So-called "art"
kl...@eudoramail.com
time. But now, after the unbelievable controversy stemming from New
York Mayor Giuliani's completely reasonable protest against beyond
obscene "art" residing in a publically-funded venue, now, I'm wondering
just how far we are away from the collapse of our society.
Chris Ofili's monsterpiece is not the only problem with this "art"
exhibit. What most people aren't aware of is that this exhibit also
includes the indescribably perverted "portrait" of a British
childmolestor/killer...made from CHILDREN'S HANDPRINTS!!!! (source:
Associated Press,
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/19991002/us/museum_flap_19.html)
All the loons, freaks, and fellow travellers coming out of the woodwork
to defend this, well, crap, on the grounds of "freedom of expression"
must certainly have their sanity, and/or moral innocence, questioned.
This isn't "Freedom of Expression." This is, just as Mayor Giuliani
described, a "sick demonstration of clear psychological problems."
Such manifestations of illness belong not in a museum. At worst, they
should be sent to New York or Columbia University so that professionals
can study the distortions of mind possible in today's modern "artists";
at best, they should be immediately torched.
NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
Our "liberal 'defenders of freedom of expression'" would be on the
front lines condemning such, well, trash. And I don't believe it's
merely hypocrisy; it's a shared psychological issue with the so-called
artists.
Whatever happened to real art, produced by sane minds? Is our society
so sick that it's fixated on shit, piss, sexual perversion, and so on,
in artistic expression?
-- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
Sacramento County, California
--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Don Grbac
(actually it does not qualify as art)! This sort of thing should be
banned. I think the First Lady made a mistake defending it. Bravo for
Mayor Giuliani!
Don
kl...@eudoramail.com wrote:
--
Registered Linux User - [It's not just for hackers anymore!]
Care about your family's health? Check out
http://www.notmilk.com
Scott D. Erb
>
>I consider myself a liberal, but I am totally against this type of "art"
>(actually it does not qualify as art)! This sort of thing should be
>banned. I think the First Lady made a mistake defending it. Bravo for
>Mayor Giuliani!
Banning art?
Are you into burning books too?
Maybe getting rid of that rock music -- the beat's from Satan you know...
No, you're not liberal. You're not even standing up for American values!
Thomas Andrews
He's also lying, because the First Lady didn't defend the art. She
defended the museum from having its funding out because of the art.
That's a subtle distinction, though, and hence one which will fall
on deaf right-wing ears.
--
Thomas Andrews tho...@best.com http://www.best.com/~thomaso/
rose...@idt.net
>I consider myself a liberal, but I am totally against this type of "art"
>(actually it does not qualify as art)! This sort of thing should be
>banned.
And what about the other 99.9% of religious art in the SAME building?
Make any judgments on that?
tjwilson
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> In article <37F7C5D7...@sgi.net>, dfg...@sgi.net says...
> >
> >I consider myself a liberal, but I am totally against this type of "art"
> >(actually it does not qualify as art)! This sort of thing should be
> >banned. I think the First Lady made a mistake defending it. Bravo for
> >Mayor Giuliani!
>
> Banning art?
>
> Are you into burning books too?
>
> Maybe getting rid of that rock music -- the beat's from Satan you know...
>
> No, you're not liberal. You're not even standing up for American values!
Sorry, you just failed the Liberal Test. You are probably un-american
too.
tjw
redrum
have appointed themselves to run it. Somehow the World War 2 generation
produced a bunch of uberselfish, morally bankrupt people. Now not all
baby boomers are like that; but there are enough-and they're in
positions of power because their goal is absolute control. While the
rest of the baby boom-like my parents-went on living their lives, a self
selected group of boomers who were the protest leaders of the 60s
appointed themselves the harbingers of a "new society". This new society
seems to consist of throwing out thousands of years of what works in
favor of "new ideas" that involve making everything relative and
fixating on the lowest common denominator. We have observed what has
happened when a select few have declared there to be no
limits-everything deflates into the worst possible condition. Hey, even
us anarchists recognize that there are natural limits, we just think
that they should be enforced by social interaction rather than state
rule. Now that the state has declared everything to be permissible, we
get people who will stop at nothing for the ultimate jungle goal: me
always and damn the world. We have gone too far on the self preservation
scale to self worship.
In article <7t8dmk$p78$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, kl...@eudoramail.com says...
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> They certainly got your anal retentive knickers in
> a knot. Have you ever been asked the question "why
> do you hate your mother?".
>
> have fun (with your hate)
>
I don't think that the old freudian term 'anal retentive' is relevant (apart
from the misspelling of faeces, where the 'a' is retained for some unknown
reason).
No, as you will have seen from Mdeli's sudden loquacity, the 'Sensation'
exhibition is an opportunity for those who feel intimidated by art to
get the boot in [jackboot, maybe].
I don't think that 'Sensation' is particularly amazing, though I think that
the Myra Hindley portrait is a very clever and emotionally resonant
idea. However, it certainly doesn't deserve all the foaming at the
mouth - until you see the foaming as an envious reaction.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
To be in process of change is not an evil, any more than to be the
product of change is a good.
- Marcus Aurelius.
FOB
<kl...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:7t8dmk$p78$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
> say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
> Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
> shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
> Our "liberal 'defenders of freedom of expression'" would be on the
> front lines condemning such, well, trash. And I don't believe it's
> merely hypocrisy; it's a shared psychological issue with the so-called
> artists.
Suppose the art show "exposed" homosexuals and lesbians in a "bad" light.
The show would never have opened. But since the schools and the media have
turned the country into an Christian hating society, people will just have
to put up with this in the new definition of tolerance.
> Whatever happened to real art, produced by sane minds? Is our society
> so sick that it's fixated on shit, piss, sexual perversion, and so on,
> in artistic expression?
Well, look who America elected as President twice. Bill (The reprobate)
Clinton! At least we are consistent(ly bad).
I say we should not ban this trash, we should just make them pay for it
themselves. See just how much money they can make on disparaging "art."
Don Grbac
> Don Grbac <dfg...@sgi.net> wrote:
>
> >I consider myself a liberal, but I am totally against this type of "art"
> >(actually it does not qualify as art)! This sort of thing should be
> >banned.
>
> And what about the other 99.9% of religious art in the SAME building?
>
> Make any judgments on that?
I am not in the vicinity, so, I can't make a judgment. However, I doubt it
is as distasteful as the pictures I saw in the news reports about this
particular subject.
There are a lot of immoral things going on in this country that will
eventually cause a backlash against them, unless certain people change
direction. You can only insult others so far before they retaliate. Jesus
said to turn the other cheek, but unfortunately we are not all saints and
able to do that.
Don
Don Grbac
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > In article <37F7C5D7...@sgi.net>, dfg...@sgi.net says...
> > >
> > >I consider myself a liberal, but I am totally against this type of "art"
> > >(actually it does not qualify as art)! This sort of thing should be
> > >banned. I think the First Lady made a mistake defending it. Bravo for
> > >Mayor Giuliani!
> >
> > Banning art?
> >
> > Are you into burning books too?
> >
> > Maybe getting rid of that rock music -- the beat's from Satan you know...
> >
> > No, you're not liberal. You're not even standing up for American values!
>
> Sorry, you just failed the Liberal Test. You are probably un-american
> too.
