Philistinism
Bob Cantor
>> I look for:
Suppose we apply Bruce's criteria to one of his most hated villains,
Mark Rothko...
>> beauty (even when the subject matter is ugly, the work should be beautiful),
I have read many comments from people who find Rothko's paintings beautiful
(but since their opinion of beauty disagrees with Bruce's, I guess it doesn't
count).
>> richness (plenty of content to keep my interest),
Here I would disagree with the assumption that richness=quantity. I
personally think that a well prepared truffle, standing on its own, can be
just as rich as an entire french dinner. Rothko creates a simplicity which
is very rich in subtle variation.
>> wholeness (that content elegantly and efficiently integrated to give a
>> sense of completeness),
This, if nothing else, is what Rothko's paintings are clearly successful in
doing. Unless you claim that something can't possibly be elegant if you
don't like it, then you can choose to not like it because it isn't elegant.
>> adventure (some sense that I am not retreading a well-worn path),
After walking past hundreds of traditional landscapes, the first Rothko
you see is clearly the only painting that isn't retreading a well-worn
path. Whether each Rothko after that is an adventure is simply a question
of how much importance you place in the subtle variations. If you consider
a change in subject or style to be the only worthwhile variation, then
obviously these will look like retreads. But not everyone shares that opinion.
>> accuracy (not just 'photo-realism', but truth)
Since his paintings don't try to be anything more than pigment on canvas,
they are far more truthful than most traditional realistic paintings could
ever be.
>> In other words, I need to see that the work is elegantly constructed,
>> with all its parts serving to enrich and enhance the whole.
Well, this describes Rothko's paintings very well. Nevertheless, I don't
particularly like his paintings. I don't find them at all beautiful or
adventurous, nor sufficiently elegant or rich to make up for these
deficiencies. Still, I would rather try to learn from those who do like his
work rather than spend all my energies simply trying to convince the rest of
the world how wrong they are. If some day I do learn how to find Rothko's
paintings beautiful, I will consider it an addition of richness to my life
and not a personal defeat.
When I see people walking through traditional art galleries, they
stroll along and typically do not even see 2/3 of the paintings they pass.
In the modern section, they always stop in front of a Rothko painting
to comment. Most don't like it; a small minority find the need to explain
why they do. In either case, they remember the painting. And they stop
to think about why certain paintings should or should not be in the gallery,
and even to discuss it with others. And this is far more thought than the
typical traditional landscape is ever able to provoke. So which painting
is more successful?
>> One sees that a a particular pair of colours sit well or poorly
>> together, and is not persuaded by argument.
Exactly. I for one think that the color combinations of Cezanne and Bacon
are exquisitely beautiful, and will never be persuaded by your oft repeated
arguments that they aren't.
__________ _ Bob Cantor
/__________D_______/ |<can...@dev.infomkt.ibm.com>
/ | |http://blueridge.infomkt.ibm.com/cantor/
[{ B->{o )x - - - - |-----------|
\_________|_________ |IBM, 3190 Fairview Park Drive
\__________D \_|Falls Church, VA 22042
The opinions expressed here are my own and not that of my employer...
Bruce Attah
<can...@dev.infomkt.ibm.com> wrote:
> Bruce Attah writes (not necessarily in this order):
>
> >> I look for:
>
> Suppose we apply Bruce's criteria to one of his most hated villains,
> Mark Rothko...
Hate? Now, that's an overstatement. Rothko receives a mixture of
amusement, pity and contempt from me.
>
> >> beauty (even when the subject matter is ugly, the work should be
beautiful),
>
> I have read many comments from people who find Rothko's paintings beautiful
> (but since their opinion of beauty disagrees with Bruce's, I guess it doesn't
> count).
Correct. If *I* can't see the beauty myself, I conclude that the beauty
is not there, whether or not others claim to be able to see it. One
reason is that sometimes people claim to be able to see beauty in a thing
when they cannot (you can probably think of reasons why people would do
this). This is not saying that others can never see beauty that I fail to
see---merely that I have more faith in my own perceptions than in the
reported perceptions of others in this particular matter.
> >> richness (plenty of content to keep my interest),
>
> Here I would disagree with the assumption that richness=quantity. I
> personally think that a well prepared truffle, standing on its own, can be
> just as rich as an entire french dinner. Rothko creates a simplicity which
> is very rich in subtle variation.
