|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jensen
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
Location: hippie hell
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Corporal...especially if you were raised on truly great art (a category to which J.P's work does not belong) as I was...[/quote]
My friends and family who paint love Wyeth, Sargent (sp?) etc and pretty much hate the post-JP crap. There's a lot of resentment from folks who were doing realistic stuff in the '60s and '70s but couldn't get shows because critics and gallery owners...outside of the Western/Southwest (living-room investment paintings, but sometimes fantastic stuff) market...thought realism was "illustration". But these guys, and I agree with them, think of JP as being a different case than the people who followed him. They don't like his stuff necessarily but they respect the skill (doing something accidental on purpose is damned hard to get right) and the energy. I think a lot of realistic art is kind of like music played by studio musicians, it's good and it's technically tight but a lot of times it's so...lacking. JP's stuff reminds me of music by people like Neil Young, the Femmes, Primus, Monk, whatever. There's skill (at wildly ranging levels in these examples) but it's wielded with a creativity that makes nice tight pop music sound like the crap it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kiwiboy_nz_99
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Location: ...Enlightenment...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ody wrote: |
| That may be. However, in my experience, (save for Carlos, a 15 year old fellow in my gifted class back in 1981) I haven't met a painter who wouldn't at least acknowledge Pollack's contribution to painting. If a collector, a patron of the arts, or even a fellow artist disregards the New York School of Abstract Expressionists, fine, everyone has their own taste. I guess I can respect that. But it is indeed rare for a painter to do the same. |
The artists I'm talking about are indeed painters.
I think there is a backlash against a lot of post modern art, be it visual, literature, music. The reason is that the philosophy ( pomo ) became so over-powering that people started to create into that mould, to start with the philosophy as the top priority rather than inspiration. What we get is stuff driven by the agenda of a critical philosophy as opposed to being driven by inspiration. And too often in the drive to be original, cutting edge, and pomo something was lost, the soul. Art stopped connecting with ordinary people. Now you have painting exhibitions that require you to read a 5 page essay before you "get" what the blobs of paint mean ( they're "questioning the human relationship to nature and the ineffable, while stressing the unconscious and symbol making in psychology, and undermining rationalism" don't you know ). But the plain fact of the matter is they didn't look good, and they didn't move ordinary people anymore. We felt that we could have done it ourselves, therefore is didn't draw our admiration.
Likewise, the "bold experiments in atonalism" of Schoenberg were definitely new, original, and unquestionably modern. The fact is they sounded like sh*t, and classical music composition has never really recovered. There has not been a notable 20th century composer bar Bartok, and he drew on the more earth and sonorous sounds of European folk music. Classical music, in it's attempt to keep on innovating, put it's head up it's *ss, and lost the musical high-ground to jazz, which managed to be new and innovative, and still sounded great.
This comes down to a rather deep philosophical question, is the highest goal of art to be original and to push boundaries, to challenge people and push them into a new understanding, to actually set an agenda? I don't think so, I think the purpose of art is not to push people around mentally at all, but to simply hold up a mirror and show people to themselves, we're quite fascinating enough I think. Art should speak to people on their own terms, should connect, should resonate, in short, it should feel good. So I guess you could call me a populist.
| Quote: |
Just curious, can you really see spending your disposable income on an original painting? If yes, what would it be? Can you find a picture of something you love? |
Not if I was a billionaire, it's over priced for what it is, and I can't think of a more pretentious and useless way to spend money. If I spend money on something I want it to have a function in my life. If I want something nice to look at a print will do fine, the idea of an "original" is purely an abstract concept with no anchor in reality, it's about nothing more than status.
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ody
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Location: over here
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I really do appreciate the time you�ve taken to talk about your experience and ideas regarding contemporary art.
I am an artist. As such, I am only mildly interested in reading and prefer to look. This is especially true when it comes to viewing art. If a painting, or whatever, includes words or phrasings, I pay no mind. I look at such elements as tools that either work (formally, not conceptually) or don't. Yes, I value the conceptual component of a work of art, but formal concerns are first and foremost in my book. This does not eliminate as much work as you might expect. There is a great deal of artwork that to one person's eye is conceptual bully and to another's, a formal work of genius.
I wonder if those who so strongly criticize Pollack�s paintings have actually stood in from of one, or better yet several, or best case scenario, attended a Pollack exhibition. On many occasions, I have visited the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, accompanied by non-artist friends and can only remember one instant where a Pollack painting was eschewed. Even my least art-educated buddies have stood in awe in front of a wall sized painting by Jackson Pollack.