> tjw
I am liberal when it comes to supporting a single payer national health care
plan for everyone, government supported high-quality public education,
government supported assistance for the poor to give them a chance in life,
sufficient federal laws to protect our food and environment with enough
inspectors to enforce the law, reasonable gun control, etc. etc.
However, I guess you would have to classify me as conservative when it comes
to abusive art and entertainment. It is nice to live in a free country, but
people have to respect others - even here. When they don't, they are asking
for trouble, especially if the majority consider themselves Christian. The
"art" we are talking about is an example of thumbing your nose at someone else
to their face.
By the way, what are the "American Values?" I think there are a lot of
cliques in this country who think America as a whole has their values. They
will be surprised when and if it actually comes down to a vote. Instead of
calling other "cliques" names, we should listen to each other and, maybe, come
up with ways to make this country better - rather than insisting on our way of
doing things. Compromise is the name of the game! Don't insult me, and I
won't insult you. Our country is getting too confrontational, road rage,
etc. Is this the way we really want to live? I know we are all stressed to
the max. Let's stop this and change direction. Compromise! Give a little!
Enjoy life.
Cher Ayde
>Somehow the World War 2 generation
>produced a bunch of uberselfish, morally bankrupt people.
I was ready to be outraged by this then I realized
you aren't denigrating the WWII generation, of which
I am a select member, but rather the NEXT generation.
I don't have the answer for what has happened since
WWII, but wonder if the liberalism of succeeding
generations isn't a normal reaction to the horrors of
that wartime. Children today have NO IDEA what it
is like to live through a time like that, unless
of course you are Chechyan, Yugoslavian, African,
Iraqi, Iranian, Afghani, etc etc.... Not sure what
this has to do with artistic expression but???
Jenn
photograph of a crucifix in urine. I think it was dubbed piss christ, I dont
think that was its actually title. Oddly enough it was quite a nice photo
and the artist was really making a pro-christian statement about how
religion was treated today etc etc.... but people went to the gallery and
tried to destroy it, and there were protest.
There is always going to be SOMEONE offend by SOMETHING. This time it
happens to be a very large group in society who dont like it so its getting
lots of attention.
But really this is one of the things about art. Society does need people who
are going to do stuff like this. ART needs people who are going to do things
like this. To make us think, to make us get upset, to make us laugh. I mean
look at that guy who was charged because he used dead body parts in his
work... gross? Absolutely! Sick? Perhaps. But his work REALLY made people
think about mortality and life and death!
>> NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
>> say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
>> Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
>> shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
Well I dont know about that. See, I dont know much about this thing
happening in the US. But I know that the case I mentioned in Australia, like
I said, the artist was making a very powerful, statement about the way
religion is treated today.
Now lets look at your example, if someone used a photo of Jewish people
being murdered by Germans and called it "Jewish fantasy".... well that could
actually be a cleaver piece of work really, because (to cut a long
explanation and analysis short) its a PHOTO, and PROOVES these things
happened, and the title adds to that, so that perhaps what it REALLY might
be saying is.... "Of course it happened!" And would be making a very
powerful statement about how on earth people could say it was all made up.
Before people start ranting and raving about how insulting or wrong a piece
of work is, they should stop and double check that what THEY read into it is
in fact what the ARTIST intended!!
And if it is, well, we might not like it or agree with it, but art has moved
beyond just the pretty picture and is confronting, challenging, annoying and
insulting from time to time. But thats just part of it all.
If you dont like it... dont buy it.
FOB SPAM.CON> wrote in message <7tb356$8...@news1.cle.ab.com>...
Lauri Levanto
<snip of text, the nonsense is quoted>
> But really this is one of the things about art. Society does need people who
> are going to do stuff like this. ART needs people who are going to do things
> like this. To make us think, to make us get upset, to make us laugh. I mean
> look at that guy who was charged because he used dead body parts in his
> work... gross? Absolutely! Sick? Perhaps. But his work REALLY made people
> think about mortality and life and death!
Shouldn't it be the other way round. Life and death ought to make us
to think of art.
Just change a couple words. Do you REALLY support people who
abuse *deceased persons* as art material. Have you testamented
your own body to artistic use?
Liberty of art is great, liberty of speech even more. However,
are these absolute values, beyond any consideration. At least in many
Europian countries neo-nazi propaganda is a crime,
not sanctified by the liberty of speech. So is even sexual harassment.
Do yoy put a limit somewhere?
If a chain-saw murder is staged in some gallery by some
performance artist, is it still fair use of artistic freedom?
I was not offended by the Ofili painting as I saw it in TV.
I liked what I saw.
I did not like the degradation with an unnecessary publicity
gimmick.
In my opinion, from an artistic point of view, elephant dung is
bullshit in disguise.
I'm not so religious. I think it is naive to feel
religiously offended. As naive as woo mere publicity with it.
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
John Haber
>photograph of a crucifix in urine. I think it was dubbed piss christ, I dont
>think that was its actually title. Oddly enough it was quite a nice photo
>and the artist was really making a pro-christian statement about how
>religion was treated today etc etc.... but people went to the gallery and
>tried to destroy it, and there were protest.
I really appreciate your taking the time to note the irony here. It's
not elitist to ask people to think about what the art is before
trashing it. I mean, forget art: they wouldn't win a libel case if
they sued someone who was praising them.
>There is always going to be SOMEONE offended by SOMETHING.
Of course. It's also not elitist to assume that a diversity of free
expression must allow disagreements. The piss christ COULD have been
down on Jesus, and it would still have been allowed in my book, just
as we admire many novels (like Portrait of the Artist) based on an
individual's rejection of the religion in which he grew up as
constraining. It could then offer us insights into widely held
childhood confusions, the problems of adolescents finding an identity,
conflict with authority, the nature of art, the nature of reason or
feeling or commitment, etc., etc.
Holocaust museums have offended some people for keeping tough memories
alive or for reducing them to trivia. Yet they've been necessary for
others to commemorate terror. So imagine what art representing the
Holocaust could do to people.
>But really this is one of the things about art. Society does need people who
>are going to do stuff like this. ART needs people who are going to do things
>like this. To make us think, to make us get upset, to make us laugh.
Again, well said indeed. Art always runs the risk of offending
someone, because unlike most other forms of permissible expression, it
has special connection to the individual's guts making the work and to
the limits of feeling and perception.
>Look at that guy who was charged because he used dead body parts in his
>work... gross? Absolutely! Sick? Perhaps. But his work REALLY made people
>think about mortality and life and death!
Another good example of your looking past the offense to focus on
what's really going on IN THE WORK. I kept wanting to scream during
the fights over piss christ or Sensation: doesn't that matter, too???
"Sick, perhaps" is right, too. Not every work of art is going to be
as good as the artist hopes. Maybe some rebellion against a catholic
upbringing isn't going to produce A Portrait, just an Adam Sandler
type pissing. But tough.
John
carleric
> Sacramento County, California
> --
produced by "sane" minds? let time, and not your contracted opinions,
judge the validity of the works. btw, see a lot of "art" in sacramento?
ce
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Kay
: -- Milton John Kleim, Jr.
: Sacramento County, California
What is your definition of "sane" (or of "real")? Do you mean like an
accountant or something? I imagine you don't mean someone who puts a live
chicken head in their mouth and bites it off.... Then again, most artists I
know don't do that. I haven't been in a room with a television on since
September 7, 1999 and at this point am wondering what is "sane" or "real".
