?
Farenheight is regularly used here, in the U.S., when referring to body temp.
Flying _Naked_People
> >
> > Art IS a profession. It is a activity that requires special education, it
> is
> > an activity that can be taxed, and it is an activity listed in the U.S.
> > Occupational Handbook.
> >
> OK in a minimal set of backward countries maybe. In civilised countries it
> is not - for the reasons I have explained..
You *do* realize, don't you, that through *your* logic above, ANY profession
that requires education and taxation, and that is listed as a source of income
in a book somewhere, is backward and uncivilized?!?!
Peter H.M. Brooks
several centuries - regulating things now that don't require it is simply
repressive.
Peter H.M. Brooks
I had no particular reason to think that you were from Africa - I simply
considered where you find backward and primitive conditions, Africa is where
I have found them most commonly.
>
> Farenheight is regularly used here, in the U.S., when referring to body
temp.
>
How charmingly primitive.
Flying _Naked_People
> I had no particular reason to think that you were from Africa - I simply
> considered where you find backward and primitive conditions, Africa is
where
> I have found them most commonly.
Where you live? A specific part? Or the entire continent?
> > Farenheight is regularly used here, in the U.S., when referring to body
> temp.
> >
> How charmingly primitive.
And that's supposed to mean [what] to...
Magic Johnson
Infertile couples with babies
Successful twin separation
Laser eye surgery
Full Computerized Body Scans
Organ Harvesting and Transplants
Sex change operations
and the infamous
Extreme Make Over.
Flying _Naked_People
> Not at all. Those areas that require regulation have been regulated for
> several centuries - regulating things now that don't require it is simply
> repressive.
Got something personal against quality control?
Peter H.M. Brooks
How would one have a personal objection to quality control?
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in article
> <biv2gc$1oi$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
> > I had no particular reason to think that you were from Africa - I simply
> > considered where you find backward and primitive conditions, Africa is
> where
> > I have found them most commonly.
>
> Where you live? A specific part? Or the entire continent?
>
>
> > > Farenheight is regularly used here, in the U.S., when referring to
body
> > temp.
> > >
> > How charmingly primitive.
>
> And that's supposed to mean [what] to...
>
Just exactly that.
Didn't you read about NASA's screw up the other day (No, I don't mean the
second Need Another Seven Astronauts incident!) where they got confused
between feet per second and metres per second?
Having some impressive foreign designed and built technology is no solution
to essential primitivism.
Just out of interest, what is 'magic Johnson'?
Flying _Naked_People
> Didn't you read about NASA's screw up the other day (No, I don't mean the
> second Need Another Seven Astronauts incident!) where they got confused
> between feet per second and metres per second?
>
> Having some impressive foreign designed and built technology is no solution
> to essential primitivism.
I didn't say anything about NASA. Everthing I listed was related to the health
field. You know... Farenheight : body temp : heath
Staying on topic is impressive.
> Just out of interest, what is 'magic Johnson'?
>
The walking dead.
Magic Johnson is a famous ex-basketball player who contracted AIDS (or HIV, I
dunno) over 10 years ago. Yet he still lives - walks - plays basketball.
Flying _Naked_People
> Something personal? What do you mean by that?
>
> How would one have a personal objection to quality control?
When you object to "bending over backwards", "going the extra mile", "doing
more than asked", etc. etc. In some cases, simply "doing your job".
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> > Just out of interest, what is 'magic Johnson'?
> >
>
> The walking dead.
>
> Magic Johnson is a famous ex-basketball player who contracted AIDS (or
HIV, I
> dunno) over 10 years ago. Yet he still lives - walks - plays basketball.
>
--
Men don't pay you to sleep with them. They pay you to go home - Philip Roth
'The Human Stain' pg 236
Peter H.M. Brooks
a job requires all that extra stuff then it hasn't been planned properly.
Flying _Naked_People
>
> "Flying _Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
> message news:vl70k9s...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in article
> > <biv67n$3js$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> >
> > > Something personal? What do you mean by that?
> > >
> > > How would one have a personal objection to quality control?
> >
> > When you object to "bending over backwards", "going the extra mile",
> "doing
> > more than asked", etc. etc. In some cases, simply "doing your job".
> >
> The last case I can see, the others are not questions of quality control. If
> a job requires all that extra stuff then it hasn't been planned properly.
Hence the objection to quality control - it's all about planning and making
revisions.
Average worker complains "Well that wasn't required before!!"
QCM demands, "Well it is now because we get points for it!"
Peter H.M. Brooks
Flying _Naked_People
> Why are we discussing quality control here anyway?
Why not? Why do u believe *art* is exempt from quality, contol, and/or quality
control?
Peter H.M. Brooks
industrial manufacturing, not individual effort.
Flying _Naked_People
> > Why not? Why do u believe *art* is exempt from quality, contol, and/or
> quality
> > control?
> >
> Of course not! Quality control is usually a phrase employed to discuss
> industrial manufacturing, not individual effort.
What does it matter what "environment" a "phrase" is used in. If I find value
in processes used "over there," I would be stupid not to use it "over here"
simply because it is "usually" associated with "that thing."
Btw, artists *do* work in the "industry" of art, and "manufacture" paintings,
drawings, or sculpture.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in article
> <bj0get$p7f$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
> > > Why not? Why do u believe *art* is exempt from quality, contol, and/or
> > quality
> > > control?
> > >
> > Of course not! Quality control is usually a phrase employed to discuss
> > industrial manufacturing, not individual effort.
>
> What does it matter what "environment" a "phrase" is used in. If I find
value
> in processes used "over there," I would be stupid not to use it "over
here"
> simply because it is "usually" associated with "that thing."
