401. BullElephant - April 29, 1997 Point of order. Da BULL has sold da
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART. and dat ain't
no bull
402. resonance - April 29, 1997 403. labarjare - April 29, 1997 404. BullElephant - April 29, 1997 405. mondaugen - April 29, 1997 406. labarjare - April 29, 1997 407. BullElephant - April 29, 1997 408. FloydRidenour - April 29, 1997 409. labarjare - April 29, 1997 410. Artiste - April 29, 1997 411. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 Thanks a bunch for those links in Message #387. They
are amazing for the early 1400's. I have a picture in an
art book of *St.Peter Healing the Sick*. The poor
man's face your link shows is so much different from
St.Peter's and therest of his entourage.
I don't know about Masaccio, but I do know about
Florence in the early 1400's. I can only imagine how
much different his paintings must seem from those
produced just a few years ealier. To my mind they
reflect the new attention being paid to the dignity of
man in early 15th century Florence.
412. BullElephant - April 29, 1997 artiste sounds like a whitney wannbe but never will be
to me
413. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 What characters they are -- morally and intellectually
men of weight, the least frivolous of men. They have
the air of of contained vitality and confidence that
comes from the founding fathers of civilization.
This is from the commentary about the painting at that
web site :
"Today it has finally become easier to appreciate the
wealth of fascinating details, thanks to the recent
restoration: Peter's fishing rod, the large open
mouth of the fish he has caught, described down tothe
smallest details, the transparent water of the
lake and the circular ripples spreading outwards,
toward the banks.
The awareness that they are about to witness an
extraordinary event creates in the characters an
atmosphere of expectation. Behind the group of people
we can see a sloping mountainous
landscape, with a variety of colours that range from
dark green in the foreground to the white snow
in the background, ending in a luminous blue sky
streaked with white clouds painted in perfect
perspective. The hills and the mountains that rise out
from the plains, dotted with farmhouses, trees
and hedges, have an entirely new and earthy
concreteness: a perfect use of linear perspective, which
will be taken up by Paolo Uccello, Domenico Veneziano
and Piero della Francesca.
The figures are arranged according to horizontal lines,
but the overall disposition is circular: this
semicircular pattern was of classical origin (Socrates
and his disciples), although it was later adopted
by early Christian art (Jesus and the Apostles), and
interpreted by the first Renaissance artists, such
as Brunelleschi, as the geometric pattern symbolizing
the perfection of the circle.
414. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 The characters are entirely classical: dressed in the
Greek fashion, with tunics tied at the waist and
cloaks wrapped over their left shoulder, around the
back, and clasped at the front, below their left
forearm. And even Peter'sstance, as he extracts the
coin from the fish's mouth, with his right leg
bent and his left one outstretched, is reminiscent of
postures of many statues by Greek artists, as
well as reliefs on Etruscan funerary urns and Roman
carvings.
415. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 we are neighbors of sorts; when I go vist relatives in
the city I stay on W 23rd Street in chelsea.
416. resonance - April 29, 1997 Rembrandt's Night Watch
417. resonance - April 29, 1997 Jupiter and Thetis
418. Artiste - April 29, 1997 Turkish Bath
419. resonance - April 29, 1997 Seriously, look at the darkness of Jupiter's face here.
(Maybe someone can clear me up... I always thought
Thetis was a Greek figure (being the mother of
Achilles)... so why isn't this called Thetis and Zeus?
For those of you who don't know the background of
this painting, I'm with ya. But I guess the story is as
follows: Thetis comes before Zeus to beg that
Agamemnon be punished for insulting Achilles (son of
Thetis and Zeus) by stealing Achilles' war trophy (a
maiden named Briseis). Zeus wants to help
Agamemnon and the Akhaians win at Troy, but Thetis
does some powerful convincing (!) and Zeus is wracked.
What to do, what to do. Just look at the face. He is
clearly cursing both his groin and his predicament.
420. resonance - April 29, 1997 421. PseudoErasmus - April 29, 1997 1) I have never done a hyper-link in the Fray before.
2) and I know that amplitude of flesh is a quality Phillip
David values in a woman.
422. resonance - April 29, 1997 I wanted to find a good, fleshy Reubens and
counterpost for PD's alleged viewing pleasure, but
alas! none of the appropriate type are to be found.
423. resonance - April 29, 1997 424. mondaugen - April 29, 1997 425. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 Thank you...thank you very much :-)
moondaugen,
I think my fantasy life just took a turn for the worse.
How in the world did you ever run across that?
426. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 427. mondaugen - April 29, 1997 facetious answer: well, there's no accounting for
taste....
honest answer: I was looking for a Joel-Peter Witkin
for you, but couldn't find any that, um, applied.
Stumbled across the above, and thought it might work
as an alternative. (personally, though, I should point
out that the person in the cart has some mighty nice
boots on, but I guess that's a separate 'thing' entirely).
428. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 429. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 here is a Rubens for ya:Rubens
430. resonance - April 29, 1997 Of course, I'm talking to the man that would know
where the naked Rubens babes were at...
431. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 This is for you my impression of a certain frayster Who
am I thinking of?
I finally found this using a new (new to me) search
engine that is fantastic: www.metacrawler.com --try it
and see what you think.
432. resonance - April 29, 1997 433. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 He has a rough raw-boned peasant tenacity of
purpose. He is earnest. He longs for the substantial.
But, this face also reveals a dangerous characteristic, a
vein of hysteria -- those staring eyes, that look of
self-conscious introspection, that uneasiness...( how
German it is).
Do you have that vein of hysteria res? I imagine all the
other qualities, but you seem too composed to be
hysterical.
434. resonance - April 29, 1997 In all serious, PD, that's an excellent analysis. I've seen
this one before but never quite looked as closely as you
made me look. My hat is off.
435. 100342 - April 29, 1997 Num 413: Philipdavid, that is a truly amazingly faithful
and commanding reproduction for a computer screen. I
very much agree with your comments about the
characters. I saw the restored Chapel recently, nearly
18 years after seeing it for the first time. It leaves you
speechless. I guess my favorite Masaccio panel is The
Baptism of the Neophytes, with a figure of a Neophyte
shuddering in the cold barely clad, waiting to be
baptised. I could not find it, but will keep on trying.
Among the figures of The Tribute, I have always
suspected that the face of Christ was done by
Masolino, Masaccio's elder partner in the Brancacci
commission (Lippi's frescoes, the third painter, were
added decades later). Christ's face still bears the
stereotype traits typical of the late gotic style, whereas
all the other characters are SO palpably, individually
human.
On the Ingres paintings posted by resonance, Artiste
and PseudoErasmus: the guy was an incredible draftsman,
but this quality shows even better in his drawings By
the way, how about that topic: great draftsmen (I am
trying to avoid sexist language but draftsperson just
won't do). Among those whose drawing I deeply
admire I can think immediately of Holbein, Schiele and,
yes, López García.
Mondaugen: Powerful image, but I reached out for my
Agnes Martin book to wash out the sticky taste if left
on me.
436. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 437. mondaugen - April 29, 1997 thanks, but it was primarily intended as a joke. Glad
you still like A. Martin, though. I'm currently searching
for some Artemisia Gentileschi for y'all (so as to prove
that I DO have a scope of reference beyond the year
1916), but I'm not having much luck? Anyone know of
any links?
438. 100342 - April 29, 1997 439. 100342 - April 29, 1997 440. PseudoErasmus - April 29, 1997 1) His tenacity, such as it is, doesn't look peasant-like to
me. The cheek bones are too highand the neck isn't
short enough.
2) that Resonance is too composed. Resonance is the
classic case of hysteria hidden away by rhetorical
ineptitude: no matter how hysterical he in fact is, he
can't express it in words.
441. phillipdavid - April 29, 1997 My words did not all come straight out of my own
mind, they were helped along.
442. PseudoErasmus - April 29, 1997 443. 100342 - April 29, 1997 444. mondaugen - April 29, 1997 445. mgleason - April 29, 1997 446. 100342 - April 29, 1997 447. resonance - April 29, 1997 448. resonance - April 29, 1997 449. 100342 - April 29, 1997 450. Seguine - April 30, 1997 Regarding:
"In asserting that I could fathom 3received knowledge2
but not 3perceived knowledge2, I know you strove
mightily to find an appropriate diction to identify my
limitations (and I'm sure the hokey rhyming
parallelism wasa big bonus)."
Hokey rhyming parallelisms spring nimbly to mind
whenever I respond to your posts. It is mighty striving
which suppresses them on most occasions.
As I think was pointed out in the Waugh thread (whose
earlier portions I do look forward to reviewing) you
don't always read well. I did not say you couldn't
fathom perceptually guided knowledge, but that you
preferred to be told your truths by Authorities.
Specifically, you like those who can confirm your
fleeting impressions, those who uphold your
*sensibilities*, which are manifestly ill-informed by
experience where the visual arts are concerned.
"However, that is not what you really meant. You
really should have meant that my appreciation of art
wasn't empiricist enough, that my sensibility was
hampered by pseudo-theoretical prejudices."
On the contrary. I said nothing about empiricism, I
spoke of perception. (I would never connote that kind
of connection between art and science.) In any case,
Ithink your sensibilities, which you allow to become
prejudices, are not in any sense beholden to or
hampered by theory, pseudo or otherwise--just
conveniently buttressed by it.
451. Seguine - April 30, 1997 Duty calls; I'll have to respond at length later.
452. labarjare - April 30, 1997 453. mondaugen - April 30, 1997 454. BullElephant - April 30, 1997 What most people don't realize is you need a donor to
buy art.Giving museums money isn't as fashionable as
it once was. Now it's aids (quelle waste) or cancer
research ( a nice idea but a black hole dollar wise) or
helping homey the homeless bum...kidding. But there is
a lot of competion for dollars and contemporary art
has turned off a lot of people....Need an example: go to
artdaily.com scroll til you find the Serrano file.
Download one of his photographs if you have a real
strong tummy. Tell me it ain't porn. Ah but I
digress....But if you guys care about Seattle...trust
me....they accept donations. The bigger the better.
455. mondaugen - April 30, 1997 456. senecio - April 30, 1997 457. labarjare - April 30, 1997 I ramble so I'll stop.
458. labarjare - April 30, 1997 Speaking of Klee. Have you ever seen the collection of
Klees in Bern, Switzerland? At least 90 or so (not
surprising of course) and, although it has been many
years since I've been there, at the time most of them
were displayed in cases covered by glass that created
great glare. Hardly the way to be looking at Klees.