Kay
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
carleric
sane. Of that we can be fairly sure. Someone who incorporates elephant
feces into a painting is probably not.
In article <FPPO3.7794$5W2.2...@news6.giganews.com>, "Kay"
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Cher Ayde
carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid says...
>
>I would say, in general, that someone who cuts off his own ear is not
>sane. Of that we can be fairly sure. Someone who incorporates elephant
>feces into a painting is probably not.
Sanity begets boring art, as any serious artist knows...
carleric
carleric
who incorporates elephant feces into art is probably not considered
"insane." In fact, taken in the context of the art world, i would say
that's pretty conventional. What is insane is the notion that viewing a
sepcific work of art will topple society. Art and society have
coexisted for as long as either have been around. It's not art that is
dangerous, its the interpretation that seems to hold danger for most
people.
As far as the debate about using public funds to support "offensive"
art, there are far more dangerous and "offensive" projects supported by
public funds than a few relatively innocuous works of art.
ce
Gerry Quinn
>sorry... cut off the end of the message. I meant to say that someone
>who incorporates elephant feces into art is probably not considered
>"insane." In fact, taken in the context of the art world, i would say
>that's pretty conventional. What is insane is the notion that viewing a
>sepcific work of art will topple society. Art and society have
>coexisted for as long as either have been around. It's not art that is
>dangerous, its the interpretation that seems to hold danger for most
>people.
>
Hmm, are you suggesting that the suppression of a specific art work will
topple society? That would be pretty insane too...
- Gerry Quinn
carleric
> work will
> topple society? That would be pretty insane too...
> - Gerry Quinn
inclusion or exclusion of a piece of art from public view will somehow
hasten the end of society, is insane. I was also trying to refute the
idea that only insanity can produce interesting and original art and
that sane artists produce art which is necessarily boring.
Nikolaus Maack
<carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>I was also trying to refute the
>idea that only insanity can produce interesting and original art and
>that sane artists produce art which is necessarily boring.
Sanity is boring. Sane art isn't necessarily boring. Insanity is
exciting. It's also scary. Insane art can come across as pure
gibberish.
All in all, I think it's best to walk the line between sanity and
insanity. Eat oatmeal for breakfast, but eat it with the wrong end of
your spoon.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
each painting should not be burned.
Sharlene
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <380f2383....@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
[snip]
> Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <380f2383....@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
> >On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:32:54 -0700, carleric
> ><carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>I was also trying to refute the
> >>idea that only insanity can produce interesting and original art and
> >>that sane artists produce art which is necessarily boring.
> >
> >Sanity is boring. Sane art isn't necessarily boring. Insanity is
> >exciting. It's also scary. Insane art can come across as pure
> >gibberish.
I've had some experience as a psychotherapist (and even a little
bit as a sufferer...), and I think I can say
with some basis of experience that while there
may be some forms of insanity that are exciting, many
forms of insanity (or just "mental illness") are demoralizing
at best and often terrifying to the person who suffers them
[suffer in two senses: (1) the medical sense of having an
ailment, and (2) the more general sense of having to put
up with something one cannot get to go away even though
one very much wishes it would!]. Depersonalization and
derealization, e.g., are not *fun*!
Many great artists have been quite "sane": Kandinsky,
Matisse, Hermann Broch, Robert Musil, Thomas Mann,
Louis Kahn, Sophocles, Rabelais, LeCorbusier,
Mies van der Rohe, Rembrandt, Bach.... As Broch
wrote: Great art blinds you and then gives you your vision back
better than it was before.
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bra...@cloud9.net
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Gerry Quinn
>On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:32:54 -0700, carleric
><carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>I was also trying to refute the
>>idea that only insanity can produce interesting and original art and
>>that sane artists produce art which is necessarily boring.
>
>Sanity is boring. Sane art isn't necessarily boring. Insanity is
>exciting. It's also scary. Insane art can come across as pure
>gibberish.
>
>insanity. Eat oatmeal for breakfast, but eat it with the wrong end of
>your spoon.
>
> Nik
That would be play insanity, the sort you think is exciting. Insanity
would be trying to spoon it up your arse.
- Gerry Quinn
Cher Ayde
>All in all, I think it's best to walk the line between sanity and
>insanity. Eat oatmeal for breakfast, but eat it with the wrong end of
>your spoon.
For those of us who eat peas with a table knife,
eating oatmeal with one is no big deal...try it
with a fork!
Cher Ayde
>Great art blinds you and then gives you your vision back
>better than it was before.
And to think of all those folks who are paying
thousands for the new laser corrections to their
eyesight...they could be spending that money
on art that they could enjoy once their eyesight
is restored.
Marilyn Welch
As a French Canadian jungian writer/practioner said to us,
"you artists are in trouble, because you live too much in
your unconscious." You brought this to my mind with the
conclusion of your post. Skirting the edges of the rational
/irrational, it takes a strong mind to be able to do that.
Just as some people were able to go on trips with lsd and
come back enlightened, some never recovered.
Wonder where that rumour that artists are crazy, began.
It seems to stem from a puritan distrust of the imagination.
Marilyn
On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Brad McCormick, Ed.D. wrote:
> Sharlene wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <380f2383....@news.ncf.carleton.ca>...
> > >On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:32:54 -0700, carleric
> > ><carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>I was also trying to refute the
> > >>idea that only insanity can produce interesting and original art and
> > >>that sane artists produce art which is necessarily boring.
> > >
> > >Sanity is boring. Sane art isn't necessarily boring. Insanity is
> > >exciting. It's also scary. Insane art can come across as pure
> > >gibberish.
> [snip]
>
> I've had some experience as a psychotherapist (and even a little
> bit as a sufferer...), and I think I can say
> with some basis of experience that while there
> may be some forms of insanity that are exciting, many
> forms of insanity (or just "mental illness") are demoralizing
> at best and often terrifying to the person who suffers them
> [suffer in two senses: (1) the medical sense of having an
> ailment, and (2) the more general sense of having to put
> up with something one cannot get to go away even though
> one very much wishes it would!]. Depersonalization and
> derealization, e.g., are not *fun*!
>
> Many great artists have been quite "sane": Kandinsky,
> Matisse, Hermann Broch, Robert Musil, Thomas Mann,
> Louis Kahn, Sophocles, Rabelais, LeCorbusier,
> Mies van der Rohe, Rembrandt, Bach.... As Broch
> wrote: Great art blinds you and then gives you your vision back
> better than it was before.
>
Amanda Amante
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <bra...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:380F9D...@cloud9.net...
What a great quote Brad!
Amanda
Bill Bonde
Marilyn Welch wrote:
>
> As a French Canadian jungian writer/practioner said to us,
> "you artists are in trouble, because you live too much in
> your unconscious." You brought this to my mind with the
> conclusion of your post. Skirting the edges of the rational
> /irrational, it takes a strong mind to be able to do that.
> Just as some people were able to go on trips with lsd and
> come back enlightened, some never recovered.
>
And you are sure that the difference was in having a strong mind or not?
That seems a wildly presumptuous statement.
> Wonder where that rumour that artists are crazy, began.
> It seems to stem from a puritan distrust of the imagination.
>
No, it comes from them being crazy.