I confess, I have never eaten a truffle, and do not find the prospect
appetising, but I have eaten good fresh bread many times, and repetition
has not dulled my delight in its flavour. I do not know how complex or
simple such food really is, or how I might measure the quantity of
sensation involved in tasting it, but bread can be perfect or it can be
dull. It can even be quite unpleasant.
Now, to the richness or poverty of Rothko. If you took, say, Rembrandt's
"Reconciliation of David and Absalom" and cut it into fifty separate
rectangles (so its subject matter would not be visible from any one of
those pieces) and hung them in a gallery amidst fifty Rothkos, I bet you
the Rembrandt fragments would be richer than the complete Rothkos, and I
bet if you saw them, you'd agree with me.
I bet you I've eaten loaves of bread that were richer than a Rothko painting.
> >> wholeness (that content elegantly and efficiently integrated to give a
> >> sense of completeness),
>
> This, if nothing else, is what Rothko's paintings are clearly successful in
> doing. Unless you claim that something can't possibly be elegant if you
> don't like it, then you can choose to not like it because it isn't elegant.
A rectangle is whole whether I like it or not. The Gestalt psychologists
revealed many years ago that a rectangle is whole even if you draw only
part of it. Wholeness is only interesting when the parts might easily
have remained apart. Wholeness rewards a sense of order, but the
wholeness of a rectangle is reward enough only for those who, terrified of
life, cannot abide even a little chaos.
> >> adventure (some sense that I am not retreading a well-worn path),
>
> After walking past hundreds of traditional landscapes, the first Rothko
> you see is clearly the only painting that isn't retreading a well-worn
> path. Whether each Rothko after that is an adventure is simply a question
> of how much importance you place in the subtle variations. If you consider
> a change in subject or style to be the only worthwhile variation, then
> obviously these will look like retreads. But not everyone shares that opinion.
What if Abstract Expressionism were the tradition? How long would it take
before the world wearied of it? A decade? Less? A great many landscapes
are, indeed, retreading a well-worn path, but a good few are not. Even
now, after hundreds of years and many thousands of pictures, some artists
find new things to do within the landscape tradition.
Rothko and his ilk did indeed set out on an adventure, but they went at
night without a torch, and they fell down a well.
> >> accuracy (not just 'photo-realism', but truth)
>
> Since his paintings don't try to be anything more than pigment on canvas,
> they are far more truthful than most traditional realistic paintings could
> ever be.
Would you want to read a novel that did not try to be more than words on a
page? That sort of honesty is not wanted anywhere where the value of
honesty is really appreciated. Rothko's paitings say nothing, and it is
not true to say that a person who says nothing speaks the truth.
> >> In other words, I need to see that the work is elegantly constructed,
> >> with all its parts serving to enrich and enhance the whole.
>
> Well, this describes Rothko's paintings very well.
I beg to differ. Nothing is constructed, so there is no danger of
anything falling apart. Nothing is done, so it cannot be done elegantly
or clumsily. There is nothing present to be enriched, and there are no
parts to do the enriching.
Rothko's art is the mute art of a coward who dare not speak for fear of
offending Lord Modern Critic. His paintings are not paintings, but
shadows thereof. A large canvas covered in paint is not a painting unless
it is a painting of something (quicklly before I am misunderstood: not
necessarily something in the real world, or even something that looks as
if it might be in the real world). When it is not a painting, but claims
to be one (as its placement in an art gallery implies), it is as dishonest
as art or para-art can possibly be.
> Nevertheless, I don't
> particularly like his paintings. I don't find them at all beautiful or
> adventurous, nor sufficiently elegant or rich to make up for these
> deficiencies.
I am pleased for you. Your foregoing statement shows that you have both
taste and courage (for tempting flames from the fashion-victims in this
newsgroup).
> Still, I would rather try to learn from those who do like his
> work rather than spend all my energies simply trying to convince the rest of
> the world how wrong they are. If some day I do learn how to find Rothko's
> paintings beautiful, I will consider it an addition of richness to my life
> and not a personal defeat.
There is a great deal of beauty in the world, so to miss a little of it is
no big tragedy. If I die never having learned to appreciate Rothko's
paintings, I will not die broken hearted. On the other hand, if you do
find out what is so wonderful about his work, please don't hesitate to let
me know your discovery.
> When I see people walking through traditional art galleries, they
> stroll along and typically do not even see 2/3 of the paintings they pass.