>
that you are transporting a phrase to another context and why then there is
no problem either.
>
> Btw, artists *do* work in the "industry" of art, and "manufacture"
paintings,
> drawings, or sculpture.
>
industrial processes, but so many differences that that doesn't really add
much useful description. You might as well say, when you make a sandwich,
you are a sandwich manufacturer - you only are up to a point.
DNALJM
I could have *swore* that you posted that you moved to the US from Africa,
maybe I am losing it. : o
Jane
http://www.geocities.com/teslathemothgod
<---my art
Seagull Manager
"Dik F. Liu" <dik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030827235645...@mb-m23.aol.com...
>
>
> Judge not, that ye be not judged. - Matthew 007:001
That would be a perverse and ridiculous stratagem in the context of the
arts, and a stupid misapplication of the dictum, which was concerned solely
with the judgement of other's obedience to God's law, and had very little,
if anything, to do with aesthetics.
Nikolaus Maack
I recently read a great short story (Bug-Getter by Reginald C. Bretnor)
in a book of short short stories that went thusly:
A struggling artist is in dire straits. His wife just left him and he's
starving. He lives in squallor, in a cramped and tiny apartment.
What's worse, there are crickets everywhere. A plague of them. So many
that they're getting stuck in his paintings, and he has to pick them off
with a knife. So pissed off his our hero artist that he sends out a
branwave of power, which draws a tiny alien to him.
The alien arrives and says, basically, he will grant the guy one wish.
The guy says, "I'm skeptical of your powers, but here -- do me one small
thing. For the love of God, great rid of all these crickets! They're a
bring down!"
The alien says, "Sure thing. Give me six paintings now, a dozen
paintings once I'm successful."
"Deal," the artist says, figuring he has nothing to lose.
Ten years later, the alien comes back. Our hero artist now lives in a
mansion. He's out painting by a luxurious swimming pool, and beautiful
men and women lie sprawled everywhere, simply hoping to be close to the
genius. And there are still crickets everywhere, getting in the paint
and in people's drinks.
"So," the alien says upon his return. "Can I have my dozen paintings now?"
"Fraud! Phony! Yes, my life has improved greatly, but no thanks to
you. There are still crickets everywhere!"
"CRICKETS!" the alien gasps. "I thought you said CRITICS!"
Dik F. Liu
isn't with me, but with a bunch of dead Englishmen who translated the Bible.
Hope this helps.
Dik
Bill Palmer
> Protesting against the current view of art history isn't going to make any
> difference to that judgement - I also wonder why such a judgement should
> bother you, it will be long after we are dead. I'd imagine that any alien
> would consider the human race such a violent, sadistic and savage collection
> of low lives (as it is in general) not to bother looking at its art.
>
> Today's meagre attempt might be tomorrow's delight, it may remain rubbish,
> who knows, so a comprehensive collection is the most useful to the future
> art historian. Though there are indeed professional artists (anybody who
> sells a work of art is one, anybody who never has is an amateur, that is the
> definition), but art is not a profession - there is no legally recognised
> professional body setting exams that make membership exclusive as there are
> for the professions, law, medicine and so forth.
[...]
In many ways you are right' My own belief is that
people who have a genuine love of art need to expose
themselves to as much of it as possible and determine
for themselves who is worth repeated (or ANY) viewing
and who is not. Further, this often gets into
reproductions, since there is much good art that most
of us will never be able to view, even if we spend most
of our time in museums and galleries. I certainly agree
with posters who suggest that many, or perhaps most,
"histories of art" are pretty lame. Actually, I took
an art history course and came out of it not knowing
that the Symbolists even existed. They were totally
ignored in the text. The only Symbolists mentioned
by name were the "crossover types," like Gauguin, and
his Symbolism was not mentioned at all. The text
and instructor made no mention of Bocklin, Khnopff,
Schwabe, any of them. A number of artists dealt
with in that course were competent, but in my view now,
rather dull and boring. Further, often you find a
hidden financial motive behind who is "in" with the
critics and who is not. For instance, Impressionism
is in general far easier to produce in great quantities
than is Symbolism, which for complicated reasons was
generally representational. Further, Impressionist
art was much more acceptable to the middle classes.
(You probably don't have a hard time imagining a
Degas ballet dancer hanging on the wall of your
dentist's waiting room, but not so with Carlos
Schwabe's darkly beautiful and disturbing "Death
and the Grave Digger.") Often it can be said that
Impressionist art soothes, while Symbolist art disturbs.
Therefore, Impressionist art quickly became popular
with gallery owners, who interact with critics, and
it stayed popular for over one-hundred years. In
fact, in a recent tour of commercial La Jolla art
galleries, I saw lots of "pretty" impressionistic
pictures that, though new, might well have been
painted one hundred years ago, as far as subject,
technique, and so on. Plainly enough, people are
still churning them out, and others are still
buying them for a lot of money. As a result of
what I assert above, while I admire talent, I harbor
a mistrust of art critics and art historians.
Somehow, portions of what to them is the "mainstream,"
quickly takes on aspects of a sargasso sea of boredom...
b.p.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Bill Palmer" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:13ea6e3a.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:<bijsis$6t1$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
>
> and the Grave Digger.") Often it can be said that
> Impressionist art soothes, while Symbolist art disturbs.
> Therefore, Impressionist art quickly became popular
> with gallery owners, who interact with critics, and
> it stayed popular for over one-hundred years. In
> fact, in a recent tour of commercial La Jolla art
> galleries, I saw lots of "pretty" impressionistic
> pictures that, though new, might well have been
> painted one hundred years ago, as far as subject,
> technique, and so on. Plainly enough, people are
> still churning them out, and others are still
> buying them for a lot of money. As a result of
> what I assert above, while I admire talent, I harbor
> a mistrust of art critics and art historians.