Nikolaus Maack
wrote:
>That would be play insanity, the sort you think is exciting. Insanity
>would be trying to spoon it up your arse.
Actually, shoving oatmeal up my ass with a spoon kinda sounds like
fun. I wonder... If I filmed it and called it art, do you suppose I
could get an art grant of some kind?
My motto: try everything twice, just in case you did it wrong the
first time.
James Whitehead
<ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>In article <1415c574...@usw-ex0102-012.remarq.com>, carleric <carleric71NO
>caS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>sorry... cut off the end of the message. I meant to say that someone
>>who incorporates elephant feces into art is probably not considered
>>"insane." In fact, taken in the context of the art world, i would say
>>that's pretty conventional. What is insane is the notion that viewing a
>>sepcific work of art will topple society. Art and society have
>>coexisted for as long as either have been around. It's not art that is
>>dangerous, its the interpretation that seems to hold danger for most
>>people.
>>
>
>topple society? That would be pretty insane too...
>
>- Gerry Quinn
so also Churchill (oils)
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes
>> Hmm, are you suggesting that the suppression of a specific art
>> work will
>> topple society? That would be pretty insane too...
>> - Gerry Quinn
>inclusion or exclusion of a piece of art from public view will somehow
>idea that only insanity can produce interesting and original art and
>that sane artists produce art which is necessarily boring.
>>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
mad when he painted- only suffered an illness? Being 'disturbed' is
maybe more to the point- the whole idea of sanity has cultural
overtones- so for instance compare the so called crazy DADAists , with
the establishment of the day - marching waves of men into barbed wire
and machine guns...
that many artists resort to madness, drink, drugs... maybe to do with
their perceptions of our madness.
As for today netaid- a photo opportunity for waning rock-stars and
politicians to sell whatever off the suffering of the poor who they are
in part the cause. I regard any sane person today with deep suspicion.
--
James Whitehead
Justin Hindmarch
loaded with oatmeal, and impossible to convey it to your mouth without
spilling it. I KNOW, I'VE JUST TRIED !
Instead I'm giving myself an oatmeal enema, and I shall spend the rest of
the day burping until it woks its way on through in time for breakfast
tomorrow.
The resultant bowl of oatmeal will be entered into next years Turner Prize -
I'm quite hopeful!
P
Gerry Quinn wrote in message ...
>In article <380f2383....@news.ncf.carleton.ca>,
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:32:54 -0700, carleric
>><carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>I was also trying to refute the
>>>idea that only insanity can produce interesting and original art and
>>>that sane artists produce art which is necessarily boring.
>>
>>Sanity is boring. Sane art isn't necessarily boring. Insanity is
>>exciting. It's also scary. Insane art can come across as pure
>>gibberish.
>>
>>All in all, I think it's best to walk the line between sanity and
>>insanity. Eat oatmeal for breakfast, but eat it with the wrong end of
>>your spoon.
>>
>> Nik
>
>That would be play insanity, the sort you think is exciting. Insanity
>would be trying to spoon it up your arse.
>
>- Gerry Quinn
John Haber
useful to adolescents looking for an excuse to get drunk but not
terribly helpful to artists, sane or suffering.
john
Alison A Raimes
<tr...@catcat.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>But if you put the spoon up your arse it would be difficult to get the spoon
>loaded with oatmeal, and impossible to convey it to your mouth without
>spilling it. I KNOW, I'VE JUST TRIED !
>
>Instead I'm giving myself an oatmeal enema, and I shall spend the rest of
>the day burping until it woks its way on through in time for breakfast
>tomorrow.
Chuck some chillies into the wok along with the oatmeal ... that should
help the movement ...
>
>The resultant bowl of oatmeal will be entered into next years Turner Prize -
>I'm quite hopeful!
>P
>
Your definitely in with a chance !
-
Alison A Raimes
Paul Mesken
<jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>just remember Hitler was a painter....(water colours)
>so also Churchill (oils)
Yes, this just shows the health hazards of water colour fumes ;-)
carleric
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
> >would be trying to spoon it up your arse.
Suppose it proved to be a safe, gentle laxative? Then it would
be a highly sane contribution to improving the quality of life.
[snip]
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> >All in all, I think it's best to walk the line between sanity and
> >insanity. Eat oatmeal for breakfast, but eat it with the wrong end of
> >your spoon.
>
> eating oatmeal with one is no big deal...try it
> with a fork!
I'd rather try to eat peas with chop-sticks than
a flat table knife....
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> Yeah, Brad, I have to agree that the "sanity is boring" stuff is
> useful to adolescents looking for an excuse to get drunk but not
> terribly helpful to artists, sane or suffering.
Now there's a real challenge: To find genuinely exciting things
for adolescents to do that are also unambivalently
constructive. I think it's possible, and probably even
actually happens sometimes. But our so-called-"society"
doesn't do a very good job of it.
I mean, for one example: Almost everything young persons do in
school has a dual telos: (1) to affect the student's "grade" --
with serious implications for the young person's
prospects of quality of life, and (2) to go into a
trash can. The first part is like whipping a dog.
The second part -- even detached from the first --
raises the question: "Why bother?"
I'd be glad to puesue this further if anyone is interested....
c k
issues we have to note here.
Art nowadays has declined in the sense that what we have traditionally
considered art like a 'nice' and well known painting of Impressionists or
Renaissance, now we are being forced to consider some contemporary artist's
extremely personal work as public and equal to the art of Vann Gogh or Da
Vinci...
Chris
----------
In article <380f2383....@news.ncf.carleton.ca>,
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:32:54 -0700, carleric
> <carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>I was also trying to refute the
>>idea that only insanity can produce interesting and original art and
>>that sane artists produce art which is necessarily boring.
>
> Sanity is boring. Sane art isn't necessarily boring. Insanity is
> exciting. It's also scary. Insane art can come across as pure
> gibberish.
>
> All in all, I think it's best to walk the line between sanity and
> insanity. Eat oatmeal for breakfast, but eat it with the wrong end of
> your spoon.
>
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> Back in 1960 I exhibited a super-minimal work of my own invention
> called "Hole." I believed this came closer to "nothing" than any
> previous work. It consisted of a small, very real hole in the wall
> made by the nail of a picture-hook. I always supposed that this work's
> necessarily minuscule size prevented it from gaining much deserved
> recognition. In fact after this rather exhausting minimal effort I had
> intended to paint a sequel, a work called "Plaster" (by literally
> filling "Hole" with plaster).
If you did not win a MacArthur Prize for this, it can only be
because you are not a sufficiently important artist. How
does one become a "sufficiently important artist"? I suspect
that has a lot more to do with "connections", luck,
and perhaps also the ability to "market oneself", than with
any kind of substantive accomplishment.
>
> Now that this most minimal possible work was conceived and executed I
> believed that the pendulum might swing back and the actual picture
> might again gain intellectual interest.
>
> Minimalism closely parallels the one handed clap put forth by Zen
> aficionados. It boils down to the metaphysical question which I leave
> for my more intellectual colleagues to ponder: Is "almost nothing"
> something really worth worrying about?
Damned right it is: Try *breathing* "almost nothing" instead
of air at ca. 20 inches of mercury barometric pressure!