> In the modern section, they always stop in front of a Rothko painting
> to comment. Most don't like it; a small minority find the need to explain
> why they do. In either case, they remember the painting. And they stop
> to think about why certain paintings should or should not be in the gallery,
> and even to discuss it with others.
I have never seen a Rothko plonked among landscapes, so I can't quite say,
but here are some of my experiences:
At the Hayward last year, there was an exhibition of 19th century French
landscape painting, which offered most of us who attended our first ever
opportunity to compare Impressionism directly with its rivals. A large
number of Impressionist landscapes dating from the 1860s right up to the
turn of the century were presented in parallel with the most substantial
gathering I have ever seen of Academic French landscape painting of the
same era. It was a revelation. Not only was the Academic stuff every bit
as good, or at least interesting, as the Impressionist, but it also scored
highly in variety of aims and techniques and in the use of colour and
attention to the phenomena of light (both supposedly peculiarly
Impressionist traits). I'd had some idea of what to expect, but was still
presently surprised. My companion, a devout Impressionist fan, was
astonished. At one point, I came to a large and very simple painting, a
romantic landscape. It amounted to not much more than two rectangles, one
above the other. The upper rectangle was a heavy, oppressive grey---a
sky, threatening storm; the lower rectangle a dark brown wilderness. A
blasted tree broke the horizon. Pure Rothko, I thought, instantly, for it
was true, the painting looked very like a late Rothko, but there was a
difference, of course. It possessed _genius_loci_. It took you
somewhere, whereas a Rothko always leaves you standing in the gallery.
At the Tate there is a Rothko painting that looks almost identical to the
landscape I described, but inverted, brown above and grey below. It is
framed behind glass, no doubt because it is falling apart, such was
Rothko's command of technique. It hangs in a room with a number of other
abstract or nearly abstract works of the same era. Pausing to observe
others as they negotiated these masterpieces, I discovered that their
reactions were often very similar to mine. Amused by this, tolerant of
that, bored by the other thing, they wondered around the room with an air
of cheerful equanimity---until, that is, they came upon the Rothko. At
this point, almost without fail, there would be a start, sometimes an
utterance such as "Ptah!" (half way between a spit and a guffaw) followed
by the action of swiftly moving on to the next piece. If the ambulant is
a member of a group, someone in the group would be apt to say "What's that
doing there? That's not art!" The people you find wondering around these
rooms are usually quite young, born long, long after the apotheosis of
modernism's great saints.
Also at the Tate there is a "Rothko chapel", as it can fairly be
described. This is a room distinguished from its neighbours by subdued
lighting, grey walls (other rooms are white) and devotion to the work of a
single artist. This room is a permanent fixture of that Tate. When there
is a re-hang, the room may move, but it never goes away. The room itself
has a permanent fixture: on whatever day you visit it, at whatever time,
you will see two or three individuals sitting on the benches in the middle
of that room, gazing at the paintings in contemplative mood. Not
intensely, mind, nor rapturously---just contemplative. These individuals
will, as surely as London is in England, be aged in their late thirties or
older and fashionably dressed. They will probably be American. There is
no use whatever in telling them that what they are enjoying is not the
genius of Rothko the painter, but the cleverness of the Tate's curator as
an interior decorator.
> And this is far more thought than the
> typical traditional landscape is ever able to provoke. So which painting
> is more successful?
The landscape, of course, because any really good landscape painting will
reward your inspection with all sorts of little pleasures, whereas a
Rothko will only disappoint, or even offend.
Coming back to the comparison with bread, a slice that provokes in me the
question, should this be on my plate? is surely worse than the one that is
merely bland.
> >> One sees that a a particular pair of colours sit well or poorly
> >> together, and is not persuaded by argument.
>
> Exactly. I for one think that the color combinations of Cezanne and Bacon
> are exquisitely beautiful, and will never be persuaded by your oft repeated
> arguments that they aren't.
I have been forced to qualify that remark, as my reply to one of Greg
Scheckler's posts will show. I have, until today, said nothing whatsoever
about Bacon's painting, much of which receives my unalloyed admiration.
As for Cezanne's colour, sometimes it is downright repulsive (pure mud)
and at other times it is just a very ordinary choice of colours guaranteed
to please a little (that is to say, he bothered to clean his brushes), and
the colour is the only, very slight, compensation one receives for looking
at an otherwise charmless, lumpen piece of work.