> Somehow, portions of what to them is the "mainstream,"
> quickly takes on aspects of a sargasso sea of boredom...
>
supposed to be, there are fundamental sociobiological reasons why it should
be complex and changable.
Still your contrast between chocolate box appeal and disturbing vision is a
sound one when considering what most people wish to put on the wall. The
degree of technical difficulty isn't necessarily an indication of the
quality of the art - there are and have been tons of technically brilliant
artists whose entire life's output doesn't amount to much of interest.
A more difficult problem with the particularly dichotomy you present is that
it has led to the production of dark, gloomy, muddy, violent or otherwise
fairly extreme pictures attempting to be disturbing - but failing
completely. Go to any art school and look at the final year student's pieces
and there will certainly be some attempts at 'serious' and 'disturbing' art.
It is fair enough and what you'd expect of students, that they (or the good
ones) try too hard for effect - you don't find many with the confidence to
produce something apparently simple and appealing but technically
challenging, quite apart from its being unfashionable so to do.
So, if you see images that appear disturbing you haven't necessarily found
anything good or worthwhile in the long term - just as not every appealing
but chocolate boxy image is trivial and kitsch by any means.
I, myself, prefer good disturbing art for my personal enjoyment, though I
also enjoy lighter topics - Goya and Bosch have produced very different,
but, in their different ways, very appealingly disturbing art. In a
completely different way, Escher could be said to produce disturbing
pictures - though he is very popular.
--
A Goyaesque print of a massacred family. - Times 24th May 1961
Bill Palmer
Well, in those cases I would simply call the
efforts "failed art." A work that aims to
disturb the viewer at a profound level but
simply turns the viewer off because it is
poorly done is a failure. Of course, even
that is not as simple as it sounds, because
sometimes a great work of art will be deemed
a failure by critics whose approach to criticism
is set in concrete, so to speak. Basically,
though, I agree with you.
>
> So, if you see images that appear disturbing you haven't necessarily found
> anything good or worthwhile in the long term - just as not every appealing
> but chocolate boxy image is trivial and kitsch by any means.
I agree. For instance, Mucha did some
fabulous pictures to help sell cookies,
cocoa (or, "biscuits" and "chocolate," if
you prefer) and soap. That's why I agree
with those in this group who maintain that
terms such as "commercial art" and
"illustration" lack any real importance
when they are used in a negative
way to suggest blanket categories of work,
all of which is supposedly inferior to
"fine art." People who believe that have
to contend with Mucha's "commercial art" and
Dore's and Beardsley's "illustration" (as
we have discussed quite a few times). b.p.
>
> I, myself, prefer good disturbing art for my personal enjoyment, though I
> also enjoy lighter topics - Goya and Bosch have produced very different,
> but, in their different ways, very appealingly disturbing art.
I agree, but would add Bocklin as a
very great artist who is often disturbing
in ways different from either of those you
mention.
In a
> completely different way, Escher could be said to produce disturbing
> pictures - though he is very popular.
That's true enough. And it doesn't hurt Escher's
fame that his black and white work can be reproduced
excellently in relatively low cost books.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Bill Palmer" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:13ea6e3a.03090...@posting.google.com...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:<bj89ua$r3q$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> > "Bill Palmer" <palmer....@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
found
> > anything good or worthwhile in the long term - just as not every
appealing
> > but chocolate boxy image is trivial and kitsch by any means.
>
> I agree. For instance, Mucha did some
> fabulous pictures to help sell cookies,
> cocoa (or, "biscuits" and "chocolate," if
> you prefer) and soap. That's why I agree
> with those in this group who maintain that
> terms such as "commercial art" and
> "illustration" lack any real importance
> when they are used in a negative
> way to suggest blanket categories of work,
> all of which is supposedly inferior to
> "fine art." People who believe that have
> to contend with Mucha's "commercial art" and
> Dore's and Beardsley's "illustration" (as
> we have discussed quite a few times). b.p.
>
well - also mainly fantastic or mythological. His posters are brilliant.
Next time you are in Prague it is well worth making a point of visiting the
Mucha museum.
Tony W.
>
> DNALJM <dna...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <20030829152545...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
> > >> Because the human race will be judged by its values and its
> > >accomplishments.
> > >> If not by aliens... If not by God... then by a future rebellious,
> > >intelligent
> > >> species called children.
> >
> > Maybe a race of aliens would view any sort of destruction or hinderance
> of
> > life to be the most dispicable thing, and the opposite the most venerated.
> > Maybe they will view artists as self-absorbed assholes for using so many
> paper
> > towels and pouring paint thinner into the ground where worms choke on it.
>
> Yes. We should all burn in hell for this.
There is no hell. There is no heaven. There is no space alien God to
save us and our dying world, so yes, we do need to look after our globe,
and that means disposing hazardous paint thinner so that it minimizes
harm to the environment.
Dilettante
Warhol's films are boring home movies, but film teachers may not be
smart enough to see it.
In Art History, however, almost all the works are good and
significant. If you had mentioned specific examples you might have
either supported or argument or talked yourself out of presenting it.
Van Gogh, who committed suicide, created a unique and beautiful style.
Renoir, Monet, Louis Le Nain, Georges de la Tour, Watteau--all of
these people and more are in the canon and were great artists. But the
closer we get to the present the more unstable our judgement becomes.
I don't think Hockney has lived up to his promise. I am sure Haring
revealed more the bankruptcy of the fine-art community than anything
serious.
Dilettante
Bill Palmer
You make some good points. Take Richard Powers
for instance. He was an outstanding artist,
incredbly forward looking in his work. With
his several hundred paperback covers in the
1950's, he revolutionized paperback cover design.