> All this can be expressed in a simple mathematical formula:
> PURE (SPLAT + POTSCH + SCHMIER) = 0
Or, as Foghorn Leghorn said:
Two half nuthins make a whole nuthin.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Check out my web page, A Skeptical View of Modern Art and
> my book, comments, work at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
You like Dali? As an artist? What about Duchamp?
ALso: Maybe you shouldn't be spending so much time on
drawing-painting-sculpture. Perhaps these are not the
major art forms of our time. Perhaps (e.g.) the cinema
and (God help us!) architecture are better candidates.
I do like your painting: "Art Diploma - Take One", although
I do hope that's supposed to be a van Doesburg (sp?) and
not a Mondrian on the wall....
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bra...@cloud9.net
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
Gerry Quinn
>Back in 1960 I exhibited a super-minimal work of my own invention
>called "Hole." I believed this came closer to "nothing" than any
>previous work. It consisted of a small, very real hole in the wall
>made by the nail of a picture-hook. I always supposed that this work's
>necessarily minuscule size prevented it from gaining much deserved
>recognition. In fact after this rather exhausting minimal effort I had
>intended to paint a sequel, a work called "Plaster" (by literally
>filling "Hole" with plaster).
>
>believed that the pendulum might swing back and the actual picture
>might again gain intellectual interest.
>
I cannot understand how such a daring work was ignored. Your
encapsulation of gender issues is nothing short of brilliant! The hole
(clearly representing the Female) is imprinted (fixed, displayed*) on
the wall by - of course - a PICTURE hook which represents reductionist
Aristotelian Rationalism. The world is 'named' by the rationalist
painting process - and your hole is at once constructed, named (and
shamed?) by the penis point of this phallocentric complex of culture! A
work of unalloyed genius, and you did not even have to use shit!
Sorry my blurb is a bit short. A pro would go on for pages, and exhibit
a greater command of proctoglossolalia.
- Gerry Quinn
*Observe the inclusion of the words SPLAYED, PLAYED, and LAYED (or LAID)
in the word DISPLAYED. And DIS, the underground empire of death! S/M
implications are clear when we write it backward, and find YALP
(or YELP). To DEYALP, then is to silence, to control, to
mutilate... Perhaps one could write a pamphlet, in the style of
Derrida's _OR_.
Peter H.M. Brooks
ger...@indigo.ie "Gerry Quinn" writes:
> Sorry my blurb is a bit short. A pro would go on for pages, and exhibit
> a greater command of proctoglossolalia.
>
I like that term, 'proctoglossolalia'. It is most apt.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
"My own opinion - which I may as well indicate at tha outset - is that pure
Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which society should
continually approximate, is for the present impossible.." - Bertrand Russell
Henry
Sorry but I am the worlds foremost minimalist. My works have hung on no
walls in any gallery in the world. Nor have I produced any. Try to top
that!
> Back in 1960 I exhibited a super-minimal work of my own invention
> called "Hole." I believed this came closer to "nothing" than any
> previous work. It consisted of a small, very real hole in the wall
> made by the nail of a picture-hook. I always supposed that this work's
> necessarily minuscule size prevented it from gaining much deserved
> recognition. In fact after this rather exhausting minimal effort I had
> intended to paint a sequel, a work called "Plaster" (by literally
> filling "Hole" with plaster).
>
> Now that this most minimal possible work was conceived and executed I
> believed that the pendulum might swing back and the actual picture
> might again gain intellectual interest.
>
> Minimalism closely parallels the one handed clap put forth by Zen
> aficionados. It boils down to the metaphysical question which I leave
> for my more intellectual colleagues to ponder: Is "almost nothing"
> something really worth worrying about?
> All this can be expressed in a simple mathematical formula:
> PURE (SPLAT + POTSCH + SCHMIER) = 0
>
Henry
> >called "Hole." I believed this came closer to "nothing" than any
> >previous work. It consisted of a small, very real hole in the wall
> >made by the nail of a picture-hook. I always supposed that this work's
> >necessarily minuscule size prevented it from gaining much deserved
> >recognition. In fact after this rather exhausting minimal effort I had
> >intended to paint a sequel, a work called "Plaster" (by literally
> >filling "Hole" with plaster).
> >
> >Now that this most minimal possible work was conceived and executed I
> >believed that the pendulum might swing back and the actual picture
> >might again gain intellectual interest.
> >
>
> I cannot understand how such a daring work was ignored. Your
> encapsulation of gender issues is nothing short of brilliant! The hole
> (clearly representing the Female)
What a disgusting thing. This work should be destroyed or better yet
burn down the gallery!
> is imprinted (fixed, displayed*) on
> the wall by - of course - a PICTURE hook which represents reductionist
> Aristotelian Rationalism. The world is 'named' by the rationalist
> painting process - and your hole is at once constructed, named (and
> shamed?) by the penis point of this phallocentric complex of culture! A
> work of unalloyed genius, and you did not even have to use shit!
>
> Sorry my blurb is a bit short. A pro would go on for pages, and exhibit
> a greater command of proctoglossolalia.
>
Nikolaus Maack
<bra...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>How does one become a "sufficiently important artist"? I suspect
>that has a lot more to do with "connections", luck,
>and perhaps also the ability to "market oneself", than with
>any kind of substantive accomplishment.
"I failed," we say, "but not because of lack of talent, but because of
impossible odds -- you gotta have social skills and connections."
The gambler who loses at cards claims he was unlucky, and that the
house was cheating.
"I succeeded," we say, "not because of social skills and connections,
but because of my great talent."
The gambler who wins at cards claims he was skilled, and that the
house was cheating.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> mdeli wrote:
>
> Sorry but I am the worlds foremost minimalist. My works have hung on no
> walls in any gallery in the world. Nor have I produced any. Try to top
> that!
The big questions are: (1) How much do you get *paid* for doing it?
(2) How long is your "CV" from doing it? Now I think it's
possible to accomplish both items by what you're doing, but
I think one can probably do it more easily by becoming
a *GURU* (Guru: "I am [/ am not]." Fawning mass of disciples: "He
is[/ is not]!" Trusted disciple subset: [Go around collecting lots
of money and free labor from the less trusted disciples])
Being a minimalist doesn't *necesarily* mean you have to
live minimally -- and there are even two kinds of poverty:
(1) the regular kind, and (2) the Guru kind, where you have no
taxable assets but every capitalist [or at least his
non-working dependents...] vies for the opportunity to
send their chauffeur to take you where you want to go.
Henry
>
> Henry wrote:
> >
> > mdeli wrote:
> >
> > Sorry but I am the worlds foremost minimalist. My works have hung on no
> > walls in any gallery in the world. Nor have I produced any. Try to top
> > that!
> [snip]
>
> The big questions are: (1) How much do you get *paid* for doing it?
> (2) How long is your "CV" from doing it? Now I think it's
> possible to accomplish both items by what you're doing, but
> I think one can probably do it more easily by becoming
> a *GURU* (Guru: "I am [/ am not]." Fawning mass of disciples: "He
> is[/ is not]!" Trusted disciple subset: [Go around collecting lots
> of money and free labor from the less trusted disciples])
>
> Being a minimalist doesn't *necesarily* mean you have to
> live minimally -- and there are even two kinds of poverty:
> (1) the regular kind, and (2) the Guru kind, where you have no
> taxable assets but every capitalist [or at least his
> non-working dependents...] vies for the opportunity to
> send their chauffeur to take you where you want to go.