Michael Gerard Maranda
<snip>
>I confess, I have never eaten a truffle ...
<snip>
Well, I wish you had said this much earlier.
It explains everything. Get thee a decent truffle, eat it, and all of Rothko
will become apparent.
ta.
--
"Every age gets the renaissance it deserves." (Aby Warburg)
Michael Maranda *** mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Mdeli
> You assume that
>you are all-knowing. If a thousand people say that a painting is
>beautiful, but you, Bruce, can't see its beauty, do you really think
>it's rational to conclude that "the beauty is not there"?
Tell us about the beauty you see in Rockwell Ross.
>Your contention is that everyone who finds beauty in Cezanne,
>Rothko, et al., is either deceived, or deceptive...an idiot or a
>liar...when in reality the problem lies with your own lack of
>perception.
I made no such contention.It is a figment of your
paranoia.
>Any rational person who had even the remotest knowledge of
>modern art would conclude that Rothko's paintings are indeed
>paintings.
Only if you consider bedsheets and towels pantings.
>Somehow you two curmudgeons have been bypassed by the whole
>spirit of postmodernism: there is *no* big war going on (that's just
>your stupid delusion) - Abstractionism now exists side-by-side with
>realism (and everything else) - these make-believe controversies of
>yours are very old-fashioned and rather pathetic.
Superb abstraction exists in all oriental art. Idiotic
abstraction only exits in Modern Academic Art. which
doesn't hang next to great classical work. It is
segragated in our museums.
>When I first saw Twombly's paintings (specifically, his 'blackboard'
>works), I laughed along with everyone else...but on some level they
>intrigued me (maybe because I'm a calligrapher), and eventually his
>whole oeuvre came to appear highly original, and very impressive.
Is that a confession. The only differeance is that most
still laugh. Perhaps you can illuminate us as to why?
>The world of art is enormously complicated, and therefore you have
>to keep your mind open - there are no 'final solutions' or rigid
>categories, and you can be very sure that there are mysteries you
>will never understand.
Yes, remember Rockwell.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art.
Michael Betancourt
> Somehow you two curmudgeons have been bypassed by the whole
> spirit of postmodernism: there is *no* big war going on (that's just
> your stupid delusion) - Abstractionism now exists side-by-side with
> realism (and everything else) - these make-believe controversies of
> yours are very old-fashioned and rather pathetic.
>
> questions of personal taste. People are entitled to their own views,
> and you shouldn't pour scorn on those who disagree with your own
> personal preferences.
I have to agree.
-- Michael Betancourt (artist / videofilm maker)
E-mail: mw...@mosquito.com
Web Site: http://www.mosquito.com/~mwb2
http://www.art.net/Studios/Visual/Betan/index.html
CAT
Ross Green <gre...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>Your contention is that everyone who finds beauty in Cezanne,
>Rothko, et al., is either deceived, or deceptive...an idiot or a
>liar...when in reality the problem lies with your own lack of
>perception.
You pretty much said the same things about folks who like Rockwell or
Bouguereau.
Some else wrote this gem,
>>Rothko creates a simplicity which is very rich in subtle variation.
This is some poignant well written artspeak.
> Many of these aesthetical issues can be reduced to very simple
> questions of personal taste. People are entitled to their own views,
> and you shouldn't pour scorn on those who disagree with your own
> personal preferences.
Geez, months ago I was flamed and accused of living in a historical
vacuum along with the obligatory references to totalitarian forms of
government when I said it was a question of personal taste. Eek.
CAT
Bruce Attah
<mw...@mosquito.com> wrote:
> Ross Green wrote:
> > Somehow you two curmudgeons have been bypassed by the whole
> > spirit of postmodernism: there is *no* big war going on (that's just
> > your stupid delusion) - Abstractionism now exists side-by-side with
> > realism (and everything else) - these make-believe controversies of
> > yours are very old-fashioned and rather pathetic.
> >
> > Many of these aesthetical issues can be reduced to very simple
> > questions of personal taste. People are entitled to their own views,
> > and you shouldn't pour scorn on those who disagree with your own
> > personal preferences.
>
> I have to agree.