Yet--and I think this is the test of a fine artist
doing illustration--when you view Power's work
without even having read the stories (some of
them great, some not so) he was illustrating,
his work remains powerful. It is that way with
Beardsley, too. People don't need to read the
stories he was illustrating in order to appreciate
his art, because he was an authentic artist. The
ironic thing is, critics can accept Beardsley,
the illustrator of THE YELLOW BOOK, but they
look down their noses at Richard Powers, because,
after all, how could a "mere" science fiction
paperback illustrator be a REAL ARTIST? (I
could make exactly the same case for Kelly Freas,
too). Critics are very slow to recognize important
developments in their fields, because they judge
everything through past experience, and since there
have been no paperback illustrators who made it into
the art history books (yet, anyway), the notion of
that happening strikes them as outrageous. b.p.
Dilettante
>
> You make some good points. Take Richard Powers
> for instance. He was an outstanding artist,
> incredbly forward looking in his work. With
> his several hundred paperback covers in the
> 1950's, he revolutionized paperback cover design.
> Yet--and I think this is the test of a fine artist
> doing illustration--when you view Power's work
> without even having read the stories (some of
> them great, some not so) he was illustrating,
> his work remains powerful.
Thank you for informing me of the one of the practitioners of this
genre. It is true the pocketbook illustrations of the '50's were
arresting. They belong, with film noir and car design, to pop culture.
Not really fine art, in my opinion. I would say the same of Beardsley
and Maxfield Parrish. Such artists can create interesting, powerful,
or striking motifs, but they seldom achieve depth or sublime mastery
of technique.
Dilettante
Mani Deli
>palmer....@sbcglobal.net (Bill Palmer) wrote in message
>
>>
>> You make some good points. Take Richard Powers
>> for instance. He was an outstanding artist,
>> incredbly forward looking in his work. With
>> his several hundred paperback covers in the
>> 1950's, he revolutionized paperback cover design.
>> Yet--and I think this is the test of a fine artist
>> doing illustration--when you view Power's work
>> without even having read the stories (some of
>> them great, some not so) he was illustrating,
>> his work remains powerful.
>
>Thank you for informing me of the one of the practitioners of this
>genre. It is true the pocketbook illustrations of the '50's were
>arresting. They belong, with film noir and car design, to pop culture.
Indeed! And most of the crap inhabiting the modern sections of museums
belongs in the garbage.
>Not really fine art, in my opinion. I would say the same of Beardsley
>and Maxfield Parrish. Such artists can create interesting, powerful,
>or striking motifs,
Gee we don't want any of that!
> but they seldom achieve depth or sublime mastery
>of technique.
>
Technique? Parrish doesn't know that, now does he?
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dilettante
>
> Indeed! And most of the crap inhabiting the modern sections of museums
> belongs in the garbage.
Having visited the relatively new Museum of Modern Art in San
Francisco, I would say that a lot of the stuff is superficial, but I
would not say it belongs in the trash. If you ever go to the its
counterpart in Mexico City, El Museo del Arte Modern, you will see
stuff that knocks your sox off. Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros. The Los
Angeles County Museum also has good pieces. So to say that some crap
gets through is a weak rebuttal to my relegation of Parrish et al to
the field of illustration rather than fine art. The two fields are
simply two different animals, made for different purposes.
>
>
> interesting, powerful,
> >or striking motifs,
>
> Gee we don't want any of that!
We might enjoy such things, but if that is all there is, then the work
is mere decoration.
> Technique? Parrish doesn't know that, now does he?
His technique is polished, but unlike Cezanne or Picasso, he made no
attempt to create a new way of depicting and seeing. He used
conventional technique to create a dreamworld for immature escapists.
Dilettante
Bill Palmer
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<qic9mvogattqqqaeo...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > Indeed! And most of the crap inhabiting the modern sections of museums
> > belongs in the garbage.
>
> Having visited the relatively new Museum of Modern Art in San
> Francisco, I would say that a lot of the stuff is superficial, but I
> would not say it belongs in the trash. If you ever go to the its
> counterpart in Mexico City, El Museo del Arte Modern, you will see
> stuff that knocks your sox off. Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros. The Los
> Angeles County Museum also has good pieces. So to say that some crap
> gets through is a weak rebuttal to my relegation of Parrish et al to
> the field of illustration rather than fine art. The two fields are
> simply two different animals, made for different purposes.
Perhaps, but there really is no important
distinction between them, as far as discussion
what is "real art" and what is not. My own
theory is that when illustration becomes good
enough to stand on its own, apart from
any particular viewer interest in what was
being illustated, then illustration becomes
authentic art. As I suggested, we can appreciate
Beardsley's art without needing any interest
in those (by all reports very boring to
contemporary audiences) stories in THE
YELLOW BOOK. Furthermore, today Beardsley's
work still fascinates lots of people who find
many "fine artists" of Beardsley's day
boring. Furthermore, no doubt Mucha's soap
and cookie ads are found worth contemplating
than the "fine art" of untold numbers of
daubers. So why worry about the distinction?
It has no real importance, other than as a
way of helping to discuss occupations,
as in, "What does he do for a living?
He is a children's book illustrator."
> >
> >
> > interesting, powerful,
> > >or striking motifs,
> >
> > Gee we don't want any of that!
>
> We might enjoy such things, but if that is all there is, then the work
> is mere decoration.
>
> > Technique? Parrish doesn't know that, now does he?
>
> His technique is polished, but unlike Cezanne or Picasso, he made no
> attempt to create a new way of depicting and seeing. He used
> conventional technique to create a dreamworld for immature escapists.