I have been waiting for the chauffeur for a long time now. Understanding
great art as I do I need to wait to die first to gain fame and rewards.
My dilemma:
Wait for the chauffeur until I die or accept the fact that I may no
longer be the world's greatest minimalist?
Henry
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 07:12:12 -0400, "Brad McCormick, Ed.D."
> <bra...@cloud9.net> wrote:
> >How does one become a "sufficiently important artist"? I suspect
> >that has a lot more to do with "connections", luck,
> >and perhaps also the ability to "market oneself", than with
> >any kind of substantive accomplishment.
>
> "I failed," we say, "but not because of lack of talent, but because of
> impossible odds -- you gotta have social skills and connections."
>
> The gambler who loses at cards claims he was unlucky, and that the
> house was cheating.
>
> "I succeeded," we say, "not because of social skills and connections,
> but because of my great talent."
Are you kidding. I have no talent and yet I still fail at art!
James Whitehead
writes
>Back in 1960 I exhibited a super-minimal work of my own invention
>called "Hole."
go ignored is that they are not part of the movement they wish to
ridicule- and misunderstand what are the concerns of the movement.
Interestingly your date is perhaps a little early, as someone who thinks
that skill has something to do with art then i would have thought the
rise of pop art (at this time) would have suited you, in which you could
work alongside the likes of Rosenquist, Mel Remos, or latter with the
photo realists.
>Now that this most minimal possible work was conceived and executed I
>believed that the pendulum might swing back and the actual picture
>might again gain intellectual interest.
constructed- like the impossibility of painting and building Christian
art once one has rejected the theological premise. Such work becomes
'ironic' in the extreme- the post modern condition in art.
>Minimalism closely parallels the one handed clap put forth by Zen
>aficionados. It boils down to the metaphysical question which I leave
>for my more intellectual colleagues to ponder: Is "almost nothing"
>something really worth worrying about?
nothing - as it appears to be the source of reality. The forms and
structures found in minimalism are the fundamental constructs in all
art.
> PURE (SPLAT + POTSCH + SCHMIER) = 0
>
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
realised many times- the Dutch realists for instance- the ability to
paint 'photographically' or actually paint to what is accepted publicly
as realistic is both simple to learn and meaningfully empty. Before the
introduction of the camera thousands of hack artists did this.
Its interesting that you site Dali and Disney as artists you admire-
both of these very often let others do the work - merely adding their
name to the finished piece, (or in the case of dali signing blank sheets
of paper) and if their work wasn't there own - also the concepts
explored in them were not. (domesticated and homogenized versions of
some clinched theory- or story)
>
>Check out my web page, A Skeptical View of Modern Art and
>my book, comments, work at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
--
James Whitehead
mdeli
previous work. It consisted of a small, very real hole in the wall
made by the nail of a picture-hook. I always supposed that this work's
necessarily minuscule size prevented it from gaining much deserved
recognition. In fact after this rather exhausting minimal effort I had
intended to paint a sequel, a work called "Plaster" (by literally
filling "Hole" with plaster).
Now that this most minimal possible work was conceived and executed I
believed that the pendulum might swing back and the actual picture
might again gain intellectual interest.
Minimalism closely parallels the one handed clap put forth by Zen
aficionados. It boils down to the metaphysical question which I leave
for my more intellectual colleagues to ponder: Is "almost nothing"
something really worth worrying about?
All this can be expressed in a simple mathematical formula:
PURE (SPLAT + POTSCH + SCHMIER) = 0
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my web page, A Skeptical View of Modern Art and
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
[snip]
> It is far too late for me to continue on such a difficult modern path
> anymore. I have often suggested that many Modern artists would have
> been far better off had they simply left the paint in the tube.
> However, I am proud to have made pioneering effort in the correct
> direction.
[snip]
Lost of possibilities here, from putting a piece of plexiglass on the
front of a paint box so the tubes won't fall on the floor
and hanging the box on the wall, to making a mobile out of
paint tubes (perhaps using brushes as the "arms" to suspend
the tubes from), etc.
I definitely agree with the person who emphasized the
importance of *name dropping*, but the problem here is to
get a kind of "fire storm" (remember Dresden, Hamburg,
Tokyo, etc.?) going, and get other people to start dropping
your name at a "critical" (nuclear reaction term...) rate....
James W. Foster
art doesn't either?
-james
Cher Ayde <do...@tryto.emailme.com> wrote in message
news:380d1...@oracle.zianet.com...
> In article <004aa0e3...@usw-ex0101-002.remarq.com>,
> carleric7...@yahoo.com.invalid says...
> >
> >I would say, in general, that someone who cuts off his own ear is not
> >sane. Of that we can be fairly sure. Someone who incorporates elephant
> >feces into a painting is probably not.
>
> Sanity begets boring art, as any serious artist knows...
>
Emmi
¨^^^^^~~ Emmi
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> kirjoitti
viestissä:38118de4...@news.euronet.nl...
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
mdeli
wrote:
>In article <3813b7e...@news.psi.ca>, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>Back in 1960 I exhibited a super-minimal work of my own invention
>>called "Hole." I believed this came closer to "nothing" than any
>>previous work. It consisted of a small, very real hole in the wall
>>made by the nail of a picture-hook. I always supposed that this work's
>>necessarily minuscule size prevented it from gaining much deserved
>>recognition. In fact after this rather exhausting minimal effort I had
>>intended to paint a sequel, a work called "Plaster" (by literally
>>filling "Hole" with plaster).
>>
>>Now that this most minimal possible work was conceived and executed I
>>believed that the pendulum might swing back and the actual picture
>>might again gain intellectual interest.
>>
>>Mani DeLi
>
>I cannot understand how such a daring work was ignored. Your
>encapsulation of gender issues is nothing short of brilliant! The hole
>(clearly representing the Female) is imprinted (fixed, displayed*) on
>the wall by - of course - a PICTURE hook which represents reductionist
>Aristotelian Rationalism. The world is 'named' by the rationalist
>painting process - and your hole is at once constructed, named (and
>shamed?) by the penis point of this phallocentric complex of culture! A
>work of unalloyed genius, and you did not even have to use shit!
>
>Sorry my blurb is a bit short. A pro would go on for pages, and exhibit
>a greater command of proctoglossolalia.
>
>- Gerry Quinn
Good points but not enough gaseous fill. Also you completely missed
out on name-dropping. Read my suggestions in the Artspeak thread.
Try reading Haber on RAF and a real Artspeak professional blow-bag
like Schapiro for more inspiration.
mdeli
wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>
>Sorry but I am the worlds foremost minimalist. My works have hung on no
>walls in any gallery in the world. Nor have I produced any. Try to top
>that!
I can't and feel humbled. Minimalism owes you a great debt.
It is far too late for me to continue on such a difficult modern path
anymore. I have often suggested that many Modern artists would have
been far better off had they simply left the paint in the tube.
However, I am proud to have made pioneering effort in the correct
direction.
Should you ever need someone to put in a good word if you are looking
to become headmaster of a modern art academy, I will be glad to write
a glowing recomendation.