459. mondaugen - April 30, 1997 460. BullElephant - April 30, 1997 461. labarjare - April 30, 1997 462. PseudoErasmus - April 30, 1997 Empiricism is not a term limited to the epistemology of
natural science.
"I did not say you couldn't fathom perceptually guided
knowledge, but that you preferred to be told your
truths by Authorities."
Sorry, but they're really the same thing.
"In any case, I think your sensibilities, which you allow
to become prejudices, are not in any sense beholden to
or hampered by theory, pseudo or otherwise--just
conveniently buttressed by it. "
I agree completely! Except that's how things should be.
463. senecio - April 30, 1997 About Klee: Yes, I have been to Bern several times, the
last one a few months ago. The pictures are better
displayed now. But, if you go again the Bern area, I
suggest taking advantage of other Klee resources. Fo
one, the magnificent Klee Stiftung, or Klee
Foundation, THE place to do any research on Paul
Klee. They are located next door from the
Kunstmuseum and are very friendly. Practically the
totallity of Klee's oeuvre is duly photograped and
catalogued, including some 1,000 known Klee fakes!.
Then, there are thousands of books, catalogues,
private papers, etc. etc. You may know that by 1933,
when Klee was coming back home to Bern, running
away from the Nazis, some friends of him helped him.
They bought a good deal of his production. Two of
these troves remain as family collections and the head
of one of them, Mr. Christoph Bürgi, is quite open
about showing its treasures (some 70 Klees exquisitely
picked up by the family collection founder, Rolf Bürgi
and his wife Kathi). Now the Klee family collection is of
course the main one. It includes some 500 pieces. For
many years it was administered by Klee's son Felix,
now deceased. His son Pseudoander, Klee's grandson is
now the one in charge of the collection nd it is also
open to show it by appointment.
464. Seguine - April 30, 1997 I, on the other hand, may be annoyed by theory *or*
art, but recognize that the two are not always as joined
as the purveyors of theory would have it. So I do not
use theory (all of which I'm quite conciously aware of
accepting or not accepting, piecemeal) as a buttress to
my perceptions. Rather, it's a sort of map of some
given territory: a good map or a bad one, but a map. To
the extent that a theoretical explanation clarifies an
artist's intentions, and to the extent that those
intentions are evident, and I'm interested by them,
theory is useful. Beyond that, it's just a club with which
to bludgeon non-initiates, which is what you attempted
to do to hapless Phillipdavid posts back.
465. labarjare - April 30, 1997 466. PseudoErasmus - April 30, 1997 Mostly irrelevant, this post of yours. You don't really
address the substantive points of my argument.
Re: empathy, haven't you read my rather gushing
paeans to various art works (novels, music, film)
outside this thread? I think all you are doing is reacting
to one facet of what I do : theoretical cogitation, which
I realise to be very separate from art. And your remark
that my comments about Manet and Goya were
theory-driven is nonsensical. Right or wrong,
perceptive or not, they were markedly devoid of
theory. Please specify how in these comments or any
others about specific books or whatever, I approach
"art as though it were theory". Also, romanticism
doesn't annoy me - romantic criticism annoys me.
There's a difference.
"[theory] is a sort of map of some given territory: a
good map or a bad one, but a map."
I agree with this statement. However, your
(exclusive?) interest in an artist's intentions *is* an
aesthetic bias, of which you say are aware but then you
go on to contradict yourself by saying that you "do not
use theory...as a buttress to my perceptions". It is
impossible not to: your aesthetic prejudices are de facto
theories, or rather, presuppositions of which you may
or may not be aware.
Lastly, this is the 2nd time you've mentioned
post-structuralists in my presence. Do note that I
bristle at their very name, and I have savaged all
manner of "post-modernists" throughout the Fray. Did
you read a certain "Tokugawa Ieyasu" in the Freud thread,
who was arguing with some post-modernist theorist? That
was me.
467. PseudoErasmus - April 30, 1997 As you said in Message #450, that "my
sensibilities....are conveniently buttressed by theory", I
don't let theories decide what I like. The art I like
decides the theories. I find or form the theories that suit
my sensibilities and prejudices.
All the same, can we actually get to talk about the
substance of what has been said, rather than about me?
Unless, of course, you're not interested.
468. jayburge - April 30, 1997 Kill the NEA.
469. BullElephant - April 30, 1997 470. senecio - April 30, 1997 Mondaugen: A Klee tattoo! Now, that's a thought. You
would happen to know which Klee and where exactly
was it tattoed, would you?
471. senecio - April 30, 1997 Mondaugen: A Klee tattoo! Now, that's a thought. You
would happen to know which Klee and where exactly
was it tattoed, would you?
472. richardvoorhaar - April 30, 1997 Make everyone pay for their own art/entertainment.
473. labarjare - April 30, 1997 474. Seguine - April 30, 1997 My interest is not in an artist's intentions exclusively.
Again, the polar standpoint is the spot to which you
habitually gravitate, all the while claiming equatorial
temperament. This, semantic hairsplitting, and
calculated failures to appreciate subtle distinctions
make it hard to continue a discussion about substantive
matters with you.
But since you have made a heroic effort to be polite, I'll
set aside further elaboration on your putative failings.
I'm very short of time lately, socan't address your
contentions with any care; apologies.
More later.
-Walter Matthau
475. Seguine - April 30, 1997 "I find it interesting that the conventional wisdom
about artistic intent in the art world is different from
that in the music world. In
the former, what the artist meant or might have meant
to do in a painting or a sculpture is much more highly
valued than in the latter. Hence, them 10-year vogue
for original instruments and "more faithful
interpretations" in classical music."
Not sure what you think the conventional wisdom
about artists' intentions is. In my experience, there are
two camps busily setting fires in the art world in the US
today: pseudo-populists and elitist
pseudo-revolutionaries. The former believe anything is
art and anyone can be an artist, and that anyone who
declares himself to be an artist deserves to be
worshipped for his achievement of personal freedom,
which is manifested by his expressiveness (which
needn't be expressive of anything important, nor
competent).
The latter believe that they are intellectuals and that
whatever theirintentions are, are manifested by their
artistic efforts whether or not there is any evidence of
those intentions at all. Thus, a roll of bailing wire in the
middle of a gallery floor calls into question the
dominance of the fill-in-the-blank and subverts the
fill-it-in-again by confronting the viewer, challenging
his expectations, drone, drone, drone, I'm sure I'm
leaving out something banal.
(more)
476. Seguine - April 30, 1997 You'll notice that in both camps the artist and his
salesmen determine what art is; the latter camp is
presently fashionable among dealers, probably because
more overtly populist artists, who behave as though it
isn't necessary to be a genius when of course it is, can't
command very good returns on dealers' investments.
I think the horrible original-instruments mandate grew
out of the art world's insistence on artists controlling
meaning (which you are right to say is a product of
Romanticism, but a distant enough product that to
implicate it is like blaming the founding fathers for the
bombing of the Murrah bldg.). The arts envy one
another. Visual artists envied theater's vitality and
relative popularity, while erstwhile thespians envied
visual art's intellectual coating; thus "performance art"
and "installation art", which of course are just theater
and stage setting, respectively. My guess is that
classical music, which is no longer profitable to sell,
needed anangle to compete with itself and
contemporary music, so took a cue from the visual arts.
The creator's (original) intent became paramount.
477. Seguine - April 30, 1997 478. Seguine - April 30, 1997 The SFMOMA is indeed a bit spotty, in my view. (And
quirky--but that can pay off occasionally.) I also
remember having a feeling of impatience with
LACMA, whose collections struck me as second-rate
and trendy, but then I was only passing through
quickly. Might have missed something.
I think maybe the problem is that there aren't many
collectors out there any more who are a)
monomaniacal and b) willing to part with whole
collections of a few artists' work. As I think
BullHefalump has pointed out, the tax incentives no
longer exist, or didn't for a long while, or something.
Or maybe collectors' estates no longer become
museums, like the Phillips for instance.
479. labarjare - April 30, 1997 What I'm going to do tonight is try to think of a
small/undercapitalized museum I've been to in, say,
the past five years or so which I think has done it right.
I'd be interested in your and other views re same. (I
think one of the groundrules would have to be that it is
a museum that is in the position of still having to build
its collection as opposed to, say, the Barnes or even the
I.S.Gardner.
480. senecio - April 30, 1997 Labarjere: You surely have a way of raising issues that
can send one ranting about some of one's favorite art
topics.
I think that on art from the post-impressionists to the
1950s, MOMA is still the flagship. No other museum
can boast to cover most top schools or individuals from
that period with key or at least quality works as
MOMA does. Praise the the donors and the directors.
But directors are also responsible for the weaknesses.
Rubin was "committed" (the politically correct word
for wanton partiality) to the American abstract
painters of the fifties. They are overly represented and
the passing of time is not being that kind to many of
them. At the same time, European art of the fifties is
woefully under-represented (I don't remember having
seen a single De Staël at the MOMA). From the sixties
onward any good contemporary Museum can compete
with MOMA. The new MOMA bosses cannot possible
make up for the years of modern-art-stops-at-the
fifties policy. MOMA will never be the MOMA of the
second half of the 20th century.
The permanent collection is canonical concerning its
focus period, and I am not bothered by it, although they
could rotate their holdings a bit better.
Othergreat modern or contemporary Museums are not
so "balanced" or canonical. But they can be a must in
their own special way or because they house a special
collection, like the Cone collection you cited before, in
Baltimore. Some unforgettable ones for me are the
delightful Louisiana Museum, near Copenhagen; the
Kroller-Muller and the Stedelijk, in Holland; the
Düsseldorf Museum and a gallery in Hannover, for
their Klee holdings; and, of course, the Tate. I agree
with Seguine about the jerry-built quality of LACMA.
481. 100342 - April 30, 1997 482. ernest - April 30, 1997 This is a special moment, gang. You are about to see
the real Senecio
483. PseudoErasmus - May 1, 1997 Re: music. I'll be brief because I'm going to post on the
original instruments movement in the Music thread
later. I think your semi-economic analysis of why the
original instruments movement has risen, sketchy as it
is, is sound.
I really don't think "the horrible original-instruments
mandate grew out of the art world's insistence on
artists controlling meaning". The impetus came less
from academics than from performers (with the
notable exception of William Christie of the
Conservatoire de Paris, who is actually more relevant
to the related Early Music Movement), notably among
them Frans Brüggen of the Orchestra of the 18th
century. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, they began
clamoring for less "idiosyncratic" interpretations and
for returning to "basics" and "simpler performances",
having become disillusioned with the "fustian" of such
canonical interpretors as Fürtwangler and Karajan. By
the way, the gulfbetween musical academics and
performers is vaster than any other such gulf in the
arts. There is virtually no contact, the agenda are
almost totally separate. But it is true that academics
have jumped to embrace the original instruments
movement.
484. PseudoErasmus - May 1, 1997 "My interest is not in an artist's intentions exclusively.
Again, the polar standpoint is the spot to which you
habitually gravitate, all the while claiming equatorial
temperament. This, semantic hairsplitting, and
calculated failures to appreciate subtle distinctions
make it hard to continue a discussion about substantive
matters with you."
Well, I realise that your interest is not exclusively in an
artist's intentions. But I'm afraid you are the oneto fail
to grasp some subtleties here. I have two reasons to
"habitually gravite to the polar standpoint": 1) it is the
validity of an extreme position (of ignoring an artist's
intentions altogether) that has been called into
question; and 2) to try to show you that, as I have
already stated, the two procedures - one of completely
ignoring intent and the other of considering it in *any*
degree - are different but equally valid methods of
interpretation. [And by the way, there is no semantic
hair-splitting whatsoever. If you want "hair-spliting",
see my defense of Aristotle's reductio ad absurdum
about causality in the Religion thread.]
"But since you have made a heroic effort to be polite,
I'll set aside further elaboration on your putative
failings. I'm very short of time lately, socan't address
your contentions with any care; apologies."
I will be supplementing the above with a series of posts
to elaborate on my points, but I haven't the time now.
The life outside the Fray also presses me - and there
are other epic exchanges in the Fray I must minister to,
notably my reprising the role of instructor in freshman
economics to a benighted socialist.
485. Seguine - May 1, 1997 "In the late 1970s and early 1980s, [performers] began
clamoring for less "idiosyncratic" interpretations and
for returning to 3basics2 and 3simpler performances2,
having become disillusioned with the 3fustian2 of such
canonicalinterpretors as Fürtwangler and Karajan."
Interesting. However, it smells of a reaction to
Romanticism to me. (Ahem.)
One can certainly imagine *performers* having had
enough of F. and K. (it's usually a drag to work for a
man who is or believes himself to be great). The whole
notion of the conductor as Promethean deliverer of
transcendent interpretations probably gets tiresome if
you're the one doing some critical share of the labor.
And if you are the product of a non-feudal modern
society. Having played in (non-professional)
orchestras, including one led by a perpetually irate
Belgian, I can't help extending a little sympathy.
As a listener, however, I couldn't give a fuck. I would
rather listen to Fürtwangler than most strict
interpretations of most things.
486. 100342 - May 1, 1997 487. Seguine - May 1, 1997 "...the two procedures - one of completely ignoring
intent and the other of considering it in *any* degree -
are different but equally valid methods of
interpretation."
You have failed to show how ignoring Manet's set of
mind and milieu (which are well documented) and
interpreting freely, almost to the point of
psychologizing, is a "valid" interpretive method. I
know, you'll say various factors over which artists
have no control influence the meaning of a work of art;
that isn't disputable. Your assessment of The Ex. of
Emp. Max., however, *is* disputable, precisely
because you veer into an assessment of Manet via his
painting that doesn't square with the man. He was not
a subversive. He didn't paint to subvert; hewanted in,
on his terms.
Of course, Manet's *work* did subvert the existing
order, in the long run. But anything that has an impact
on people does that as a matter of course; things
change, change is subversive. Not worth remarking on.
Unless one is a frothing adherent of Romantic theory,
in which case every change must be counted a
revolution.
As for considering intent in *any* degree, sorry, but I
think an artist's intention is important only to the
extent that it is manifest (as it is inManet, almost
always). If, upon learning that Robert Motherwell
wished to accomplish a particular goal in his prints and
paintings, I cannot see that he has done so, his
intention is not worth considering further. And if that
intention is stupid or boring and I like the work
anyway, consistently, the intention is also irrelevant. I
can assume the artist doesn't know himself.
Also, I think a work of art whose author's intention can
never be known with certainty can be assessed
exclusively on the impression it makes on the viewer.
Cave paintings, e.g., work by dead outsider artists like
Bill Traylor, etc.
488. Seguine - May 1, 1997 "I... will henceforth pass off all your failings as due to
the constraints of time."
As well you should.
489. PseudoErasmus - May 1, 1997 I didn't initially reply to your reply re Manet & Goya
because I knew our current discussion would have to
take place first. Any way, I will address the
Manet-Goya thing after I finish posting about this.
You say, "As for considering intent in *any* degree,
sorry, but I think an artist's intention is important only
to the extent that it is manifest." That is precisely what
I have been meaning. You may recall my post on the
intentional fallacy very early on in this thread, where I
said "the art is the definitive record of the artist's
intent". So by "disregarding artistic intent", I meant
disregarding the "extra-textual" evidence of authorial
intent. Sorry for the imprecision.
And, oh, I will reply to your post on music in the Music
thread. [Please wait; I'll post all very soon.]
490. labarjare - May 1, 1997 491. Seguine - May 1, 1997 492. senecio - May 1, 1997 493. senecio - May 1, 1997 Labarjere, both the Louisiana museum in Denmark and
the Kroller Muller, about an hour and a half by bus
from Amsterdam, are extremely personal. The
Louisiana is the creation of Knut Jensen, a cheese
merchant who sold everthing he had and dedicated
himself to building this gem (he reminds me of that
merchant and amateur archelogist - was the name
Schlieman or something? - who dropped everything
else and set to discover Troja). In Louisiana the place,
the sorrounging park with its sculpture garden and the
sheer quality (and reasonable size) of the collection
make it one of the loveliest museums anywhere. I
strongly recommend to you and fellow fraysters a book
by Lawrence Weschler who chronicles Louisiana and
five othyer real-life wondrous art-related stories. The
title is "Shapinsky's Karma, Boggs's Bills and other
true-life tales". Weschler, who publishes in The New
Yorker is a fascinating writer. I guarantee you won't be
able to put the book down.
The Kroller-Muller is in the middle of a huge park. It
has sculptutes in the fields sorrounding the Museum as
well, including an enormous construction by Dubuffet
that you climb into. The paintings include the largest
Van Gogh collection (some 45) outside the Van Gogh
Museums and a variegated selection of modern and
contemporary artists. More to come....
494. senecio - May 1, 1997 Labarjere, before I go on ranting about my favorite art
sites, gratefulness demands that I utter a word of
thanks for the frequent flier programs, the greatest
invention since maracuja icecream.
Not all museumswith a good Klee collection are
memorable, although the Klees invariably are.
Düsseldorf has a good amount of Klees, but also a
great collection of Beuys and some surprisingly fine
masterpieces (not seen in the standard art books) by top
modern artists, including, perhaps the most touching
Mondrian I've ever seen -- it is from the late period
and the color lines drawn with superimposed color
tapes, rather than painted.
The Stedelijk is simply great for its easy-goingness and
its dedicationto cutting-edge art.
As to major Klee holdings, outside Switzerland (which
hold about 45% of his output) and other than Hannover
and Düsseldorf, I guess one has to turn to the U.S.: in
NYC: The Guggenheim, MOMA and the 90 or so Klees
from the Berggruen collection now in the
Metropolitan's collection . In Washington, D.C., the
Phillips. The de Menil collection in Texas. Some very
nice Klees in Philadelphia and, yes those at the San
Francisco Museum.
I would certainly like to hearabout your own story with
Klee...
495. PseudoErasmus - May 2, 1997 "Not sure what you think the conventional wisdom
about artists' intentions is. In my experience, there are
two camps busily setting fires in the art world in the US
today...."
I've no reason to question your disquisition on the
divisions in the art world re artists' intentions. But as
someone whose artistic interests are basically literary
and musical, I see art history and criticism as an
outsider. What do I *not* see? I don't see any
equivalents in art criticism of the following modes of
interpretation that exist elsewhere:
1) The "intentional fallacy", which asserts that the art
is the definitive record of an artist's intent and which I
commented on in Message #37. Allextra-textual
evidences of intent are disregarded. A friend of mine
once mused that Kafka's Transformation could be
interpreted as a religious allegory, but he hesitated to
assert this because he didn't know anything about
Kafka's religious views. I thought he overworried
about artistic intent because he was concerned about
interpreting "incorrectly". If the short story can
intrinsically bear out this interpretation, then Kafka's
religious views needn't be relevant.
2) The autotelos of art. The art is its own purpose.
Because the art contains its own meaning, one can be
interested in it regardless of who the artist is. But quite
a few people are more interested in getting to know
him or in having sex with him vicariously, and
essentially engage in biographical criticism as the only
legitimate approach. Harold Bloom, for one, has for
many years propounded the theory that Shakespeare
was a bisexual. How does he know? He gleans this
from the sonnets.
[continued]
496. PseudoErasmus - May 2, 1997 [#2 continued] This use of art as mere biographical
datum presupposes that the artist is necessarily sincere
in the art, or, worse, that the art is primarily an
inevitable autobiographical self-registration.
3) Ahistoricism. It's a way of interpreting an art work
without reducing it to its historical context. The genesis
of the work - its sources, the author's influences, or the
conditions under which it was created - also does not
become part ofthe interpretation.
4) The discreteness of art. The separateness of art and
artist implies that two works by the same artist are
discontinuous the one from the other. [an example to
follow in the next post]
The above principles are not dogma, just valid ways of
focusing on individual works of art, which I don't see
much reflected in art criticism and history. In fact, the
conventional wisdom I detect there is the very opposite
of these ideas. I have never seen an "explication"of a
painting without heavy and decisive reference to
information outside the painting. Nor a painting ever
*treated* as though its author were anonymous. That
is, the art is almost always presumed merely to be the
psychic extension of the artist.
(It's also valid to conflate individual art works. Many
claim that the movie 2001 succeeds *only* in
conjunction with Arthur C. Clarke's short story written
after the movie. But it must be understood that this is a
different procedure.)
[continued]
497. PseudoErasmus - May 2, 1997 Re: item #4 of post 496, the discreteness of the art.
In a famous essay, T.S. Eliot said this about Hamlet:
"Coriolanus may not be as 'interesting' as Hamlet, but
it is, along withAntony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare's
most assured artistic success. And probably more
people have thought Hamlet a work of art because
they found it interesting, than have found it interesting
because it is a work of art. It is the Mona Lisa of
literature."
["Hamlet and His Problems," Selected Essays of T.S.