>
> -- Michael Betancourt (artist / videofilm maker)
> E-mail: mw...@mosquito.com
> Web Site: http://www.mosquito.com/~mwb2
> http://www.art.net/Studios/Visual/Betan/index.html
..and I (of course) have to disagree. I have never claimed there is a war
between abstract and figurative painting. Nor have I said there cannot be
good abstract art (there is plenty, but very little of it is produced
within the Western tradition of easel painting).
I agree that people are entitled to their own views, but not that "these
aesthetical [sic] issues can be reduced to very simplequestions of
personal taste". "Personal taste" will account for, say, one person's
preference for Stubbs over Degas (love of animals, dislike of cities,
perhaps). But the same "personal taste" would not lead to the person
saying "Stubbs is a good painter and Degas a bad painter". Such would be
a matter of judgement, which is to say the intelligent application of
taste, taking an objective stance. Such "impersonal taste" (to coin a
phrase) is more thoughtful, and offers a basis for agreement and
discussion between audiences.
Michael Gerard Maranda
<snip>
>I agree that people are entitled to their own views, but not that "these
>aesthetical [sic] issues can be reduced to very simplequestions of
>personal taste". "Personal taste" will account for, say, one person's
>preference for Stubbs over Degas (love of animals, dislike of cities,
>perhaps). But the same "personal taste" would not lead to the person
>saying "Stubbs is a good painter and Degas a bad painter". Such would be
>a matter of judgement, which is to say the intelligent application of
>taste, taking an objective stance. Such "impersonal taste" (to coin a
>phrase) is more thoughtful, and offers a basis for agreement and
>discussion between audiences.
Bruce, by your saying things like this it is apparent that you haven't gone
to check about reception aesthetics, nor about reception theory. Alas, and I
suppose to suggest a little Bourdieu would be out of the question ...
However, as you reinvent the already unfashionable wooden-rimmed wheel, you
might read some of Kant or any of a number of those influenced by him --
why, this might also include Greenberg (of _avant-garde_and_kitsch) to find
out that indeed there is no need to coin a phrase 'impersonal taste' as it
already exists as 'disinterested' in the third critique. In fact, now that I
think of it, it seems that you are very much like the later Greenberg ....
After that, make sure to get a copy of Jacques Derrida's _Truth_in_Painting_
(note, all the cezanne fans, the source of the title is indeed Cezanne who
promised to 'offer the truth, in painting') and read the chapter on the
parergon to see what is really going on in the third critique.
However, if either of these options seems a little dull and dreary, or too
full of promise, you could also check out something by David Hickey, as this
will definitely align with oyu way of thinking, or Frederick Turner ('The
Value of Values') in which case you could start arguing that beauty is hard
wired into your genetic code, and that those who like Cezanne are
'genetically challenged'
later
michael
Bruce Attah
mm0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Michael Gerard Maranda) wrote:
> >I agree that people are entitled to their own views, but not that "these
> >aesthetical [sic] issues can be reduced to very simplequestions of
> >personal taste". "Personal taste" will account for, say, one person's
> >preference for Stubbs over Degas (love of animals, dislike of cities,
> >perhaps). But the same "personal taste" would not lead to the person
> >saying "Stubbs is a good painter and Degas a bad painter". Such would be
> >a matter of judgement, which is to say the intelligent application of
> >taste, taking an objective stance. Such "impersonal taste" (to coin a
> >phrase) is more thoughtful, and offers a basis for agreement and
> >discussion between audiences.
>
> Bruce, by your saying things like this it is apparent that you haven't gone
> to check about reception aesthetics, nor about reception theory. Alas, and I
> suppose to suggest a little Bourdieu would be out of the question ...
You are nearly, but not quite, right. Prior to Jauss being mentioned
here, nothing I had read had lead me to reception theory, but I read a
little on the subject last weekend. Jauss's writings focus on literature,
though their application is clearly broader. It is not surprising to me
that my reading, which focuses on visual art, had not led me to this
material. What I have read so far suggests to me that it is somewhat
tangential, though not utterly irrelevant, to my main concerns.
> However, as you reinvent the already unfashionable wooden-rimmed wheel,
I never concern myself much with whether an idea is fashionable or not,
since (as you well know) good ideas can become unfashionable for stupid
reasons.
you
> might read some of Kant or any of a number of those influenced by him --
> why, this might also include Greenberg (of _avant-garde_and_kitsch) to find
I might indeed (or I might _have_).
As to the rest of your kind suggestions, I'll see what I can do. I have
to paint, after all.