>
>> Back in 1960 I exhibited a super-minimal work of my own invention
>> called "Hole." I believed this came closer to "nothing" than any
>> previous work. It consisted of a small, very real hole in the wall
>> made by the nail of a picture-hook. I always supposed that this work's
>> necessarily minuscule size prevented it from gaining much deserved
>> recognition. In fact after this rather exhausting minimal effort I had
>> intended to paint a sequel, a work called "Plaster" (by literally
>> filling "Hole" with plaster).
>>
>> Now that this most minimal possible work was conceived and executed I
>> believed that the pendulum might swing back and the actual picture
>> might again gain intellectual interest.
>>
>> Minimalism closely parallels the one handed clap put forth by Zen
>> aficionados. It boils down to the metaphysical question which I leave
>> for my more intellectual colleagues to ponder: Is "almost nothing"
>> something really worth worrying about?
>> All this can be expressed in a simple mathematical formula:
>> PURE (SPLAT + POTSCH + SCHMIER) = 0
Mani DeLi
Paul Mesken
>James Whitehead wrote: >yes it is - both in art and physics modernism was
>obsessed with this
>>nothing - as it appears to be the source of reality. The forms and
>>structures found in minimalism are the fundamental constructs in all
>>art.
>
>Agreed. But taking those forms and structures and making something new out of
>them is what I call art. On their own, they are the fundamental constructs as
>you say, like the numbers in an equation. But you need to put the numbers
>together to give the equation meaning -- in our particular corner of material
>reality anyway.
>
>>skill as a criteria for art makes the whole practice absurd - this was
>>realised many times- the Dutch realists for instance- the ability to
>>paint 'photographically' or actually paint to what is accepted publicly
>>as realistic is both simple to learn and meaningfully empty. Before the
>>introduction of the camera thousands of hack artists did this.
>
>YES. I wish more people understood this. When people admire such things I've
>painted as an exercise, like family portraits, and dismiss the other stuff as
>too 'artsy' they think I'm b.s.'ing when I tell them anyone can paint
>realistically.
>
I do agree that stuff like the square graph method from photographs
(which people like Lee Hammond teach) is relatively easy although you
still need a good eye. Nevertheless I believe this is a good starting
point for beginning painters to develop an "eye", by giving all
details attention. One can often see how ears, hair, the shapes around
the mouth and eyes and even the nose (which is in fact a quite
complicated 3 dimensional shape) are rendered much too basically while
the eyes themselves, the mouth and hands are given much more attention
by novice painters.
Ofcourse one needs to learn from these experiences and incorporate
this knowledge into subsequent paintings. One cannot render facial
expressions lively without acknowledging that all facial features are
transforming each other and thus not being isolated from each other.
The complex shape of the face can be conveyed by the proper use of
shading. These things can be learned from using methods like the
square graph one. It's certainly is not the end point, more a starting
point. Many abstract painters started of painting "photo
realistically", after that experience they started to "understand"
their subjects and were able to abstract them.
Paul Mesken
>Paul Mesken wrote: >I do agree that stuff like the square graph method from
>photographs
>>(which people like Lee Hammond teach) is relatively easy although you
>>still need a good eye. Nevertheless I believe this is a good starting
>>point for beginning painters to develop an "eye", by giving all
>snip
>>Ofcourse one needs to learn from these experiences and incorporate
>>this knowledge into subsequent paintings.
>>The complex shape of the face can be conveyed by the proper use of
>>shading. These things can be learned from using methods like the
>>square graph one. It's certainly is not the end point, more a starting
>>point. Many abstract painters started of painting "photo
>>realistically", after that experience they started to "understand"
>>their subjects and were able to abstract them.
>
>I personally wasn't referring to using a "square graph method." Did that sort
>of stuff in elementary school. I was just saying that painting realistically
>is "easy", as it is just a matter of practice, learning the underlying
>structure. It may take a long time, but anyone can do it. However, "art" is
>something beyond a learned skill. I believe it takes a certain personality
>type, someone who sees two things and then sees and new third thing, as opposed
>to just seeing those two things clearly.
>
Yes, I do believe that anyone, determined enough, can learn to render
"realistic" paintings. One could say that it is therefor "easy" in the
sense you use it. Personally I think the ideas are easier (they
manifest themselves and just take shape) but then again: many people
don't seem to be able to generate anything inspired, which I think of
as very odd. Indeed it might be that it takes a certain personality to
make art. Although one still needs a proper amount of skill (both in
observation and application) to successfully convey the ideas and find
the needed skills.
IMHO the tricky part is to translate the idea (or perception,
inspiration, vision, fantasy, whatever) into art. This translation is
performed by the skills. People are quite early on attracted to one or
more favorite mediums of expression (drawing, painting, music,
sculptures, dance, etc.). One needs to investigate the medium in order
to find out how to execute art in such a way that it resonates with
the idea. Skills are developed while investigating (and frustration
finding out about a lack of skill :-)
But also ideas are developed more (deepened, refined) by becoming more
skillfull and learning more. In the end and throughout however, it
will be the skills serving the idea. There are a great many examples
of great skillfullness used to execute uninspired work, there are also
examples of great works which only seem to have needed a minimum of
skill (but it takes a lot of skill to close in on an appropriate level
and type :-)
As I already stated, I agree that it is available to all to render
"realistic" paintings (there are many methods to achieve this
successfully). The problem is to develop the proper and personal
skills (the style) needed to create the art that resonates with the
personal ideas (which determine style because the skills are developed
around them). It's something that evolves by making art. This kind of
skill is also learned but it indeed takes more than just the ability
to apply paint in such a way that the painting will look like a photo.
Marilyn Welch
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Paul Mesken wrote:
> On 26 Oct 1999 14:11:36 GMT, won...@aol.com (WoN ereH) wrote:
>
> >Paul Mesken wrote: >I do agree that stuff like the square graph method from
> >photographs
snip
> >
> Yes, I do believe that anyone, determined enough, can learn to render
> "realistic" paintings. One could say that it is therefor "easy" in the
> sense you use it.
The key word I think here, is "determined" and the work produced will look
determined as opposed to expressive.
>Personally I think the ideas are easier (they
> manifest themselves and just take shape) but then again: many people
> don't seem to be able to generate anything inspired, which I think of
> as very odd. Indeed it might be that it takes a certain personality to
> make art. Although one still needs a proper amount of skill (both in
> observation and application) to successfully convey the ideas and find
> the needed skills.
>
> IMHO the tricky part is to translate the idea (or perception,
> inspiration, vision, fantasy, whatever) into art. This translation is
> performed by the skills. People are quite early on attracted to one or
> more favorite mediums of expression (drawing, painting, music,
> sculptures, dance, etc.). One needs to investigate the medium in order
> to find out how to execute art in such a way that it resonates with
> the idea. Skills are developed while investigating (and frustration
> finding out about a lack of skill :-)
Do you believe that these expressive talents are inherent?
There are so many levels, and these media are readily available
today, more than ever before. The levels go from the trivial to
the complete vocation and committment.
> But also ideas are developed more (deepened, refined) by becoming more
> skillfull and learning more. In the end and throughout however, it
> will be the skills serving the idea. There are a great many examples
> of great skillfullness used to execute uninspired work, there are also
> examples of great works which only seem to have needed a minimum of
> skill (but it takes a lot of skill to close in on an appropriate level
> and type :-)
>
Yes! the skill serving the idea.
Although I may have a different definition of "skill" in that there are
natural skills, which are then honed and refined. A natural skill to me is
a "talent" of varying degrees.