Eliot]
Eliot meant that Hamlet has "intractable" matter
which obscure the nature of the work and that many
people are fascinated more by the puzzles of
interpretation these present than by the intrinsic merit
of the works. In Shakespearean scholarship, they're
called "problem plays".
Why are the "intractable" plays given so much
attention and mulling over? Onereason may be,
scholars conjecture that, for example, Julius Caesar
must have some hitherto undiscovered coherence for
having been written by Shakespeare. After all, he must
have revealed a "voice", an aesthetic "personality".
So, by extrapolating it from the non-problematic plays,
one can apply it to the problematic ones as a clue to
illuminate their "true" meaning. Thus the unstated
presupposition is that works of art by the same artist
are not discrete; they are in fact seamless continuous
extensions of the artist.
[continued]
498. PseudoErasmus - May 2, 1997 Re: item #4 of post 496, the discreteness of the art.
The process might run like this. [I grossly oversimplify.]
(A) In Macbeth, Shakespeare seems to "say" that
personal ambition and moral corruption are
inseparable. And Macbeth has a unity of action and a
focus on a single character to whom the tragedy
happens.
(B) Though lacking this unity, Julius Caesar seems to be
about the conflict between personal freedom and the
interest of the state. But it doesn't seem to take sides.
What is it about? To *whom* the tragedy happens is
ambiguous. To Caesar? Or Cassus and Brutus?
(C) We are accustomed by Shakespeare's other works
and by art in general to expect that a work of art
comment implicitly on its subject matter. So some hunt
for what Shakespeare "actually meant".
(D) Since Shakespeare had shown a predisposition
against the usurpation of legitimate power in the other
play, he must have meant the tragedy of Julius Caesar
to redound to Caesar. (The reverse is arguable too, but
that's less a propos here than the method of arguing.)
Presto! No more incoherence.
[More to follow on Tuesday, including my replies to
you on Manet andGoya. Also see the Music thread for
replies to you re music.]
499. bhelpuri - May 2, 1997 Mr PsE,
the Ancient Art of the East, particularly devotional art,
is NEVER presumed to be "the psychic extension of the
artist. The artist is almost always "anonymous".
The subcontinent takes a back seat to no other place
when it comes to artistic tradition and achievement -
yet the concept of anonymity has receded only in the
last century or so.
I'd like to post links to appropriate minatures,
sculptures and temple drawings, but I cant find any.
500. PseudoErasmus - May 2, 1997 I don't know whether you are following the thread of
discussion or not, but the whole thrust of my argument
is that there has been a shift of critical focus away from
the art to the artist; and that this shift islargely due to
romantic criticism. I think there was more functional
anonymity in Western art before romantic art
transformed criticism (an obvious point, perhaps). I am
thinking of posting some stuff on how art was viewed
in the pre-romantic era.
501. ernest - May 2, 1997 502. Rivendell - May 2, 1997 If I, or anyone else, want to contribute we have but to
click - and there you are!
Of course this presupposes that what I post is
interesting enough to warrant a reply from some other
fraygrant.
503. labarjare - May 2, 1997 504. labarjare - May 2, 1997 505. ernest - May 2, 1997 506. daveroll - May 2, 1997 If you have something to say, no one is stopping you. It
continually amazes me that people feel frozen out by
others' posts, apparently including mine. If you have
an objection to Pseudo and Seguine's dialogue, is it to the
content? I would think not, because despite the fact that
Pseudo is relatively insensitive to painting, he is the best
literary mind in the Fray and a very well-informed
critic. It is interesting to read what he thinks even when
he is only half-right, and most of the time he's more
right than that. If you disagree with him, speak up! If
you want to write about something else, step in! This
forum is for everyone, as we all have repeatedly
affirmed. The only person ever to be driven off is Stan
Gorsian, who proved in the end to be a fictitious
character.
507. daveroll - May 2, 1997 I agree with most of what you say, but I have a few
questions; not really bones to pick, but points I'd like to
see you refine or elaborate on.
1) The "intentional fallacy", which asserts that the art
is thedefinitive record of an artist's intent. It is very
difficult, confronted with a painting in any style, to get
much of an idea of what the artist "thought he was
doing," or "intended us to think." In this respect, I think,
painting and sculpture and perhaps film have a sort of
advantage over fiction and poetry, because they are so
vividly present to the senses that we are immersed in
the work, as in a different way we can be immersed in
music; with the result that the work itself stands in the
way of the artist, and the personality of the painter
recedes into the distance enigmatically, as in the case of
Sargeant, Degas, Cezanne, and even Manet. Do you
think this is more than a difference of degree? With
literature, the biographical approach is more tempting.
3) Ahistoricism. I'm not sure if I get your point. I would
say that the leading critics of art today, such as Arthur
Danto, Norman Bryson, and others, are quite
historicist in their approach, while the art historical
writings of Michael Fried, Svetlana Alpers, and others,
while focused on the art of the past, are historicist in
ways that the esthetic/iconographic criticism was not.
I'll come back to this later.
4) The discreteness of art.
508. senecio - May 2, 1997 Labarjere: I suscribe to all what you said about Klee
and would certainly not consider *visceral* as
opposite to deep. Earlier in this thread starting
Message #270 there was a dialogue between daveroll
and 10342 that left me thinking. They talk about artists
falling in three broad categories: line, shape&form and
color. It was a telling distinction, but some artists don't
particularly lean one way or the other. Klee, for
example seems to me to achieve a synthesis of all three
categories.
509. labarjare - May 2, 1997 510. 100342 - May 2, 1997 Pseudo andDavenroll: There is a parallel in legal studies
to your question of the artist's intent versus the actual
content of the work
of art. The solution most widely accepted in the field of
law - and I simplify a great deal - is that the intent of
the lawmaker is relevant but that the law, the final
product, has a life its own beyond that intent.
Interpretation of the law is done through several
angles, only one of which is the lawmakers' purported
intent.
But here there is a great difference withrespect to the
visual arts. The intent of the legislator (whatever its
weight might end up being) may be researched to some
extent in the congressional and other records of
debates or documents where the lawmakers often took
great pains to make explicit their intent. Furthermore,
both the law and the record of its making are laid down
in language.
To shed light on the "intent" of a visual work is much
harder, if not impossible, as expounded by PseudoErasmus.
However, I do enjoy reading about personal or
historical circumstances related to the artwork and
also to learn about cross references to other aspects of
the artist's work or otherwise. These elements do not
basically change my innermost appreciation of the
artwork. They may enhancenot the appreciation, but
the attendant enjoyment, a bit in the way a nice frame
or a pleasant placement of the artwork may add to
some people's enjoyment of art.
511. phillipdavid - May 2, 1997 PseudoErasmus, re Message #500 I, for one, am looking
forward to reading an explication of "romantic
criticism." I feel lik I am in a graduate course, and I love
it!
I also am afraid to post any more thoughts on
paintings because I invariably start cogitating on the
artist's intent and historical perspectives.
512. phillipdavid - May 2, 1997 Message #486 What a face!
I too have been looking for a portrait -- "Portrait of a
cardinal" by Rapheal. I think this face is also worth
looking at.
513. 100342 - May 2, 1997 I have keenly followed the exchange between
Seguine and PseudoErasmus and hope they continue
posting. I must confess that often I have found
PseudoErasmus arguments brilliant but not quite applicable
to the visual arts, which, I gather he has not *taken in*
(sorry, I can't find a more precise term) in the
manneran art lover does. He has readily conceded that
he is not that interested in art and has not explored this
field that much. Of course it is not necessary to be
equally versed in all art forms to be able to say some
general things about all kinds of creative endeavours.
But I do feel he is a tad too confident that his insights,
rooted in other art forms, MUST be equally or
similarly valid to the visual arts as well.
514. 100342 - May 2, 1997 515. 100342 - May 2, 1997 516. phillipdavid - May 3, 1997 The second one is the Rapheal Cardinal I was thinking
of.
Kenneth Clarke uses this portrait as a contrast to the
Durer portrait of Oswald Krell (already posted above).
I love the Rapheal portrait because it embodies
qualitiesI so much desire to possss myself : he is a man
of high-culture, self-contained, and balanced.
Durer's *Oswald Krell* seems to embody a sense of
urgency and hysteria that was to flower in the
Reformation, while Rapheal's *Cardinal* seems to
embodythe self-satisfied status-quo at the beginnning
of the 1500's.
517. phillipdavid - May 3, 1997 The structure is triangular, making me think of a
pyramid. The point at the top of his hat, expanding
down through the shoulders, completing the triangle
with his arm draped across his lap. It is monumental,
stable history, everlasting like the pyramids. The
triangle takes me to the Church also. His face acts as a
capstone to the pyramid of human development,
self-satidsfied, content, human being as it should be.
Now contrast this with Durer's Oswald Krell Krell.
The face represents the the movements in history -- the
Reformation with its attendant hysteria, intellectual
change, disorder, anew way of looking at truth.
518. phillipdavid - May 3, 1997 519. 100342 - May 3, 1997 I will keep looking for the Belini portrait of Dogo
Leonardo Loredan.
On the Raphael versus the Velazquez: other than the
painterly qualities of both, I'd say that you *know* for
sure in the Velazquez that he completely bared his
subject. The Pope could not possible have been an iota
different in reality to what Velazquez apprehended.
Perhaps more is revealed about the man through this
portrait that could have been donethrough dealing
with him in person. Raphael just might or might not
have *touched up* his subject. He rings truthful, but he
is posing...
520. phillipdavid - May 3, 1997 I am absolutely _stunned_ by Erasmus's portrait. I had
not seen that before; I have seen a black and white
photo of another Holbein painting of Erasmus -- one
where we get a side view of Erasmus as he is writing.
My first reactionwas a desire to pull out some history
books and read up on Erasmu -- I want to learn about
this man!. His face is so penetrating. I will have to sit
with it for awhile before I can put some thoughts
together.
I totally agree about the Velazquez painting. I don't
think I have ever seen a picture, or a real person, that
revealed so much of inner truth. At least that is my
reaction.
The depth and quality of their lives are so
unmistakingly portrayed in the paintaings ( Erasmus
and the Pope byVelazquez). My picture beside theirs
would make me look like an indiscriminate nothing. So
much of their lives is etched into their faces. It is not
often that I see anyone with that much life to reveal.
521. Seguine - May 3, 1997 Off the cuff...
You have mentioned previously the distinction between
the visual arts and the lively arts: that the latter are
"incomplete" in that they require interpretation by a
performer. I suspect this is a significant element in
(western; pace Bhelpuri) visual art's historical
difference from performance with regard to
interpretive license on the part of an audience. So,
whether they like it or not, Mamet and Beckett will be
altered in performance.