You are simply stereotyping him. It is
hard to imagine that you ever really took
a good look at his work. b.p.
>
> Dilettante
Dilettante
> Perhaps, but there really is no important
> distinction between them, as far as discussion
> what is "real art" and what is not. My own
> theory is that when illustration becomes good
> enough to stand on its own, apart from
> any particular viewer interest in what was
> being illustated, then illustration becomes
> authentic art. As I suggested, we can appreciate
> Beardsley's art without needing any interest
> in those (by all reports very boring to
> contemporary audiences) stories in THE
> YELLOW BOOK. Furthermore, today Beardsley's
> work still fascinates lots of people who find
> many "fine artists" of Beardsley's day
> boring. Furthermore, no doubt Mucha's soap
> and cookie ads are found worth contemplating
> than the "fine art" of untold numbers of
> daubers. So why worry about the distinction?
> It has no real importance, other than as a
> way of helping to discuss occupations,
> as in, "What does he do for a living?
> He is a children's book illustrator."
You are introducing another qualifying distinction to the discussion,
"real art." We can call all of it real because real has no meaning. Or
we can just call it art, which it all is.
Your question about the distinction is invalidated because you did
not address the terms, fine art and illustration. Perhaps you are
continuing an argument with yourself. I never said so and so is real
while somebody else is not. Furthermore you are putting a spin on the
issue by using the term, daubers, to mean Sunday painters in academic
style. I am aware that many academic painters are as vapid as
illustrators. But Parrish, Beardsely and Wyeth the elder were
illustrators. You simply cannot squeeze much meaning out of their
pieces. Just compare Andrew Wyeth with his father.
The distinction between fine art and illustration is one that an
artist earns. Do you call an advertizing jingle good music and listen
to it alongside Bach? Do you pay 20 bucks for a cd of advertizing
jingles? Would you go to a concert of the theme music for Bay Watch?
... Parrish...
> >
> > His technique is polished, but unlike Cezanne or Picasso, he made no
> > attempt to create a new way of depicting and seeing. He used
> > conventional technique to create a dreamworld for immature escapists.
>
> You are simply stereotyping him. It is
> hard to imagine that you ever really took
> a good look at his work. b.p.
You could say many things about what I wrote but not not
"stereotyping." In fact I provided analysis to support my opinion. A
stereotype is summary categorization without supporting evidence, and
I have looked at Beardsely and Parrish. What do you think I would
see if I took another look?
Dilettante
Pepe le Pew
palmer....@sbcglobal.net says...
>So why worry about the distinction?
Precisely! Most of the sour grapes over
illustrators being artists is from those
who couldn't hold a candle to the art work
of the illustrator.
>You are simply stereotyping him. It is
>hard to imagine that you ever really took
>a good look at his work. b.p.
Or knows a thing about the technically difficult
way in which Parrish painted. I can imagine
that Parrish would have welcomed acrylic paints
if they had been available to him.
Mani Deli
>The two fields are
>simply two different animals, made for different purposes.
>>
An illustrator is someone who does a painting for reproduction. Its a
painting whether you like it or not.
Is an illustrator an artist or not? Can work intended for reproduction
be considered fine art? (that is the critical question)
The moment I get an order to do an illustration is the work I create
forever precluded from being art?
Are Picasso's and Dali's book illustrations art or not? The paintings
Dali did for Disney or Vogue?
When the MOMA had an exhibition of works by Maxfield Parish was it an
art exhibition?
When Durer or Warhol reproduced a print can it still be art or is this
just printed matter?
What about 19th century illustrators like Dore,' Grandville, Boz etc.
Artists or not?
Most all painting except non-objective abstraction is illustration.
Picasso produced paint on canvas and so did Norman Rockwell.
Art is a value judgment. I consider most Modern Academic art third
rate and worse, while I hold our best so called illustrators as the
best the century had to offer.
Dilettante
> (Dilettante) wrote:
> >The two fields are
> >simply two different animals, made for different purposes.
> >>
>
>
> An illustrator is someone who does a painting for reproduction. Its a
> painting whether you like it or not.
>
> Is an illustrator an artist or not? Can work intended for reproduction
> be considered fine art? (that is the critical question)
>
> The moment I get an order to do an illustration is the work I create
> forever precluded from being art?
>
> Are Picasso's and Dali's book illustrations art or not? The paintings
> Dali did for Disney or Vogue?
>
> When the MOMA had an exhibition of works by Maxfield Parish was it an
> art exhibition?
>
> When Durer or Warhol reproduced a print can it still be art or is this
> just printed matter?
>
> What about 19th century illustrators like Dore,' Grandville, Boz etc.
> Artists or not?
>
>
> Most all painting except non-objective abstraction is illustration.
> Picasso produced paint on canvas and so did Norman Rockwell.
>
> Art is a value judgment.
You keep arguing about definitions (and changing the terms) because
you are defensive about it. It may be true that Dali and Picasso did
some crap for money, but everyone knows it is crap and why they did
it. You are trying to use these examples to elevate illustration to
the level of fine art. MOMA may have exhibited Parrish, but what did
they really say about him in the catalog to the exhibit? Museums show
many things for different reasons.
Why don't you just put up a giant mickey mouse statue next to a
Donatello and call them equal? Why not say a TV dinner tastes as good
as fresh food well cooked.
The distinction here is between fine art and illustration. No one
contests that they are both forms of art.
Dilettante
Bill Palmer
[...] snippage
>
> You keep arguing about definitions (and changing the terms) because
> you are defensive about it. It may be true that Dali and Picasso did
> some crap for money, but everyone knows it is crap and why they did
> it.
This is silly. In the first place, most artists
regularly do things for money, from painting portraits
to all sorts of other things. And I can't imagine
anyone calling the illustations that Dali did for
the Book-of-the-Month-Club's THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF
BENITO CELLINI "crap." My opionion is that fine
artists and illustrators can both do crap, and can
both create artistic masterpieces.
You are trying to use these examples to elevate illustration to
> the level of fine art.
That can be done, but only by the illustrators
themselves.
MOMA may have exhibited Parrish, but what did
> they really say about him in the catalog to the exhibit?
Why should that matter when so many
educated, intelligent people love
the work of Parrish? Do they need
critics to tell them that when they
grow more intelligent and get more
art education they will despise Parrish
instead?
Museums show
> many things for different reasons.
> Why don't you just put up a giant mickey mouse statue next to a
> Donatello and call them equal? Why not say a TV dinner tastes as good
> as fresh food well cooked.
I would not say that, but I would say
that Alberto Martini's terrifyingly weird
illustrations of Poe's stories are authentic
art. b.p.
Dilettante
> This is silly. In the first place, most artists
> regularly do things for money, from painting portraits
> to all sorts of other things. And I can't imagine
> anyone calling the illustations that Dali did for
> the Book-of-the-Month-Club's THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF
> BENITO CELLINI "crap." My opionion is that fine
> artists and illustrators can both do crap, and can
> both create artistic masterpieces.
Of course, they do things "for money," but if it is crap then it is
recognized, usually, as such. In rare cases an illustrator can create
a masterpiece or raise a genre to the level of fine art, for example
Utamaro's "floating world" block prints or the posters made by Polish
artists in the '60's.
After Dali and Picasso became famous and at the end of their lives, a
flood of small litho's were sold just so everyone could have "a Dali."
But these little pieces were junk, and Picasso and Dali were past
their creative years.
>
> You are trying to use these examples to elevate illustration to
> > the level of fine art.
>
> That can be done, but only by the illustrators
> themselves.
Except that they don't. That is exactly why they remain illustators.
>
> MOMA may have exhibited Parrish, but what did
> > they really say about him in the catalog to the exhibit?
>
> Why should that matter when so many
> educated, intelligent people love
> the work of Parrish?
Intelligence and education are too imprecise to measure the ability to
distinguish fine art from genre kitsch or illustration. But these
distinctions exist and the art community collectively separates them
out.
Do they need
> critics to tell them that when they
> grow more intelligent and get more
> art education they will despise Parrish
> instead?
Whether they like it or not and whether they buy it or not does not
change whether Parrish is escapish maudlin trash or not. Maybe the
richest man in the world watches the sleaziest pornography. That does
not make porn the same as Kurosawa.
>
> Museums show
> > many things for different reasons.
> > Why don't you just put up a giant mickey mouse statue next to a
> > Donatello and call them equal? Why not say a TV dinner tastes as good
> > as fresh food well cooked.
>
> I would not say that, but I would say
> that Alberto Martini's terrifyingly weird
> illustrations of Poe's stories are authentic
> art. b.p.
Yes, in some cases illustrators can be elevated, but we must remember
that Poe himself was a second-rate writer of kitsch genre.
Dilettante
Bill Palmer
> >
> > I would not say that, but I would say
> > that Alberto Martini's terrifyingly weird
> > illustrations of Poe's stories are authentic
> > art. b.p.
>
> Yes, in some cases illustrators can be elevated, but we must remember
> that Poe himself was a second-rate writer of kitsch genre.
Are you trying to troll Poe fans (like me) or what?
Seriously, all you are doing is echoing screeds
written about Poe in his own day--by the envious and
clueless.
Consider all the people struggling to write literature
in America in Poe's time, and then ask yourself how many
of them sell more books than Poe does today? In fact,
most of his contemporaries in literature, the majority
of whom received far more recognition and money than
Poe did, are almost completely unknown to the reading
public today. If they are known at all, it is mostly
by literary historians. It is much like art:
the good things last, the not-so-good and the
just-plain-fake don't usually last very far past
the author's (or painter's) lifetime. b.p.
>
> Dilettante
Dilettante
> hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote in message news:<ba63903f.03092...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > I would not say that, but I would say
> > > that Alberto Martini's terrifyingly weird
> > > illustrations of Poe's stories are authentic
> > > art. b.p.
> >
> > Yes, in some cases illustrators can be elevated, but we must remember
> > that Poe himself was a second-rate writer of kitsch genre.
>
> Are you trying to troll Poe fans (like me) or what?
> Seriously, all you are doing is echoing screeds
> written about Poe in his own day--by the envious and
> clueless.
You mean the envious and clueless Oscar Wilde? The time it was said or
whether we call it a screed or not does not affect its validity.
>
> Consider all the people struggling to write literature
> in America in Poe's time, and then ask yourself how many
> of them sell more books than Poe does today? In fact,
> most of his contemporaries in literature, the majority
> of whom received far more recognition and money than
> Poe did, are almost completely unknown to the reading
> public today. If they are known at all, it is mostly
> by literary historians. It is much like art:
> the good things last, the not-so-good and the
> just-plain-fake don't usually last very far past
> the author's (or painter's) lifetime. b.p.
Poe has a longevity with a subculture in the West, but not necessarily
with the mainstream. Just how much meaning can we derive from the
story of a man being entombed alive? Poe may have more fame than
Valmiki, who wrote one of the versions of the hindu epic, the
Ramayana, but one only has to read the two to see that the Ramayana is
perhaps the greatest work of fiction in the history of the human race,
while Poe is just a diversion.
Dilettante
> >
> > Dilettante
Bill Palmer
Do you really think you can effectively
sum up a great writer by a simplistic
and unfair description of one of his
many stories? What you do is akin to
saying that MOBY DICK is a silly tale of
a man chasing a white whale around, or
that that CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is a horror
tale about man who killed two women with
a hatchet.
Actually, "The Cask of Amontillado" is a
brilliant work which can be understood at
many levels. And that, in fact, is one
of the fascinating things about Poe, he
is invariably multi-layered. Take "The
Pit and the Pendulem" for example.
On one level, you can say it is the
terrifying story by a man being tormented
by the Inquisition. Yet, it all fits
together perfectly if you look at it as a
distillation of what is sometimes called
the existential dilemma. What was the
man's torture? To be killed little by
little by a father time figure wiedling a
sythe, or to jump into the pit (commit
suicide).
Most of . A. Poe's stories are
like that: You can read them in a
straightforward way and they are great
yarns if you go no deeper than the
surface, but when you start looking for
the psychodrama behind the story, you
find it is there. The work of Poe is
incredibly profound.
Further, I have not even touched
on Poe's poetry. Most of Poe's poems
not only are phrased in stunningly
beautiful language, but show an
mazing imaginative power as well.
By the way, I think it is terrible that--
as far as I know--no one has published
a book showing a representative collection
of illustrations by the finest illustrators
of E. A. Poe. So many great artistic talents
have paid homage to Poe over the generations.
Yet, if you go to one of the big chains,
you will be fortunate to find even one
illustrated Poe, and it will probably be
published by a subsidiary of the book chain.
Dover really performed a service to hamanity
by publishing Dore's illustrations for "The
Raven." (At $6.95 yet!) Like Poe's poem,
the illustrations are beautiful and
terrifying at the same time.
Of course, "The Raven" illustrations by
Dore represent Dore's personal interpretation
of Poe, since there are things in the Dore
illustrations that are not in the poem.
Yet, what a magnificant interpretation
it is! Although I have not seen a vast
number of illustrated poems in general,
my feeling is that Dore's work on "The
Raven" must be among be the very best
ever done. Even so, I regret that as
of now that are many illustrations of
Poe's work that I have read about but
never had the chance to view, so someone
needs to go to work in that "The Illustrators
of Poe," concept. b.p.
>
> Dilettante
>
> > >
> > > Dilettante
Dilettante
Bill Palmer
Now you are being silly! Or is it that your
taste in art dictates that nothing should be
more disturbing than the art of Rockwell
and Grandma Moses. (I mean no respect at all
to people who think that. They have their
views and I have mine. And while I find
Rockwell's stuff a bit on the boring side,
I think Grandma Moses' art is--in what she
did-superb.) However, Dilettante, you
got so carried off with your quips that
you lapsed into vagueness? Are you saying
that Dore's illsutrations for "The Raven"
are "grand guignol"? If so, nothing could
be more foolish than your pronouncement.
Dore's illustrations have a beauty and dignity
about them that truly do justice to the
great poet. (Actually. Poe wrote many
poems with rhythms which I find more
satisfying than that of "The Raven,"
whose poetics don't work so well for many
modern readers. Even so, The content
of that famous poem is profoundly
fascinating.)
>
> Dilettante
Erik A. Mattila
> (Actually. Poe wrote many
> poems with rhythms which I find more
> satisfying than that of "The Raven,"
> whose poetics don't work so well for many
> modern readers. Even so, The content
> of that famous poem is profoundly
> fascinating.)
Hey, I'm with you on this one, Bill. I think "Bells" is total genius in
the "formal quality" arena. It propels me into the higher astral realms
every time I read it.
Erik
--------------------
Hear the sledges with the bells-
Silver bells!
What a world of merriment their melody foretells!
How they tinkle, tinkle, tinkle,
In the icy air of night!
While the stars that oversprinkle
All the heavens, seem to twinkle
With a crystalline delight;
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the tintinnabulation that so musically wells
From the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells-
From the jingling and the tinkling of the bells.
II
Hear the mellow wedding bells,
Golden bells!
What a world of happiness their harmony foretells!
Through the balmy air of night
How they ring out their delight!
From the molten-golden notes,
And an in tune,
What a liquid ditty floats
To the turtle-dove that listens, while she gloats
On the moon!
Oh, from out the sounding cells,
What a gush of euphony voluminously wells!
How it swells!
How it dwells
On the Future! how it tells
Of the rapture that impels
To the swinging and the ringing
Of the bells, bells, bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells,bells,
Bells, bells, bells-
To the rhyming and the chiming of the bells!
III
Hear the loud alarum bells-
Brazen bells!
What a tale of terror, now, their turbulency tells!
In the startled ear of night
How they scream out their affright!
Too much horrified to speak,
They can only shriek, shriek,
Out of tune,
In a clamorous appealing to the mercy of the fire,
In a mad expostulation with the deaf and frantic fire,
Leaping higher, higher, higher,
With a desperate desire,
And a resolute endeavor,
Now- now to sit or never,
By the side of the pale-faced moon.
Oh, the bells, bells, bells!
What a tale their terror tells
Of Despair!
How they clang, and clash, and roar!
What a horror they outpour
On the bosom of the palpitating air!
Yet the ear it fully knows,
By the twanging,
And the clanging,
How the danger ebbs and flows:
Yet the ear distinctly tells,
In the jangling,
And the wrangling,
How the danger sinks and swells,
By the sinking or the swelling in the anger of the bells-
Of the bells-
Of the bells, bells, bells,bells,
Bells, bells, bells-
In the clamor and the clangor of the bells!
IV
Hear the tolling of the bells-
Iron Bells!
What a world of solemn thought their monody compels!
In the silence of the night,
How we shiver with affright
At the melancholy menace of their tone!
For every sound that floats
From the rust within their throats
Is a groan.
And the people- ah, the people-
They that dwell up in the steeple,
All Alone
And who, tolling, tolling, tolling,
In that muffled monotone,
Feel a glory in so rolling
On the human heart a stone-
They are neither man nor woman-
They are neither brute nor human-
They are Ghouls:
And their king it is who tolls;
And he rolls, rolls, rolls,
Rolls
A paean from the bells!
And his merry bosom swells
With the paean of the bells!
And he dances, and he yells;
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the paean of the bells-
Of the bells:
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the throbbing of the bells-
Of the bells, bells, bells-
To the sobbing of the bells;
Keeping time, time, time,
As he knells, knells, knells,
In a happy Runic rhyme,
To the rolling of the bells-
Of the bells, bells, bells:
To the tolling of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells-
Bells, bells, bells-
To the moaning and the groaning of the bells.
Semi Anne
> Hear the sledges with the bells-
> Silver bells!
Thanks Eric. I'll put that in my "keepers" file.
Incidentally, I went to the 16th of September
events in Old Mesilla (NM) recently - you may
have seen the photo essay on my web pages, now
removed. The Catholic church that faces onto the
plaza there is one of the main attractions. I
once was there on a normal weekday when someone
was tolling the death knell on the church's bells.
I think there are three bell ropes in the tower.
There was a funeral scheduled that day, of course.
And I met the bellringer. He and his nephew are
the only two people allowed to touch those bell
ropes, and they are several generations removed
from their ancestors who formerly held
exclusive bell-ringing license. This church is
the only Catholic one that I've come across
that is kept locked up when not in use.
All I have are wind chimes of my own design...
Erik A. Mattila
His name wasn't Quaisimodo by any chance...?
But some of those churches are really beautiful. There's one nearby
here on the Quechan Reservation (across the river from Yuma) that's
lovely. Another I saw in Ambos Nogales, AZ - right downtown, a
beautiful bilding also. San Xavier in Tucson...I really love the
basilica design.
I had to take an Early Christian Art course in grad school, and I really
dreaded it. It's seemed to me to be the dullest possible period. But,
wow, was I surprised. Turns out that I didn't know much about the
periods involved. Great stuff. What fascinated me the most, though,
was how the Xtians took the Roman basilica, a generic public building,
and used it because it was so efficient for enclosing a large space.
The pagan buildings didn't need this, because those religious practices
didn't involve a congregation. But then, the basilica design itself
became the major influence in the evolution of church litany and
liturgy. Really fascinating stuff.
Erik
>
>
Dilettante
is it that your
> taste in art dictates that nothing should be
> more disturbing than the art of Rockwell
> and Grandma Moses.
Parrish and Beardsley belong in the same category as Rockwell.
However, Dilettante, you
> got so carried off with your quips that
> you lapsed into vagueness?
Thanks for presuming on my psychological make-up. If your comments
were anything more than retrograde platitudes I might muster the
energy to respond in kind.
Are you saying
> that Dore's illsutrations for "The Raven"
> are "grand guignol"?
Dore's illustrations are boring and trite. They merely illustrate for
the benefit of those who need audiovisual assistance to visualize Poe.
Since you were talking about Poe, it is his work I was calling grand
guignol.
Dilettante
Semi Anne
>His name wasn't Quaisimodo by any chance...?
Close. I think it's more like Montoya or Delgado.
>But some of those churches are really beautiful.
You can judge for yourself whether the one in Old Mesilla
fits your definition or not - good photo on the
cited web page here. Note it was originally
adobe construction but is now faced in common brick.
http://www.oldmesilla.org/html/museums___tours.html
San Albino Church: Originally built of adobe in 1855.
The church was rebuilt to its present structure in 1906.
Visiting hours: 1-3pm daily; except Sunday. Masses: Sat. 5:30pm, English;
Sun. 8am, Spanish; Sun. 11am, English; Weekdays 7am, Spanish. (505)
526-9349
As for San Xavier, Tucson (The White Dove), I've
capitalized on that church by painting it in several
versions - usually with the unfinished bell tower
completed, which always confuses those comparing
my paintings to the real thing. It used to be far
more attractive when it was more isolated from
Tucson's urban sprawl.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3F73FD5D...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
>
>>His name wasn't Quaisimodo by any chance...?
>
>
> Close. I think it's more like Montoya or Delgado.
>
>
>>But some of those churches are really beautiful.
>
>
> You can judge for yourself whether the one in Old Mesilla
> fits your definition or not - good photo on the
> cited web page here. Note it was originally
> adobe construction but is now faced in common brick.
>
> http://www.oldmesilla.org/html/museums___tours.html
>
> San Albino Church: Originally built of adobe in 1855.
> The church was rebuilt to its present structure in 1906.
> Visiting hours: 1-3pm daily; except Sunday. Masses: Sat. 5:30pm, English;
> Sun. 8am, Spanish; Sun. 11am, English; Weekdays 7am, Spanish. (505)
> 526-9349
Hmmm, I can't tell if it's a basilica from the photo - looks like it may
be. But aesthetically I prefer the rugged look - but that's a pretty
church. I think the hip roof on the towers is a little too modern for
my tastes, though. It gives it a sort of conglomerate look. But for
practicality, both the brick and roof are from a maintenance point of view.
>
> As for San Xavier, Tucson (The White Dove), I've
> capitalized on that church by painting it in several
> versions - usually with the unfinished bell tower
> completed, which always confuses those comparing
> my paintings to the real thing. It used to be far
> more attractive when it was more isolated from
> Tucson's urban sprawl.
So did Ansel Adams:
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/adamsmission.htm
Erik
>
>