As for buying art. It is often the goal of the artist when they create, to put out a piece that has a visual voice. Sometimes this is accomplished in the form of a (visual) narrative; sometimes it's more abstract. Both conditions are relevant. To buy a work of art (for a purpose other than investment) is to purchase something that speaks to you in a way nothing else does. There are innumerable works produced by real artists, dedicated, brilliant, unknown artists. There are plenty of ways to view this affordable art by attending gallery exhibitions or on the Internet. I personally love looking at art. For me the function of art is more tangible than that of a microwave oven or blender. And I think as a parent, to provide your child with an environment that includes art is to give them something that profoundly represents what makes living life special and exciting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tokki
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I may be an uncultured brute, but if I can paint it, it aint art. Now, I know I could never paint anything like Raphael or Michaelangelo. I saw their works and their grandeur, scale, worksmanship is absolutely breathtaking. I could not do what the impressionists did. There is genius in their works, on many levels. The worksmanship is brilliant, and I like how they depicted the world. Brilliant. But Pollack? Kick over a bucket of paint, then sprinkle some more paint on top and you have a Pollock. Now make up some pretentious "philosphy" about the relationship of man to the postmodernist world in an overbearing cosmos, and you have the typical CRAP being passed off as art these days. The thing is, its NOT art, its garbage.
Take this for example. It reminds me of what one of the most retarded kids I ever had to teach made one day:
And whats this crap? I like the tic-tac-toe touch.Im sure it must have some profound meaning. Yeah, right...
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.moby-dick.jpg
And this one. This is supposed to be art? da Vinci would die twice laughing at this.
More stripes. What great craftsmanship. Did this even take an hour to paint?
Last edited by tokki on Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:14 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't usually enter art debates because I'm even more artistically retarded than I am musically retarded, but I just looked up this Pollock guy on the net and I have to say it's unremarkable.
Ody, in the spirit of enlarging my horizons, what makes great art and what is the job of the artist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katydid
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Location: Here kitty kitty kitty...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tokki, I can't see the last two paintings you're complaining about, but could you really replicate the first one? I like the first painting myself, lots of bold vibrant colors, lots of action shown, not just in the shapes but in the brush strokes as well. And honestly, when it comes to art, I am more of a Monet/Van Gogh fan myself. I like to look at pretty things too, and yes, *some* of Pollack's stuff can leave me a bit cold, but I do like this painting and consider hi style to be at least *interesting*.
So, Tokki, try to come up with painting one on your own then post the results.  And tell us whether you were bored while painting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corporal
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katydid wrote: |
| So, Tokki, try to come up with painting one on your own then post the results. And tell us whether you were bored while painting. |
But whether or not WE can do it is not really the point. Having the ability to create a similar/equivalent piece of work is not a prerequisite for art criticism, whether we're talking Beethoven or Breughels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katydid
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Location: Here kitty kitty kitty...
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, if he says he doesn't like it *because* he can do it, his kids can do it, any retard can do it, I think then it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ody
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Location: over here
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tokki wrote: |
| I may be an uncultured brute, but if I can paint it, it nt art. Now, I know I could never paint anything like Raphael or Michaelangelo. I saw their works and their grandeur, scale, worksmanship is absolutely breathtaking. I could not do what the impressionists did. There is genius in their works, on many levels. The worksmanship is brilliant, and I like how they depicted the world. Brilliant. But Pollack? Kick over a bucket of paint, then sprinkle some more paint on top and you have a Pollock. Now make up some pretentious "philosphy" about the relationship of man to the postmodernist world in an overbearing cosmos, and you have the typical CRAP being passed off as art these days. The thing is, its NOT art, its garbage. |
You may KNOW you cannot paint in the style of our great masters, but what you DON"T KNOW is that you also cannot paint in the style of the 20th century masters.
If I were to take the time to expound on the process of painting in such a way that would help you to better understand what's involved, I wouldn't pick the Pollack piece you posted, firstly because it doesn't show well on this venue (too cramped), secondly, it's a transitional work and would best be used in context with expounding on the transitional aspect or phase of an artist's process.
Also, when one views a work outside the context/frame where it's viewing is intended, such as in a book, or online, it's necessary to post the dimensions of the piece so that the viewer can fill in the missing information with his imagining. For most, pre-modern paintings (including historical, biblical or mythological narratives, and portraits of nobility) AS WELL AS modern representational works (such as Turner's seacapes, Goya�s grotesque renderings, and Mary Cassat�s pictures of 19th century French bourgeois society) translate more successfully on line or on the printed page. That�s just the way it is. The fact remains that all paintings, whether representational or abstract, are much more impressive in person.
| tokki wrote: |
| And this one. This is supposed to be art? da Vinci would die twice laughing at this. |
The field painting in red, green, and violet (is it a Rothko?) is a nice piece. I wouldn't be so sure about how da Vinci would consider it, though da Vinci's body of work is less painterly than say Rembrandt. I think Rembrandt would actually like this work. Believe it or not there are some parallels in the two artist's techniques. The 19th century English artist Joseph M. Turner would probably love it.
| tokki wrote: |
| More stripes. What great craftsmanship. Did this even take an hour to paint? |
Although Barnett Newman never floated my boat, I do not see that as proof that his is not art. That said, I have seen much better examples of his work. There is a process involved that precedes the final result and feeds into the authenticity of the work. This can be better assessed and definitely better appreciated in person where the colors are not skewed. I couldn't paint this AND I wouldn't want to since it's been done. This does not render it a less important contribution in the scheme of painting.
I have little patience for the jargon used in evaluating and validating works of art. When I talk about art and the art making process, my language is straightforward. I focus on the tangible qualities of a piece and the formal elements of its composition. It's not easy to teach "art" (painting, rendering, appreciation, the gamut) to the most eager of students much less to a skeptical adult. And though I don't presume to be doing that, it does feel like it. I just hope my sincere effort doesn't go unappreciated.
edit: facts on Turner, 19th century (not 17th) and seascapes (not landscapes) LOL.
Last edited by Ody on Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:04 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ody
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Location: over here
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katydid wrote: |
Tokki, I can't see the last two paintings you're complaining about, but could you really replicate the first one? I like the first painting myself, lots of bold vibrant colors, lots of action shown, not just in the shapes but in the brush strokes as well. And honestly, when it comes to art, I am more of a Monet/Van Gogh fan myself. I like to look at pretty things too, and yes, *some* of Pollack's stuff can leave me a bit cold, but I do like this painting and consider hi style to be at least *interesting*.
So, Tokki, try to come up with painting one on your own then post the results. And tell us whether you were bored while painting. |
I'm happy to see that you like the Pollack painting Tokki posted. I'm wondering if, in order to recognize it's merits, you might have seen it or other works painted around the same time in person? Pollack's paintings during this period of his production are simply electric. I get a little tied up when veiwing this work framed in this venue though. Maybe it's because its more closely related to my own pieces that I cannot escape the compulsion to visually edit it!
Also, your final suggestion to Tokki that he try painting himself, phrased with the request that he pay attention to his level of engagement is brilliant.
edit: Tokki, if you do give it a whirl, let us know how it goes.
Last edited by Ody on Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jensen
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
Location: hippie hell
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiwiboy_nz_99 wrote: |
...it's over priced for what it is, and I can't think of a more pretentious and useless way to spend money. If I spend money on something I want it to have a function in my life. If I want something nice to look at a print will do fine, the idea of an "original" is purely an abstract concept with no anchor in reality, it's about nothing more than status.
|
Not to tell you what to do with your money, but I'd disagree that purchasing original artwork is useless and pretentious. Artists need to eat. If I were rich I'd buy a gallery and fill it with good stuff, have some loft space upstairs. I'd also find a hot twenty-something bi-girl with loose morals to run the place, but that's kind of beside the point.
If it's buying $100,000 status-piece ("oooooooh you have a so-and-so!!!") yeah that's pretty much fucked in the head. I've got a few paintings hanging around the place and I'll accumulate more as I can cheat starving artists out of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yangkho
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Location: Honam
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, by now it'll seem off-topic to actually recommend a Korean author, but check this out:
http://www.sogang.ac.kr/~anthony/klt/99summer/yisang.htm
Lee Sang, or Yi Sang, or I Sang, whatever you want to call him. That's some interesting stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ody
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Location: over here
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The works posted on this link are quite visual. This one reminds me of an Escher graphic. It would be nice to counter it with the original in Korean.
POEM NO. XII
�
A pile of soiled laundry flies up into the air and drops. It is a flock of
white doves. Propaganda that, on the other side of this piece of the sky the
size of one's palm, the war is over and peace has come. One piled-up flock
of doves cleans the filth from its feathers. On this side of the sky the size of
one's palm, it becomes the beginning of a war that pounds and slaughters
the flock of white doves with a baton. If it gets dirtied by black soot in the
air, the flock of white doves flies off again to the other side of the palm-sized
sky.
~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HardyandTiny
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like it.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yangkho
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Location: Honam
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