And, perhaps the iconic notion of the
artist/composer/novelist as god, as *deliverer of
intention* arose exactly because the only things
standing between him and his audience were the work
and the audience's capacity for it--a concept that has
clear parallels in authoritarian religions. Like the
world's major religions, the experience of art is at this
point almost always accompanied by a text which
explains the intention of the artist.
This is not routinely true of fiction (although classics
tend to be accompanied by forwards) or music.
In the same way some people are said to believe
everything they read, people often manifest an inability
to distinguish between truth and representations of
truth, or not-truth, in the realm of the visual. (If I say I
heard a gunshot and you tell me that at the moment I
heard the noise you *saw* a tire blowing out on some
poor schlub's Toyota a block away, your explanation of
the event will likely prevail.) Seeing is believing. But
hearing is not *believing*. Smelling and tasting are
not *believing*. Reading is believing if we're told we
may believe.
(cont.)
522. Seguine - May 3, 1997 The visual has long impressed us as being factual. Until
the advent of photography, the more realistic a
painting appeared to be, the greater power it had to
convince. Nowadays, which art form stirs the ire of the
far right? The one practiced by Mapplethorpe and
Serrano, the one which offers objective evidence of
actuality and not (just, or perhaps) imagination. In the
visual arts, there is no equivalent, exactly, to the
distinction between fiction and non-fiction. But unlike
wordless music, the visual has the power to convince
as texts do. It needs explanation: the audience wants to
know whether its author intends it to be "true" or not,
and since the artist almost always implies his work is a
representation of some sort of truth, the viewer wants
very much to know just exactly what the artist means
to "say".
Especially vis-a-vis the art form which eschews
representation and/or comes with its own, unfamiliar
context: how can the viewer approach its "meaning,"
and so its truth or falsity? He must learn the creator's
intention.
523. phillipdavid - May 3, 1997 Your post above got me to thinking of visual vs.
auditory reality.
I believe if I had to choose between being blind and
being deaf, I would choose blindness.
524. Seguine - May 3, 1997 Intention, however, varies quite a lot by degree and
kind. To make matters more difficult for audiences of
art, that which the 20th century has produced has been
increasingly *about* intention. Your interpretation of
it, therefore, Pseudo, cannot ignore the artist without
denying the very point of his efforts in a very large
number of cases.
As for your friend who would interpret Kafka's
Metamorphosis as an allegory of religious experience
if only he knew for sure that Kafka went to church
regularly, well, I applaud his caution. It's one thing to
observe an author's or artist's possible influences based
on what is known of his life/milieu, or even to draw
parallels between a work and things the work could
not have been intended to adddress. It's another thing
to disregard the author's intention entirely and
free-associate as to the meaning of the work itself. I
advocate a decent separatism between what a work of
art is *like* and what it apparently *is*, don't you? Or
would you really defend my red blooded American
right to assert that Götterdämmerung can be seen as a
paen to monotheism? (All that incest and theft and
love-death just proves that Judaism is the way to go,
much preferable to multiple-god squabbling with its
attendant ill effects on human affairs. Why, the whole
Ring Cycle is an airtight justification for the founding
of the state of Israel... )
525. Seguine - May 3, 1997 When you say that interpretive methods that consider
and do not consider authorial/artistic intent are
"equally valid", you might as well be saying that scales
and fur are "equally valid." Perfectly true, but, out of
context, of little use in assessing the appropriateness of
a given interpretive method.
526. Seguine - May 3, 1997 By the way, when I say that art of the 20th cen. has
increasingly been about intention and that to ignore
intention is to deny the point of much of the work, I
mean that artistic intention (often deliberately very
ambiguous, but bounded) is art's subject, or a hefty part
of it, much of the time.
Again, maybe it's reasonable to draw a comparison
with religion. If you attend a mass at the Vatican and
you speak no Latin and you don't know what the ritual
is *for*, you may judge it on its merits as spectacle and
you may find it interesting, or not, and you may wind
up incorporating aspects of the mass into your own
religious observance (or performance or musical
composition). This is a naïve approach to Catholicism,
and can be legitin my book, if you are a naïf. Or a
composer or artist.
Most of us cannot take complete refuge in naïveté
when it comes to intepretation of visual art, however. I
don't think you can, for instance, because you don't
with regard to other arts.
527. Seguine - May 3, 1997 Really? I would prefer to retain my sight. I think it
would be much more practically difficult to be blind
than deaf.
528. Seguine - May 3, 1997 "The art is its own purpose. Because the art contains its
own meaning, one can be interested in it regardless of
who the artist is. But quite a few people are more
interested in getting to know him or in having sex with
him vicariously, and essentially engage in biographical
criticism as the only legitimate approach."
Well, yes and no. Some art can't be comprehended
without comprehending something (extra-"textual")
about the artist or his intent. I find this requirement
very annoying, but bowing to it yields a great deal from
time to time, so I grudgingly make the effort. In
circumstances where I go to the trouble to find out
what the artist's intentions are and the work or the
intentions themselves turn out to be idiotic, I'm
unsparing in my contempt. John Cage, for example,
will rot in hell if my vote counts for anything. But in
general, I understand that visual art requires a degree
of visual literacy.
I wonder if you are reacting to the tendency of some
putative art lovers to fixate on the artist exactly
because they cannot engage with the work but have
some social need to be involved in an art scene.
529. phillipdavid - May 3, 1997 If deaf, language, which is the house of being, would be
limited. Communication with others would be limited.
Communicating and interacting with the world would
be more difficult, on a profound level if you were deaf.
I think a person has a greater chance to evolve
emotinally and spiritually without sight as opposed to
without hearing.
530. SharonSchroeder - May 3, 1997 531. phillipdavid - May 3, 1997 I have always been especially moved by Beethoven's
fifth symphony. It is a "story" about his spirit
overcoming his oncoming deafness, or transcending it,
if you will.
Those famous first few notes, da da da dum,etc sound
like " my fate has come" or "so this is my fate". It is a
musical oddessey of his coming to terms with his fate
and going ahead anyway.
532. SharonSchroeder - May 3, 1997 533. 100342 - May 3, 1997 Language may be the house of being but not quite as
Heidegger meant it (if I understood the man at all,
which I rather doubt). I think I tend to agree with
Senecio who responded to you, the first time you
mentioned that sentence, some 150 or 200 posts ago,
that there are more languages than THE language.
Besides, THE language can be written and read, not
just heard. Sight would allow me not only more
practical chances and to continue to see artworks, but
more important, to communicate through eye contact,
body language and a myriadother visual means. And I
could always use a conversation notebook, as
Beethoven did.
I find these kind of questions/games entertaining and
revealing (like which sense you'd give up, if given the
choice). It brings to mind something I read sometime
ago -- the true story of a guy who on being taken to
prison by a dictator's police was allowed to take three
books with him. He picked from his bookshelves
volumes that he could read and re-read, things that
would last : The Bible, the Collected Plato's Dialogues
and a thick book of chess games. Which three would
you have picked?
Finally, can't help commenting on Beethoven's Fifth.
Great as it is, I believe it is Beethoven's late works (say
the last five piano sonatas or the late string quartets)
that bespeak of silence, aceptance and trascendance.
534. ernest - May 3, 1997 I would have picked a lengthy book of poetry, say,
Omeros by Derek Walcott, the Seneca's letters and, of
course, the complete Shakespeare
535. Seguine - May 4, 1997 "If deaf, language, which is the house of being, would
be limited."
Not really. We are conversing here, for instance, in a
manner that probably would not work as well aurally.
In addition to what our numerical co-fraygrant has
said about there being multiple houses, I would
contend even that language is not the house of being
but the house of thinking. Thinking, monodimensional
interpretations of Descartes aside, is not all of being,
just the part we're most familiar with.
Here's something a lot of people don't seem to
appreciate about art: when it's good, it requires the use
of parts of the mind that are not used in reading and
reasoning and cogitating in general. The experiences
of color relationships and formal relationshiips, in
particular, are distinctly non-intellectual in kind, but
entail a form of knowledge nonetheless. Understand,
I'm not talking about intuition. I'm talking about
perception, the training of which as it pertains to art
can carry over immediately into perceptual
interactions in the physical world. This is the way art
can best instruct; other kinds of instruction--moral,
intellectual, spiritual, etc.--are really better carried out
by literary means, or with imagery in the secondary
role of"proving" the text.
536. phillipdavid - May 4, 1997 Actually, I am more afraid of losing my sight than of
losing my hearing. I started thinking about sight and
hearing after a post above and I tried to imagine what
it would be like being _born_ deaf or being born blind.
My comments were primarily directed from that angle.
537. 100342 - May 4, 1997 Quite! Reading your post reminds me that one
particular way of learning that works very well for me
is to read something you know put in a different (and
better) way.
About perception: I read recently "Descartes' Error", by
Antonio Damasio, who is, I learned, a respected
neurologist. He explains the scientific state of the art
about the workings of the mind, including,
prominently, perception. I recommend it with
enthusiasm. I love to read books written by intelligent
specialists and addressed to the non specialist as well.
The best authors follow Einstein maxim: to explain
difficult things as simply as possible, but not more
simply. (another of such books for me was Stephen
Hawkins' A Brief History of Time.
538. thejackcat - May 4, 1997 539. Seguine - May 4, 1997 "The separateness of art and artist implies that two
works by the same artist are discontinuous the one
from the other."
Oh, but they quite often are not.
In any particular work there is a point at which the
artist must stop or else kill the piece. That is, sometimes
the work must be concluded before an ideal or even
plausible synthesis of ideas and executions has been
achieved, because to continue would exhaust the
capcity of the materials to achieve a more
propitiousresolution. Or because a particular line of
visual "reasoning", if you will, can only go so far: it
acieves it's aims and the artist must then move on to
examine the same world, with all the same deliberately
imposed constraints, from a position suggested in the
first work but not executable there. In such instances
the artist, like a philosopher or an engineer, begins
again, each beginning producing a new work which is
in fact also very much a continuation of a previous one.
Traditionally, artists regarded as great have worked in
exactly this way. Entire careers, in fact, have been
based on resolving certain visual problems via various
means. In literature this tendency, unfortunately
conflated with style in the visual arts, would be
identified as obsessive and readers might become bored
with it. (Phillip Roth springs to mind.)
In art it is not only tolerated but has until very recently
been *required* of artists, as an indicator of
seriousness. Dealers look initially at 20 or more
examples of an artist's efforts to determine whether
the output is coherent. If it isn't, the dealer typically
regards the artist as immature and will not pursue
representation. Art schools also encourage
single-mindedness. (The painter Neil Welliver, whom
you may recognize as the "Dean of American Realism",
used to advise his students to "get obsessed and stay
obsessed.")
540. Seguine - May 4, 1997 A caveat: when an artist becomes famous enough and
his work will sell on the strength of his name alone, he
may do whatever he damn well pleases.
541. 100342 - May 4, 1997 thejackcat:
I loved that book. It's by Oliver Sacks. I also read other
books by him: "A Leg to Stand On" and "Awakenings".
The last one was made into a movie, with Robert de
Niro and Robin Williams in the main roles.
Do get the Damasio book, if you have not read it yet
542. thejackcat - May 4, 1997 543. 100342 - May 4, 1997 544. 100342 - May 4, 1997 545. phillipdavid - May 5, 1997 Who is the painter, 100342? I don't know anything
about him/her.
I noticed that this picture is from the same site as some
of the other portraits. That site-creator did a heck of a
job, huh?
546. CoralReef - May 5, 1997 547. 100342 - May 5, 1997 Pseudo dedicated an Ingres to you back in Message
#421 and other fraysters posted Ingres in nums. 417
and 418. I posted a drawing by him in num. 443. Maybe
you were not around the chat room at that time
(doesn't the passing of a week feel like ages in the
thread?)
548. 100342 - May 5, 1997 549. phillipdavid - May 5, 1997 I was so taken by the amplitude of flesh (haha) that I
didn't even think of the artist!
What I notice first off in the Ingres portraits you've
posted is the quality of the skin. I don't have the
art-speak to describe what I'm thinking of; the tone
and light used to paint the skin really strikes me.
Absolutely beautiful. Faces I could look at for a long
time!
I am still trying to formulate some thoughts about the
Erasmus portrait. But what my mind wants to do is
talk about the man himself, not the painting itself.
maybe that is the best statement I can articulate.
Question : do you know what museum holds some
good Turner paintings? I am fantasizing about
traveling and trying to figure out what I really want to
see. Turner is the artist I have seen here in this thread
so far that is the most compelling so far.
550. 100342 - May 5, 1997 The Tate Gallery in London is The Mecca for Turner.
Tons of paintings by the master. While you are at it try
to see the Turner watercolours. They are seldom
shown in quantity, because of their vulnerability to
light. But the British Museums do accomodate the
wishes of visitors and, if you let them know a little in
advance, someone may guide you to the vaults and
show them to you.
Other than the Tate you have, of course, the National
Gallery, London's flagship art Museum. I envy anyone
who's yet to see it. The Bellini portrait of Venecian
Dogo Leonardo Loredan, (that I have been looking for
to post in this thread) is shown there. Together with
Velazquez's Pope it is, in my view, the greatest portrait
ever painted.
Other must museums in London include smaller
collections that boast more than a few gems. For
instance, the Courtauld Institute, the Wallace
Collection and the Kenwood House, which holds no
less than one of the precious 33-odd Vermeers known
to exist (two more are in the National gallery and
another one in the Queen'a collection)
551. 100342 - May 5, 1997 Oh, yes, Erasmus... Please go ahead and talk about the
man... I truly admire him and would certainly wish to
hear your thoughts about him
552. phillipdavid - May 5, 1997 London it is then!
BTW, if you ever check out other threads, go look in
Social -- I just posted ten of the portraits we have been
considering here over there all on one page. If you
have a feel for any of the other Fraygrants here you
might try your hand at a few guesses. I think I must be
in a perverse mood tonight, lookin to have some fun
hahaha.
553. senecio - May 5, 1997 Your comments brought to mind one of Braque's
aphorisms. It went something like this: "the painting is
finished when the idea has been killed". I believe he
added that one brush stroke the more ("had half
impair'd the nameless grace..." Sorry, I digress) would
set in motion a new painting.
Now, you talk really about an idea that is carried over
many separate works. I guess they are different orders
of "ideas", but related. One relates to the integrity and
completion of a particular effort. The other
connotation suggests the pursuit of a solution to vaster
aesthetic searches. In that pursuit different works by
the same artist may or not look superficially alike. I
agree with you that it is quite silly to demand a certain
close family resemblance among all separate works by
an artists as a proof that s/he is mature. An artist's
coherence with him/herself is not manifested through
facile likeless. Klee (if I may insist on refering to him) is
always readily identifiable and yet so multifacetic.
554. 100342 - May 5, 1997 That was a stroke of genius of yours to post those 10
portraits in the social thread (now I know where
everybody is when it is so quiet here!). My ribs are still
hurting from the belly laughter: Number 10 is certainly
PseudoErasmus!!
555. PseudoErasmus - May 6, 1997 100342 (Message #510)
The question of original intent behind the Constitution
is something I've addressed several times in the Politics
and other threads. I think, on the whole, constitutional
originalism is an untenable, incoherent and ultimately
irrelevant approach to the law.
Re: Message #513. Yes, you and Dave Rollare quite
right that I am relatively insensitive to art. Going to
concerts and the theater, reading novels and poetry,
and movie-watching are all regular pastimes for me,
but my museum-going is haphasard. But I do "take in"
art, just not as expansively or perhaps as deeply as
someone whose primary interest is in painting and
sculpture.
While I agree that "cogitating about the artist's intent
and historical perspectives is just fine if it is done as a
supplement to, not as a substitute for 'taking in' the
artwork", I'm not sure the two processes are so neatly
demarcated. As I implied earlier, there is no such thing
as naive observation. I will try to show why my
observations about art in general are applicable to the
visual arts.
556. 100342 - May 6, 1997 PseudoErasmus: Let me make my points a bit more clear:
1. Yes, constitutional originalism in untenable. In the
continental legal tradition the "will of the lawmaker" is
just one four main avenues for interpreting the law.
My point is that in matters of law consulting the
original intent may have SOME value and it is also
MORE DOABLE: there are legislative records and
both the law and the records are laid out in "language".
2. Regarding art the situation isquite different. I doubt
if one can talk at all of the artist's intent as different
from the final product. The artist intended precisely
what came out (including his acceptance of accidental
effects). Only through different connotations to the the
term "intent" may one separate the "intent" from the
product. "Intent" may be used to mean "hope". (The
artist might have hoped for a higher achievement
when s/he set to work, but fell short of it). It may also
be used to mean "expectation" (the artist may wish the
public would perceive his/her work in a given way).
3. One variation of the latter connotation of intent
takes place when the artist plants visual clues or codes
in the work. The observeris expected to descipher
them. For many a critic that is the prefered mode of
reading a painting. I consider visual codes and riddles
to be completely secondary to the appreciation of an
art work. If a Brueghel did not have painterly qualities,
the hidden messages would count for very little; if here
were no such messages, the picture would be equally
valuable aesthetically speaking.
4. To resort to historical or biographical references to
read a work of art if often used as a substitute for "just
taking it in". Yet, it may be an enriching way to
accompany the pleasure of seeing. True, the two
approaches may often be hard to tell apart, but that
does not invalidate the distinction.
557. PseudoErasmus - May 6, 1997 I'm not sure why you make all these remarks (except
for the point about constitutional originalism). Not
only did I agree with you, especially on #2 and #4, I
also agreed with you before you made these remarks.
558. 100342 - May 6, 1997
floyd floyd you know those 14th street rickety folding
tables. Isn't that you out there every night selling dirty
sweat socks? I knew it. I just did.
Oh, bullshit.
Floyd - we do indeed have much the same image of the
world's most bizarre art dealer. I too have 14th Street
in mind. I see fake velvet "canvasses" - with Keene
eyed paintings interlaced with wonderful landscapes
(you know, with trees in fullradiant bloom - with a
little neon paint tones here and there). (Yes, Bull, I
know I've been down much of this road before, but
some images just won't fade. Truth sort of sticks.)
resonance aren't you quoting what your mother said
the first time she saw you?
no, res, it's true...a few postcards, and the hot-selling
"Details of the Masters" 1996 calendar featuring
hemlines from Rembrandt, upside-down goatheads
from Chagall, and the canvas fibers of Rothko. I
bought one myself, and am proud to see that Bull got
his comission percentage back.
Bull - sure, and I'm about to go out and jump over the
Empire State Building. Let me be charitable for a
moment and assume veracity on your part. Sold what.
trash cans for the cafeteria?
That's it. Gotta go. Sorry for what we've done to a
nice thread.
my my my hasn't the ugly puss of jealousy been raised
by Bull's announcement that he has sold the
Metropolitan Museum of Art. my my mah mah my
my...sorry fellas is true. and I'se here to bet not one of
you could have afforded to even think about the costof
what that piece cost the Met. hell most of you couldn't
have dreamed in such hight numbers. It'd a given ya's
nosebleeds. But fellas TRUST ME. you're all carrying
on like a bunch of dutch tourists on W 22nd St. Bunch a
screaming ninnies.
Ah, Bull. The Met? A hotdog cart on 5th Ave next to the
park doesn't count.
Bull - West 22nd Street? Chelsea? You? (P.S. no joking
on this which indeed is the last post for me today - how
you doing with that cat?)
Bull elephant, the only thing you ever sold that's even
BEEN in the Met is your asshole. And you probably
sold it to get in.
100342,
lab, No west 22nd St. is for new art. not I. all my artists
are long dead for better or worse.
Here is another Masaccio from the same series of
frescoes; this portrays my comment about the attention
being paid to the dignity of man. Tribute Money
continued:
Bull,
Felipe: He's the guy with all the tables out front. I think
he runs a little business on the side though, if Artiste is
to be believed...
I have never seen this one before. I really really like this
painter, though.
Yes, Ingres is a good artist. But I prefer this one:
It's good to be the King!
Hmm. I'm waiting for everyone to chime in here, but I
think they might have been delayed by the Turkish Bath
site... ;-)
I have two reasons for posting the following link:
Pseudo, you panderer.
Um. Rubens. I can't believe I did that.
phillipdavid/resonance/etc.: um, there's always the old
Kinsey Archive
Res, Pseudo, Artiste,
I love all those little pot-bellies! Too bad they are so out
of style nowdays.
phild:
I noticed the boots too, Mondaugen ( sorry for the
misspelled name above).
resonance,
I was even at that site! And I missed that one!
Pseudo, res, et.al,
Blond hair, take in the chin a bit, a bit rounder of face
and that IS a bit like me. Scarily enough.
This man has a serious approach to life. He is not to be
fobbed off by forms and ceremonies. He believes there
is such a thing as truth, and he wants to get at it.
Look closer...that's a man looking for a cigarette.
I just got in the net could not believe the number of
posts and links. Quite a feast!
hahahaha ...lookin' for a smoke! yes, i have seen that
expression before.haha
100342:
I second resonance in taking my hat off at Phillipdavid
analysis of the Durer (great painting)
Mondaugen, I saw a lovely Agnes Martin show (small
pieces on paper) at the Pace gallery, last year (or the
year before that?). She has none of the rigidities of
most minimalists. So subtle, tender and sensual. In
another room there was an amazing series of some
100-120 faces called "Some Greeks, Some Romans"
drawn by Jim Dine. You or anybody else seen it? If yes, I
would be keenly interested in your comments.
I second everyone's maniacal doffing of hats to Phillip
David, to whom I surrender my astrakhan. Excellent
commentary. I have two objections, however.
I recently saw a video at school that helped with my
interpretation of that painting ( one of the nice things
about being a teacher is all the videos I have access to
for free). The auther used this painting and another in
contrast to it (Rapheal *Portrait of a Cardinal*) to
illustrate the kind of intellectual/spiritual atmoshere
afoot in Northern Europe at the end of the 15th
century.
I knew it! Those words sounded familiar, PD. They're
Kenneth Clarke's!
While I keep looking for the other draftsmen, here is a
drawing by Schiele and one by Ingres
100342:
Last year I saw the normally worthless Seattle Art
Museum's Minimalism show, which contained about 4
Martins, as well as some Ad Reinhardt, etc. It was a
small show, but I spent easily 6 hours there soaking it
all in. I've heard of Dine, butcan't place his work in my
mind. Oh, and while I'm here, I found one extremely
poor reproduction of Artemeisia Gentileschi's 'Judith
Slaying Holofernes' (1620). If anyone can finda better
reproduction anywhere, please post a link, as it is quite
a spectacular work. Hope you like it.
PD, that's not Res in Message #431; that's the narrator
of Browning's *My Last Duchess*!
Great post, Mondaugen. Before Artemisa got be
known, you had to confine yourself to Rosalba
Carriera as the virtually only reference to a woman
painter up until theimpressionists
Khan, you just wish you had my smooth organic
eloquence. Wannabe jealousy ill suits you. (grin)
But I'll dedicate my first book for your edification.
There is hope.
YESSS!, I found
Masaccio's Baptism of the Neophytes Make allowance
for the fact that this image is prior to its recent
restoration. Also, for some reason, they printed its
mirror image. It is the other way around.
Pseudo,
PSE,
Moondaugen - You referred to the Seattle Art
Museum in an earlier post. It DOES seem to have an
astonishingly thin collection (we were there earlier this
spring and saw the Matisse and other mostly on paper
works from the Cone sisters' collection - which I found
to be very worthwhile). What's the scoop? Most cities
the size of Seattle with the pockets of great wealth it
has would have come up with some more "art meat" by
how, I would have thought. (Although, and I really do
hope this isn't taken as being yet another example of
NYC parochialism at work I have much the same
feeling about the new San Francisco museum and its
modern collection. [Saw the "late" DeKoonings there
about a year and a half ago and there really wasn't too
much more there there.])
lab:
Not exactly sure what the skinny is w/ SAM. In all
fairness, their collection of non-Western art is really
quite impressive, but that's not really where my
personal tastes lie. The problem seems to me to mainly
lie in simple administrative machinations: they've gone
through several curators over the the last couple years,
and there are already 'doubts' over the newest one.
Their contemporary collection is rather thin (requisite
G. Segal, lots of M. Graves (duh), yet another Warhol
and a Gilbert & George (!)), though I have seen some
pretty impressive things they've acquired on loan.
There are other places in town to see some really good
stuff (the Henry, COCA, a couple of decent galleries),
so the SAM's shortcomings have never really made all
that much difference to me. It's an interesting question,
though, and I'll do some research for you to see if I
can't find out more.
mondaug, lab your on Bull's turf talking about Seattle
Art Museum. I sold them their last big_____ painting.I
won't say exactly what, I don't want you ruffians
finding out my real name. My reputation would be
jeapordized. SAM has no real endowment. The new
Seattle money is not supporting the museum (although
the director does go out with Bill's dad) Perhaps we
could petition Kingsley to petition Gates to give the
museum 30 or 40 mil of aquisitions dough---with the
stipulation that the money be spread around
departments and not all dumped on some worthless
impressionist painting---too often the case. But others
in the Seattle community are going ohave to pony up at
the bar too....Seattle is just off the track and until it
gets the Museum together it will never be world class.
But that takes big money and big donors. Know
any....Send me the names I'll pass em on...Like I said I
have friends there.
Bull:
I can only guess at which painting yr referring to (and
by 'big', do you mean 'large', or expensive), but I'll take
yr word for it. Like I said, the SAM's shortcomings
have never really bothered me as the other places I
mentioned do just fine on their own, and believe it or
not, Tacoma's museum is quite exceptional. Are you
familiar w/ them? And regarding Serrano, I can't say
as I care for his work at all, but I wouldn't exactly call it
porn, either (I've worked in the porn biz [behind the
'scenes' {editing, actually}, mind you, so don't go
looking], so I guess I can speak with authority here).
Post 452: labarjare, you may be right regarding Seattle,
but the San Francisco Museum is well worth a detour
and not only for its splendid architecture. True, it does
not compare to MOMA, but I remember well from my
only visit to it, some 20 Klees (By the way, MOMA
turned down a donation of 90 Klees, some years ago!!!
It went to the Metropolitan. MOMA's director - I
believe it was Rubin - said it woould "unbalance the
collection". Go figure!... ). At the San Francisco
Museum I also saw good pieces by Beckman, Rivera,
Guston, Matta, Matisse, etc. As to contemporary
works, when I visited there were impressive works by
Kiefer, Polke, Beuys, Richter and Marden. And also
late de Koonings, as you mention.
Bull - a couple of thoughts re your post. I've gathered
that your tastes and business run more to the old
masters and I can understand your comment about
wanting to see acquisition funds spread around
departments, not just spent on impressionists etc. But -
am I wrong in thinking that the supply/demand and
economics just don't work that way for ambitious but
young/thin museums? My impression (no pun
intended) is that whenever worthwhile old things do
come on the market that a predictable few (the Met,the
Getty, National Gallery, the Getty yet again, perhaps
the Cleveland or the Boston or perhaps even the Frick)
are going to make roadkill of everyone else. If I'm
correct, doesn't the skinny museum sort of have to go
contemporary and hope that it makes the right
decisions or is lucky? (I've often thought that some
shrewd museum out there would make the decision to
basically get out of collecting paintings per se and
concentrate on prints, etchings, etc. Looks to me like
only the Getty can try to doit all these days and as far
as I'm concerned they are doing it very, very poorly.
Maybe the new buildings will make it all look better
and more cohesive.
Senecio re Message #456. God knows, the last thing I
want to do is be accused of knocking SF, since it and the
area are one of my favorite places. And, I certainly
agree with you re the Museum's architecture (mostly -
I find the stairway/atrium abit precious) and I do recall
some of the same pieces you refer to (and to be fair, I
also have only been there once and for only about two
hours). (I do not recall and therefore must have missed
the Klees, however. Sad, since he's one of my
favorites). But what I do recall is that there is but one,
maybe two, of anybody and that you gain the
impression of spottyness. God, I feel bad even writing
that, other than to add the following: it seems to me
that SF is a city of sufficient size, sophistication and
wealth that the local doyennes could have forked up
more by now (or collected more with the collections
then being given in due course to the "modern"
museum - maybe they give to the others in the city)
AND one of my friends (a SF doyenne herself) agrees
with me.
hey, lab...I know someone w/ a Klee tattoo. Is that any
way to look at one?
lab you make some valid points...but there are plenty of
Old Master Paintings around not of the "first" rank
that are quite affordable. But the public, curators (yes
curators) and trustees seem to have a viewing span of
about an inch so they spend over the top to buy just a
few items leaving collections rather bare. The Getty in
particular is guilty of this...and of course there are the
usual darker reasons... Corruption is rampant there is
no gauge to judge value and millions are kicked back on
purchases at more than one big museum....I could go
on but....Let's just say original sin, greed, and the ten
commandants aren't foreign to the museum business.
By the way I meant MILLIONS go to Switzerland on
purchases and it starts at the top and rolls down.
moonie - with the proper things at hand to insure
mellowness, I think looking at a Klee tatoo would be a
blast.
Seguine - Re: Message #450
MSG NUM. 458
Agree with you that the collection is spotty and that
San Francisco could aim higher
PSE, re #462, empiricism connotes science by standing in
opposition to it, and anyway I specified perception for
a reason. Allow me to beat a dead horse and say that I
believe you cogitate excessively to compensate for the
fact that you are incapable of (admitting to?) empathy.
You seem to approach art as though it *were* theory,
when it is in fact an exercise of expression of some sort
within constraints which theory might or might not
elucidate. Romanticism annoys you, wholesale,
therefore the theory itembodies is bankrupt. Or so
you've represented yourself, dismissing for instance
the cult of genius as though it were in some way
equivalent to the cult of celebrity, which is not quite so.
(Only post-structuralists think otherwise.)
Senecio - Thanks very much for your 463. I am going to
try to make a copy and tuck it away in the travel folder.
I'm curious - As I said, it really has been a long while
since I've been to that part of Switzerland. As I recall,
the museum in Basel was first rate, including a good
number of Giacomettis very tastefully displayed. Is my
recollection correct?
SEGUINE - Re: Message #464
Seguine
I know $100M seems like hardly a trifle in bureaucratic
Washington, wherever that may be, but to the people
who pay those taxes it's a fortune.
exactly right jayburge and hurray for you....but duck
the culture vultures will start pecking momentarily.
labarjare: RE MSG 465. You are quite right about the
Basel Museum. The roomful of Giacomettis is a treat.
They also show about a dozen Klees, including the one
after which I am honored to be named (in this thread,
at least). I guess the jewell of theBasel collection is
Holbein's Christ in his tomb, that elongated painting
showing the dead Christ from the side (like a
counterpart to Mantegna's dead Christ which is
shown feet first, like the figures in the anatomy
lessons).
labarjare: RE MSG 465. You are quite right about the
Basel Museum. The roomful of Giacomettis is a treat.
They also show about a dozen Klees, including the one
after which I am honored to be named (in this thread,
at least). I guess the jewell of theBasel collection is
Holbein's Christ in his tomb, that elongated painting
showing the dead Christ from the side (like a
counterpart to Mantegna's dead Christ which is
shown feet first, like the figures in the anatomy
lessons).
Well I just saw a "Kill The NEA" post. I'll agree if the
advertising on TV, Radio, Movies, Magazines, Tractor
pulls et al is no longer a tax deductible business
expense. If people become dependent on government
hand outs, they also become dependent on business
handouts.
Senecio - Thanks for your 471 - you have a way of
refreshing good memories very nicely. Let me go back
in a way to an earlier topic. In our discussion re
museums you referred to the SFMOMA not being of
course our MOMA. Granted. BUT - have you had
thefeeling that the MOMA itself (in terms of its
permanent collections, not the travelling or special
shows) is a bit static these days? But then - whenever I
begin to feel that way I only have to go back up to the
Met to their "contemporary" collection and conclude
that on the whole it is dreary second rate stuff, and
that the MOMA is in fact doing a better job in adding
to its collection. So - my question - What museum out
there, if any, do you think is doing a better job than the
MOMA in terms of building a 20th century collection?
The Tate? Chicago Art Institute?
PSE,
PSE,
(cont.)
Then again, maybe hewing to original intent is music's
way of being seen as an intellectual pursuit just like art
defined by warty amphibian lit-critters. (We're all
bespectacled textualists now...) Are you aware that
there is currently a quiet little war going on between
performers and theorists in academic music
departments here and there?
Labarjare,
JC re your Message #478 I didn't have LACMA in mind
when doing my earlier posts, but I think you are dead
on right. I've only been there perhaps three times but
each one most of the exhibition space was taken up
with "special" exhibits and when you did seek out the
permanent collection it was very thin. If ever there was
a city where (no matter what the reasons) a museum
like LACMA should be able to attract a very large
number of wealthy donors/contributors LA should be it
(and here comes Moscow!). God know the LA County
Museum seems overrun with donors' names, etc.
Message #473
Senecio and Laberjere, I agree with you both and
would add that at MOMA Latin American art is quite
absent, except for some great Mexicans whose
paintings don't yet get a green card -- they hanged in
the corridors the last few times I visited MOMA
Message #470
SEGUINE (476. 477)
SEGUINE (Message #474)
PSE,
How about a some of the greatest portraits in the
history of painting? This portrait of Pope Innocent X by
Velazquez is in my mind the one of thevery greatest.
I could not find a link to two other of my very favorite
portraits. One if Doge Leonardo Loredan, by G. Bellini
(the link was there but could not obtain it through my
server)and the other is one of the portraits of Erasmus,
by Holbein (the one I found poststamp size)
PSE,
PSE, (cont.)
SEGUINE - Message #487
Senecio re your Message #480 Sorry to be so long in
responding. Your references to those European
museums (other than the Tate, I must admit that I am
unfamiliar with them - when you have a moment,
could you provide more detail as to their collections
and why you find them special? Is it Klee with respect
to each of them?) makes me want to run down and use
some of my frequent flier miles for a jault to the
continent. Oh yes - the reproduction of the senecio
came through wonderfully.
A weird little site, and kind of funny, for anyone who is
interested: jujubee.com
(Sorry, I've not learned how to post hyperlinks just
yet.)
Message #491
Terrific site the www.jujubee.com, Seguine. Thanks
Message #490
Message #490
SEGUINE - Re: Message #475
SEGUINE [continued from Message #495]
SEGUINE [continued from Message #496]
SEGUINE [continued from Message #497]
"Nor a painting ever *treated* as though its author
were anonymous. That
is, the art is almost always presumed merely to be the
psychic extension
of the artist."
BHELPURI - Re: Message #499
Pseudo and Seguine, your endless pas de deux is a virtuoso
performance, but have you guys considered e-mail? It
IS a more appropriate medium for a tête à tête like
yours. Don't get me wrong, I do find your views
interesting, but couln't youacknowledge a bit the rest of
the crowd in this thread? Just a nod in our direction,
now and then... Otherwise we (I at least) will go on
feeling like the extras in Gone With the Wind
I can't see any problem with what Pseudo and Seguine are
doing. Their posts are appropriate to the thread.
I second Rivendell's sentiments. This is a thread where
at least two separate dialogues, both fitting under the
same large umbrella, have been peacefully coexisting
for some time now. Oh this were true elsewhere.
Senecio - my apologies for not having responded to
your recent posts before now. My thanks, however, for
your having sent them. I definitely want to get over
there and see the museums and galleries you described,
soon. As for my adding much of interest re Klee, I really
can't except to say that I've always found the detail,
craftsmanship, wonderful colors, balance and sense of
intelligently thought out harmony to be very appealing.
I like the whimsy as well. So as you can see, visceral
not deep.
Vox Populi...
ernest 501
Pseudo 495
I was about to third Rivendell and Labarjere, but
Ernest's prompt bowing to the voice of democracy
seems to settle the matter.
Senecio - I certainly agree with your comments about
the synthesis that Klee achieved. As two more
examples for me, I think the same regarding Feininger
and...Rothko (mostly).
I agree with senecio that in the case of Klee is hard to
put him in one or another of at least two camps -- color
and line. I can think of other artists to which the same
would apply, like Matisse. I'll have to think some more
about it.
Where else could one witness a conversation on par
with PseudoErasmus and Seguine's piece above?
100342,
Phillipdavid, to my mind cogitating about the artist
intent and historical perspectives is just fine if it is done
as a supplement to, not as a substitute for "taking in"
the artwork.
Phillipdavid, is that the Cardinal with strangely
looking eyes? I will look for that Raphael as well.
Phillipdavid: I seem to have been confused. I thought of
this Raphael portrai who does not seem to be of a
Cardinal. I had this other one in mind as a second
guess this one is a Raphael Cardinal. Is there a third
one you had in mind?
About the Velazquez portrait, it is said that Pope
Innocent X, upon seen his portrait finished exclaimed:
Troppo vero! (too faithfull!)
100342,
The Rapheal Cardinal has such form that mirrors the
overall feeling and historical perspective I get from the
painting.
And notice how the color in the background of Krell
mirrors the color of the Cardinal's uniform. In Krell it
is appropriately used as a background, telling me that
The old way is now a backdrop to new forces operating
in the human condition.
Insightful comments, Philipdavid. If we may continue
this joint mini-curatorial work on great portraits (we
have already Velazquez's Pope, and the Raphael and
Durer you selected which I agree are first rate
portraits-- I hope other fraysters may feel tempted to
join us in the exercise), I found that wonderful Holbein
portrait of Erasmus in his old age that I was looking
for. I am sure you will know this one, being the admirer
of Erasmus you said you are (I too, deeply admire the
man)
100342,
PSE,
PSE,
Seguine,
PSE,
PSE,
PSE,
Phillipdavid,
PSE,
Yes, it would be much more practically difficult. But the
real, true things that touch our souls come through,
and develop through our auditory senses, IMO. I think
we can make deper interpersonal connections with
voice and sound than through visual means. I think of
my marriage and my son. I think I would rather be able
to hear them than see them.
Philip; I absolutely agree. I would much rather lose my
sight than my hearing. To really hear something we
frequently close our eyes, but to really see do we plug
our ears? I would much rather hear my child laugh, or
hear a bird outside my window than tosee the same.
(just my opinion)
A little side note:
Philip; agreed.
Phillip, Sharon, I am even more surprised than Seguine.
Before reading your opinions I simply could not have
imagined that given the choice anyone would choose
hearing over sight. Long live differences!... I guess.
(returning to the fray humbly, following my brethen's
chastisement)
PD,
I was unsure of my comments when I posted them; I am
even more unsure now. Thanks for the food for
thought Seguine and 100342.
Seguine,
another excellent work on perception is by the guy who
wrote, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat"
(sorry, can't remember the name right now--Sacks?
maybe). one of his case studies was about a man who
had been born blind, but received sightlater in
life--advances in medicine and all that. before the
surgery he had a rich, fulfilling life. after the surgery he
started losing his ability to function, sunk into
depression, and insisted that he could not "see" clearly,
although medically his vision should have been quite
good. it was a riveting story and raised all kinds of
questions about perception and about how sight works.
i think his newest work is on color. i haven't read it yet,
but would be interested in hearing about it if anyone
has.
PSE,
(cont.)
I don't know whether book agents and/or publishers
dislike authors to produce wildly different but
qualitatively consistent works. My guess is that if at
one time they did not, the economics of book publishing
now will change all that.
Message #538
100342, thank you for the recommendation!
another book, recommended to me by a friend, that i
am now reading is "The Spell Of The Sensuous:
Perception And Language In A More-Than-Human
World" by David Abram. this is, by far, one of the more
interesting works on perception that i have come
across lately! here is a blurb from the book jacket for
you: "Here is a major work of ecological philosphy, one
that startles the senses out of habitual ways of seeing
and hearing, awakening us to our immersion in a living
world....Animal tracks, word magic, the speech of
stones, the power of letters, and the taste of the wind
all figure prominently in this astonishing and intensely
ethical work." i agree! it's pretty cool!
the jackcat: Many thanks, I'll look it up
Another pick for a gallery of great portraits. This
Ingres portrait is IMO one of his very best
My God! that looks like my father in law.
"A work of art - whatever else it may be - is a
self-contained entity, with a life of its own imposed on
it by its creator. It has internal order." - E M Forster. I
agree with that and thought it was relevant to many
discussions in here.
Phillipdavid:
It is Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres (1789-1867), one of
the towering figures of 19th century art scene in
France, much admired by some of the impressionists.
His mythological stuff leaves me cold, although I
admire the skills. But his drawing and portraiture are
truly engaging, in addition to being supremely skillful
Phillipdavid: That's a great site for images, but better
for old masters than for modern art. From the same
site this Portrait by Vermeer, called the Mona Lisa of
the North by some people (I personally don't care that
much for Mona Lisa). After the Vermeer show in early
1996 in Washington D.C. this painting became very
popular in the U.S. But IMO it surely belongs in any
review of great portraits.
100342,
Phillipdavid:
PD:
Thanks , 100342,
Seguine: Message #540
PD
Jesus! There is a lot to reply to! Now, I have decided to
reply to everything in one fell swoop; which means I
can't do it today. Some time this week, I will elaborate
on my previous posts, answer Dave Roll's questions,
including the one on ahistoricism, reply to Seguine's
objections, return to the Manet/Goya dispute with her,
and expatiate on the issue of the contingency of art v.
the autonomy of art.
Message #555
100342 (556)
I guess I am making things clear for myself. Often I find
myself needing to put things in writing in order to feel I
understand them. Hope I did not disappoint you for not
being adversarial enough