It goes beyond subject matter, to the
painter's idea. So we have a representation, (perhaps narrative) but
one hopes that there is a theme in the painter's mind. It isn't enough to
declare, I make paintings, because I know how to do so. Why? Why would
anyone want to look at these paintings? For examples of the latter,
in your paragraph above, I suggest Goya. Somehow his compositions are all
wrong, but the impact of the work is astounding. His "Morte de la Sardine"
is an image which haunts me.
> As I already stated, I agree that it is available to all to render
> "realistic" paintings (there are many methods to achieve this
> successfully). The problem is to develop the proper and personal
> skills (the style) needed to create the art that resonates with the
> personal ideas (which determine style because the skills are developed
> around them). It's something that evolves by making art. This kind of
> skill is also learned but it indeed takes more than just the ability
> to apply paint in such a way that the painting will look like a photo.
There is a greater chance of success when skill, style and ideas are
integral to the painter/artist's life. A sense of honesty will shine
through without the need for explanatory titles. And when the painter
really believes in his/her idea, there will be no need to apologize for
the genre or style. ("realism" is a genre whereas "expressionistic" or
"painterly" is a style of painting).
Jason A. Hutto
> I've known that our world is inhabited by many, many ill minds for some
> time. But now, after the unbelievable controversy stemming from New
> York Mayor Giuliani's completely reasonable protest against beyond
> obscene "art" residing in a publically-funded venue, now, I'm wondering
> just how far we are away from the collapse of our society.
It's not us, it's the British. The UK is exporting is turd-art in an
effort to prove its world superiority on the art scene. All followers of
these toiletary trends are merely infected victims of the plague that is
Art-UK.
> Chris Ofili's monsterpiece is not the only problem with this "art"
> exhibit. What most people aren't aware of is that this exhibit also
> includes the indescribably perverted "portrait" of a British
> childmolestor/killer...made from CHILDREN'S HANDPRINTS!!!! (source:
Not only are british artists feca-philes, they're demented perverts as
well!
> All the loons, freaks, and fellow travellers coming out of the woodwork
> to defend this, well, crap, on the grounds of "freedom of expression"
> must certainly have their sanity, and/or moral innocence, questioned.
Who the hell has moral innocence? This is 1999. The world is ending,
don't ya know? Smoke em if ya got em. Crap on some canvas and frame it
up, we're all gonna burn inside of 2 months.
> This isn't "Freedom of Expression." This is, just as Mayor Giuliani
> described, a "sick demonstration of clear psychological problems."
Ah, he's a putz.
Besides, anyone who'd be a painter in this day and age proves by that
fact alone that he/she is mentally ill. Look at the lack of respect we
get from know-nadas like you.
> Such manifestations of illness belong not in a museum. At worst, they
> should be sent to New York or Columbia University so that professionals
> can study the distortions of mind possible in today's modern "artists";
> at best, they should be immediately torched.
I must admit that even though this stuff is British, hereafter known as
Shitish, art, I love the effect it has on the comfortable mind.
> NOT ONE OF THE BASTARDS defending this crap would feel the same way if,
> say, a pervert "artist" were to make a portrait of Martin Luther King,
> Jr., out of feces, or, take a photo of Jewish women and children being
> shot down by the Germans, and label it, "Jewish fantasy."
Hell, that's even BETTER!
Do you realize, oh pure and holy one, that you have just conceived some
heinous non-art? All that is left is for you to frame it up and sign
your name to it. We all have sick twisted thoughts you see. To pretend
otherwise is genuine mental illness.
> Whatever happened to real art, produced by sane minds? Is our society
> so sick that it's fixated on shit, piss, sexual perversion, and so on,
> in artistic expression?
As soon as you stop shitting and pissing on a regular basis, let me
know. :) Sadly, the Shitish can't seem to quit thinking about it. Here
in my neck of the woods, the art is still made with paint, etc. I
haven't felt the need to wipe my ass with anything but the UK flag.
Your pal,
Hutto
Oliver Gili
> so also Churchill (oils)
depression on Churchills), and substance abusers (amphetamines (H) and
alchol (C))
Oliver
T. Cave
Picasso that they took up the wrong professions!
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.991023064724.7652A-100000@vtn1...
>
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999, Bill Bonde wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Marilyn Welch wrote:
> > >
> > > As a French Canadian jungian writer/practioner said to us,
> > > "you artists are in trouble, because you live too much in
> > > your unconscious." You brought this to my mind with the
> > > conclusion of your post. Skirting the edges of the rational
> > > /irrational, it takes a strong mind to be able to do that.
> > > Just as some people were able to go on trips with lsd and
> > > come back enlightened, some never recovered.
> > >
> > And you are sure that the difference was in having a strong mind or not?
> > That seems a wildly presumptuous statement.
> >
> It takes a strong mind to be wildly presumptuous. Like 99% of
> everything on raf, it was speculation, my dear Watson, speculation.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Wonder where that rumour that artists are crazy, began.
> > > It seems to stem from a puritan distrust of the imagination.
> > >
> > No, it comes from them being crazy.
> >
> >
>
> No, it comes from crazy faquirs taking up art as a profession.
>
> M.
>
Polaris
T. Cave <tlc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:pKoY3.6829$g7.3...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> Someone tell Edgar Allen Poe, Vincent Van Gogh, Earnest Hemmingway, or
Pablo
> Picasso that they took up the wrong professions!
>
Sorry mate, they are all dead now.
All dead.
dead
scottvdv
A jungian writer/practitioner said that? That doesn't sound jungian.
It's always the puritans' fault, that much is true.
Clever and innovative artists _are_ crazy.
Marilyn
scottvdv wrote:
Sez you - that's if you define crazy as living intensely and being in
touch with your unconscious, the fountain of creativity and art. (sez
Marion Woodman, Jungian guru).
But many boring neurotics pretend to be crazy and make pretentious art.
Boring Neurotic Test
Do you tell/post long essays about your private life to strangers.
Do you live in the past?
Are you totally ego-centric & selfish?
If you answer yes to all the above,
you may are not crazy , just a boring neurotic.
Marilyn
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> A jungian writer/practitioner said that? That doesn't sound jungian.
>
> It's always the puritans' fault, that much is true.
>
> Clever and innovative artists _are_ crazy.
Cleverness without wisdom is partial amentia.
Lack of innovativeness is partial paralysis.
scottvdv
People say a lot of fancy-pancy words, 'crazy' encompasses most of that when
one is trying make a sarcastic generalization.
Marilyn wrote in message <383481C4...@BC.ca>...
>Yes, Guy Cournea, Montreal, Quebec Canada said it.
>
>scottvdv wrote:
>
>> A jungian writer/practitioner said that? That doesn't sound jungian.
>>
>> It's always the puritans' fault, that much is true.
>>
>> Clever and innovative artists _are_ crazy.
>
Alison A Raimes
>
>But many boring neurotics pretend to be crazy and make pretentious art.
>
>Boring Neurotic Test
>
>Do you tell/post long essays about your private life to strangers.
>Do you live in the past?
>Are you totally ego-centric & selfish?
You should probably add on to this:
Do you ever post under a pseudonym instead of your real name ?
Do you ever take on a false persona or imitate someone else when you
post ?
Do you glow green in the dark ?
--
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk