BS: Artsy or Fartsy?

Subject: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 07 May 04 - 11:20 AM

Two questions here, really, based on the recent sale of a Picasso painting (from his Rose period, when he was just 24 yrs old) which sold for 93 million dollars (not including commission) in New York to an unknown buyer.

What to you is art?

What or who is your favorite artist or work of art?

Pointless to request serious answers (ie-"Art is Rubbish" isn't serious unless you think "Rubbish is Art") but I will anyway!

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 May 04 - 11:31 AM

Like pornography, I can't define it but I know it when I see it. It involves discipline, for one thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: pussycat
Date: 07 May 04 - 11:58 AM

yer, I mean, for one thing, how can you keep it up for that long on a shoot (I know the elastic band thing), but surely it must hurt...??

On a more serious note, yer, I saw about the painting on the news. The problem with this one is that, although Picasso is obviously more famous for his fractionation phase, but is this one actually v. good?

Personally, although it's impressive (mainly because of the painter), I'm not so convinced that this painting is, as stated 'the best of his works'.

what do others think?

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:30 PM

Hey pussycat, have you posted your profile yet? Easy enough to do by sending your Bio to Pene Azil here at mudcat. From your postings, I'd like to know more about you..

I don't know if this is Picasso's best work, but it certainly defined that particular period. Personally I like it a lot, but not to the tune of 93 Mil!

This thread isn't exactly taking off like gangbusters. Sometimes I wonder if most folks here would rather beat their gums about politics and religion, or leave silly postings ( yes, I'm guilty as well) that offer little or nothing to the general mudcake brain trust.

I'd hoped for a bit more, but as the wise old Prophet Walt Robertson so liked to say..."C'est La Goddam Vie"

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:32 PM

PS- As you can see, YOUR thread is doing well. Need I say more?..;-D

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: pussycat
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:37 PM

yer, I noticed - just trying to liven up my dull day.....:-(

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:39 PM

Art is so subjective it's one of the subjects I don't discuss. Plus it's conditional and transitive - in that what I like in one setting will not be what I like in another setting.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:44 PM

MMario, EVERYTHING is subjective! Why is it that people will be quick to tell their opinion on politics but not what they think about art???

I am attempting to open up some new ideas here. Of course art is conditional and transitive, but good golly, your opionion is all a part of the process of art, no?..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:49 PM

it's always seemed to me that most people who are into discussing art do NOT in any way shape or form treat the subject as subjective. they treat it as objective, concrete and static. (Much the same way some High School English teachers view literature - especially Shakespeare) And of course then you get the type who figure the worth is based on the price tag.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: pussycat
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:50 PM

I completely agree! Yer canni sit on the fence in such issues - if our guest has some views on the matter, then he should share them.

on a separate note, about a bio...how do I do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 07 May 04 - 12:57 PM

Click on the links box, pussycat, at the top and when the menu comes down, go to Members Photo and Info. All you need to know is right there. Hope to see your profile soon!

And GUEST, I assure you that no one here will be treating the subject of art as "objective, concrete and static" !!!

Jump right in and have your say! If my damned ISP wasn't about to bump me, I'd say more. Stay tuned, but most importantly, please offer up your views. They're all yours, and will be much respected..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: dianavan
Date: 07 May 04 - 01:15 PM

Ellenpoly -

I REALLY like it. I think it is so sensitive and sweet - like young men are when they aren't pushed into becoming "Da Man" too soon.

...but why is the pipe held at such a funny angle?

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 May 04 - 01:16 PM

Just a couple of random thoughts:—

Red Green (one of my role models) sez, "If I can do it, it ain't art! And if you keep doin' what I can do and calling it 'art,' then I'm gonna start doin' what you're doin'!!"

I had a friend many years back whom I consider an artist. Many people did. Marvelous technique, and he could (and did) do the whole spectrum, from realism (almost photographic) to as abstract as you could want. His hand, holding brush, pencil, or pen, did what his mind, his emotions, and his insight dictated. When first meeting him, people would ask the usual, "What do you do?" He would answer, "I'm a painter." Once it was established that he painted pictures, not houses, they would usually say, "Oh, you're an artist, then?" To which he would respond, "Well, I paint. Whether or not I am an artist is for others to determine."

His name was Ric Higlin. I've always admired Ric for a number of reasons.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 04 - 01:21 PM

Picasso isn't one of my favorites, although he did produce a half dozen or so works that I find "interesting." Most of the rest of the more than 30,000 known Picasso originals leave me a little "underwhelmed." The sheer volume of works smacks strongly of "formula art," which is something to which he frequently and freely admitted.

It is a little hard to see, given the number of works floating around, how one specific one of them should be worth that much. As the advertising industry says, it's largely a matter of "name recognition?"

Having no "education" in Art, I have to rely on my own judgement, based on looking at something like 12,000 pictures on the web in the past couple of years. (It was an "intentional research.) I have come to the conclusion that most recent "art" is the product of dealers and critics, who "push" the "artist" whose work they can get their own hands on, without real regard for any "intrinsic value."

Art "education" has become so "popular" that I don't believe that the universities that "teach about art" can populate their necessary faculties with people who really have much feeling for it. A whole set of "standard lies" has been developed, to make it easy to "teach about" something that few can do. "Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize?" There seems to be more money in criticism than in creating - especially if you're not a particularly creative person.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 07 May 04 - 01:24 PM

I can't define art without coming up with exceptions to each rule I come up with. So I have to leave it at, as Rapaire, "I know it when I see it." And at this moment, in this state of mind (whatever that is!), my favorite woik of aht would be Rodin's "The Thinker."

But I can't leave alone the concept of $93 mil for one wall hanging. I am an opportunity costs guy, and my first thought is "what else could be done with that kind of money?" For example, how many folk musicians could be sent (expenses paid!) to tour the schools singing folk songs and bringing the joy of music to millions of kids, leaving none behind? Or how many voting machines could be equipped with paper printout capabilities for vote verification? Or how many...well, you get the idea.

Must be some kinda art for them bucks. But it'll never hang on my wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 04 - 01:27 PM

I love it. If I had 93 mill, I wouldn't buy it, though. I can think of some fine things to do with that sort of dough, that wouldn't end up tucked in a living room!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 04 - 01:39 PM

The real answer to why it's worth 93 million is the expectation that someone else will think it's worth more later. Lots of worthless stocks are purchased on the hope that someone else will be a bigger fool than you are.

On Rodin's "The Thinker," THEY ARE pretty nice pieces. There isn't just one of them. I ran into the problem of trying to identify and "provinence" several Rodin works, and I'm afraid lost a lot of my former respect for them. Rodin only had one major commission during his lifetime, which he never finished (although he spent a lot of government money). He did make a lot of "concept" sketches and drawings, but most of his works were done by his employees, to whom he never gave credit. His patterns and molds were given to the French when he died, and the great majority of the works "attributed" to Rodin were cast long after his death. Factory work?

There's also much suggestive information that implies he wasn't a very nice guy; but of course that shouldn't influence the evaluation of his "art."

Frankly, I think Robin Buick is a more "creative" sculptor, and he's alive to argue with.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 07 May 04 - 02:35 PM

Arts I dont know but Fartsy,

Is a dweedidlums Corporate computer geek who weekends in Colorado and plays with the uillean pipes and/or flute. He used play with Bluegrass when that was trendy, but after he killed it everybody left.

OC he can't hold the two ends of a child's nursery rhyme together but whos listening when the crowd are all the same boring tweedie twits with laptops as they suck on lattes...

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Rain Dog
Date: 07 May 04 - 02:41 PM

Like anything else , it is only worth what someone else wants to pay for it. They want an original painting. I would be happy enough with a reproduction. You pays your money and makes your choice

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: GUEST,Charmion at work
Date: 07 May 04 - 04:55 PM

Most of the stuff in the National Gallery of Canada (up the street from our house and the art museum I know best) is interesting at one level or another, some of it is startlingly beautiful, and one or two pictures would never be safe from my thieving fingers if the place wasn't so full of bored security guards. But whether any of these items really rate as "art" -- well, that's a different matter.

One of the most famous items in the Canadian collection is a massive canvas about five feet wide and 15 feet high, upon which are painted three stripes: blue ones on either side and a red one down the middle. It is called "Voice of Fire" and the National Gallery was enormously proud to get it. I and my fellow tax-payers coughed up more than a million dollars for it. In my admittedly arrogant opinion, art it's not. Neither are most of the soapstone and ivory Inuit carvings the Canadian government likes to hand out to visiting dignitaries; most of them are interesting and some are beautiful, but art -- well, that's a different matter.

My idea of "art" is something that makes me feel as if I'm peeking into another world. This effect is easiest to achieve with pictures -- good ones are like looking through a window, or someone else's eyes -- but sculptures can do it, too. Did you ever get up close and personal with Sir Jacob Epstein's "Rock Drill?" Or something marble from ancient Greece? I'm a menace in art museums; I always want to stroke the sculpture and peer intimately at the paintings. Good ones are just as interesting up close ...

It's fartsy if, when I get up close, I don't like it any more.

charmion

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 07 May 04 - 05:20 PM

I am it. It is me. I know it when I (look in the mirror and) see it.

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Amos
Date: 07 May 04 - 05:28 PM

Now that's an Art I can live with -- even if it gets a little fartsy sometimes...

Sorefingers, it sounds like you got more sore than just fingers!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 May 04 - 05:54 PM

The cross-eyed old painter McNeff
Was color-blind, palsied, and deaf;
When he asked to be touted
'The critics all shouted:
'This is art, with a capital F!'

I thought Norman Rockwell was a greeting card artist, and then I saw the painting he did on the Goodman-Schwener-Chaney killings.

I thought Picasso was one of the very greatest artists who ever lived, and now I think he was a very good artist.

I thought Salvator Dali was a great artist; now I think that he was an excellent draftsman.

I still like Joan Miro's stuff, and Paul Klee is fun. I also like Charlie Russell.

What is fine art? Whatever I think it is. Whenever it's Art, Thieme.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 04 - 06:30 PM

I like this definition of 'artist', so I guess what they do is art..

"Someone who makes a supply, whether or not there is any demand"

now...as to GOOD art..I like Modigliani, Gustave Courbet, much of Rembrandt, much of El Greco...and many others...(thinking)...(I do NOT care much for 'random art' where guys who don't want to learn color and brush control fling paint at a canvas.)

and this work by Rodin is exquisite!

I love carefully done blown glass, and I like well-done work in turned natural woods so much I am trying to do it myself. I'm getting there.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 04 - 07:53 PM

Bill D -

That particular Rodin is quite exceptional, but - to quote from the L.A. County Museum of Art that owns one of the copies:

"The title of this bronze refers to a fifteenth-century ballad by the French poet François Villon, in which an old woman laments her lost youth and beauty. Rodin did not initially intend to illustrate this specific poem; he also exhibited other versions of the sculpture under the titles Old Courtesan, The Old Woman and Winter, and Dried-Up Springs."

Most of the other "originals" (I think I've located 5?) of this particular one have "assumed" the "Helmet Makers Wife" name, and it's pretty much impossible to identify a specific one as to provenance, etc. Pretty much mass-produced art. Of course, this doesn't deny that this one is a beautiful piece.

I find it difficult to see much difference in "artness" between Rodin's "own" work (the ones he took full credit for) and the few he allowed Claudel to claim. (She's one of the few associated with Rodin who actually did get her own name on some.) The Rodin Museum (Paris branch) does identify a few of the artists who actually did his work, but with little information on which artist and which work go together.

I'm afraid Modigliani and El Greco don't impress me all that much, although I will go along with you on Courbet and certainly on Rembrandt.

For sculpture, I still like the famous one by "Alexandros, son of Menides, citizen of Antioch." quite a lot. Even despite the damage.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 04 - 09:11 PM

I'm wid you all the way on El Greco, John... Too much danged white pigment. Reminds me of them Elvis on Velvets... But, hey you wany painterly and nice, heck make that great us of light, thry on Jan Van Eyke. Okay, his brother may have lended a hand but like who cares...

But as fir the oldsters, when it came to passion, Goya, Goya, Goya... Now that dude had it...

But heck wid them old masters. They was way more then they're collectively craqcked up to be. Rambrandt? Okay, hald his stuff was good anf the other half wasn't....

But we eventially made it into the world of "modern" art in the late 1800's and the post impressionists and things really got cookin'. That is, IMHO, of course, with Van Gahn and his buddy Paul Gaughin... I loved those two nuts, ahhhh, guys....

The rest of art until now is such a danged blur of styles and medium but they all have shaped the way we look at the world. Hey, I ian't wild about Picasso (who's "Boy with a Pipe" has just brought $104M) but I saw his "Guernica" in New Yorkabout 20 years ago and was really moved by its power... But a lot of his cubist stuff I think really was purdy lousy. Might of fact, most cubist stuff is. That is, IMHO...

But the 20th century was the century of art. From the ashcan illustraters to the Op artists. From De Chirico to Jasper Johns. From the Father of the Dadaist, Marcel Duchamp to Richard Estes's photo-realism. From Kirchner to Litchenstein to Pollack to Morris Lewis to, to, to...

And lets not let Paul Klee go unmentioned...

As fir the masters, hey, they built it and deserve some credit. Durer was such a wonderfull printmaker. And Bosch was a trip and half. I mentioned the Van Eykes, Rembrandt and the like and they do deserve a lot of credit, but fir me, the 20th century, beginning about 10 years early was the greatest century ever for art...

Like I said, MO...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 04 - 09:29 PM

Actually Bobert, a lot of us feel that art died, and the stuff you mentioned is the age of the critics and the dealers. What seems to have been most important was how fast you could turn it out and what kind of crap the dealers and critics could invent to sell it to people who were just "shamed" into not insisting on something they liked.

But then, that's just an opinion, fortunately shared by quite a few (who don't happen to be critics or dealers, mostly).

John

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Joybell
Date: 07 May 04 - 09:40 PM

Well how about the ones of little kids with big eyes? Now they were really popular. Some of them featured little kids with big eyes AND little fluffy puppies with big eyes or little kitties with big eyes. Eyes followed you 'round the room too, always a good trick. Joy

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 04 - 10:25 PM

There's an "art" book out called "Over the Mantelpiece" that has some "gorgeous" (does that suggest "George") samples of the big-eyed kids, among other - I think they call it "kitsch." It does bring back some pretty fond memories from childhood days.

An interesting parallel can be drawn between the careers of Picasso and Tretchikov. Tretch is the only artist known who may have sold as many "works" as Picasso, mostly in department stores and grocery store parking lots. He could never understand why the museums never accepted him as an "artist." Some of his old stuff does bring fairly good prices, but it's in the "antique malls" rather than in the galleries. Truth of the matter is that he really wasn't all that good, but you do have to sympathize.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 May 04 - 10:31 PM

Fine, John, stick a bunch of of that dark stuff in yer house, invite yer friends over and see how much of it gets any attention. Them folks was part of art when man was supposed to feal like he weren't worth nuthin'. Then came th "romantic" movement which led to "modern art" (1890's) with the post impressionists... The art came to *life*. Yeah, less painterly but more life... Purdy exciting...

Hey, I can appreciate where folks were when they were... but, hey, life and its art are gonna move along... Nature of the beast.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 07 May 04 - 10:41 PM

Bobert -

Spoken like someone with an art education. I don't have that disadvantage.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Sam L
Date: 07 May 04 - 10:48 PM

Picasso may have been and may have admitted to being a formula artist, but then he and we are wrong. His impact on cartooning alone would make him a major innovator in drawing. Western artists just did not use synthetic forms and suggestive substitutions of forms in quite this poetic way until, inspired by african art, and Cezanne, Picasso did. He is great in the plain sense of being greatly influential. There would be no Spongebob Squarepants--how many artists can claim anything like that?

You know, JohnInKansas, the ARC is a commercial for a collector's investments. His degree is, it figures, in Art Ed--the only thing even flakier than a degree in art. Yes, Bougereau's (I'm not mis-spelling it on purpose)figures come to life in a way that touches my heart and makes me feel all spiritual or squishy or something or other. Not really, they're great fun to look at, but completely empty of any poetic content or metaphoric value or any convincing vision of a meaningful future of drawing and painting as high art. I saw this movie Tuck Everlasting with my kids the other day--looked very Bougereau, but the figures came to life and even spoke in a way that makes Bougereau look like CRAP. He's not great because he mined a dead end. A photograph often lacks the playful element of parody and imitation that drawings and paintings have, but in movies the actors help with that. Even William Hurt.

   Maybe this would be a good place to ask what's the point of John Henry? I've always wondered. Are we inspired to bang steel like noble morons til we die instead of letting a steam drill do it, and finding ourselves a better line of work? As an artist it's possible to chisel stone all day and still be lazy. Get out, look around, pay attention, think about what you're doing.

Art is, as the name suggests, artifice. Some stuff wishes it were more interesting than it is and pleads weird spiritual import, quasi-religiousity, and monk-like dedication to high craft values. It often "catches the very soul" of the person depicted--how the hell would anyone know anything like that? I like the plain nuts and bolts, the fun of making fake stuff, the fun of imitation, play, and a even a few games. It's subjective but mostly societal and coherent, like law, or any field that grows.

The art market at that level is about collecting, not art. My kids tore the tags off all their beanie babies. It's a different thing. But Picasso was a terrific artist. Also a good businessman.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: harpgirl
Date: 08 May 04 - 12:14 AM

Here is my favorite landscape painter:http://home.earthlink.net/~jbowland/

Julie is a plein aire painter.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: MOAB
Date: 08 May 04 - 12:22 AM

So if this largely unknown Picasso can fetch $93,000,000, what would one of his true masterpieces like Les Demoiselles d'Avignon bring if it ever wound up on the auction block? Would $1,000,000,000 be unthinkable.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 May 04 - 12:33 AM

That was me above. Someone named "MOAB" is trying to take over my computer but I'm not gonna let 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 08 May 04 - 05:51 AM

I'm really glad this thread didn't die away! We spend so much time discussing the woes of the world, and little enough being able to celebrate what our species has created.

Wonderful discussions going on here!

I can't remember who said it (besides me) but in the past decade or so, I find myself thinking that "Art is what you can get away with convincing other people it is".

The young lions (pretty toothless in my own opinion) on the British Art scene, have me gritting my teach with regularity. I think it all started with the idea of "conceptual art" where the explanations became the real creative end of the piece. It's what these people can vocalize rather than what they produce that seems to be the point of the exercise.

For me, Art is whatever stops me in my tracks. It's what draws me in and opens my brain in a non-intellectual, rather viseral way. I have stood in front of "The Green Violinist" by Marc Chagall and cried my eyes out. I've been enraptured in a way I can only describe as sexual by a woodcut by Durer. I've laughed out loud until a guard came over to shush me by the sheer force of the magic of Matisse.

The list is a long one, and my continuing "art education" is more about what I see than what I read. Museums are the closest thing I have to a Temple, and I worship often.

But 93 Million Dollars for one painting??? Here I am in a quandry. This particular painting is a fine one, but for me, no. That money would be better spent on saving our rainforests. Then again, I would despair at not having Museums full of such rarities as original Klees, Kandinskis, Miros, Rodins, Seurats,Cassats, Monets, Carevaggios, El Grecos,Lautrecs,....as well as the named and unnamed artists behind works from Egypt, Greece, Assyria, Japan, India...

These are representations of what we can do when we put down our swords and pick up the tools of creation, and each are indeed priceless.

Bottom line for me? (Sorry for being so long-winded but this is a passion) Better money spent on art than weapons. Better great art being in Public Museums where they can be absorbed by all, and better more threads at mudcat that let us rejoice in what our species is capable of at our best....xx...e

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 May 04 - 08:50 AM

I agree, whole heartedly, EllenP...

I've heard that some more progressive cities in the Northwest (Seattle?) actually earmark 1% of their budget for the public art. I think that is a wonderful idea and have proposed it over and over and over down in Leesburg, Va. where I own a large piece of commercial property and where I am active in that community... But, every year its the same ol' sixs and sevens...

I've even threatened to make up bumper stickers that read "Leesburg- Art Free Zone" and may actually do it. But I have been one of the organizers of our "Fall into Arts" program that we have in October and turn the historic district into one big art show and music festival... Gotta do what we can to let folks know there is more to life than making money and war...

(BTW, when I was born, my mom bought two prints for my nursery. "Clowns" by Paul Klee and one of the "native" paintings by Gauguin. I still have both of them, though the Guagiun is in storage waiting for more wall space, which I am working on... I either have way too much art or not enough house?...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 08 May 04 - 11:19 AM

I don't know if I like it or not, but I know it's art,

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 08 May 04 - 11:20 AM

This may be a non issue, since the concept is both relatively modern and somewhat artificial. My books say that Beethoven was the first to insist that he was an "artist" and not a skilled artisan. Combine this with W B Yeats' claim that a poet is nothing but a person who arranges words in a way that readers can inject meaning into and you have a craftsman whose work is widely accessable and stands the test of time. The question then becomes "Why are these works accessable and why have they lasted?" IMHO many of the leading lights of the last 100+ years will be ignored 200 years from now.

All art is communication of some kind. If we understood why some art is great and other isn't, advertising would be an exact science. That is unacceptable.

John in Kansas said that Rodin was probably not a nice man. Neither were Robert Frost, Richard Wagner, or a host of others. Very sucessful artists tend to do whatever they do at the expense of everything else in life. As for the complaint that Rodin seldom made the finished product with his own hands, read the biography. He thought that was a job for technicians. He considered the design to be his major work.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 May 04 - 11:30 AM

Emily Kngwarreye is an artist from the Utopia Women's community in Central Australia. She was a brilliant artist and is internationally renowned for her work, some of which is very free, colourful and intricate. I have a painting by her tribal sister Lily Kngwarreye in my living room. You can see some of Emily's paintings at this site:

http://www.savah.com.au/emily.html

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 04 - 11:50 AM

There is a good arrangement on a street in Brussels, somewhere near the Grand Sablon if I remember rightly. They have the Museum of Ancient Art and the Mueseum of Modern Art side by side. It is a real eye opener to visit the two at the same time and try to decide which you like.

Me? Both! They all had their good and bad bits. As we have already said art is too subjective a domain. I find some of the old masters too realist and some of the moderns too interprative, but not all. There were exceptions in every category. My current favourite artist is Alan Lee btw but that may change tomorrow;-)

The prices are realy sometning else though...

American businesssmen snap up Van Goghs for the price of a hospital wing (Delamitri)

Is anything realy worth that?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 May 04 - 11:54 AM

I have a book (in German) about the paintings of Bo Yin Ra. The images in this book are very beautiful, and worth looking at if you're wondering about what is art. There is a link to the images at this site, when you get there you can click on them to see some of his works:

http://www.kober.com/gallery.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: freda underhill
Date: 08 May 04 - 12:16 PM

Desiderius Orban was a Hungarian australian artist. He wrote a very interesting book on the topic what is art - discussing images and reproductions of a range of artworks by different artists in different styles and from different eras. This book is very intelligent, clearly argued, the selected artworks illustrate concepts very clearly, and is pre post modernism.

Desiderius Orban was a western artist who was deeply influenced by Matisse, Van Gogh and Cezanne, and who also was a buddhist.
It is still available at some second hand bookshops in Australia and overseas.

What Is Art All About? by Desiderius Orban

you can see samples of his artwork here:

http://www.art-galleries-schubert.com.au/www/orban/Orban2/Orban2.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Sam L
Date: 08 May 04 - 06:06 PM

If I remember right the last record setting art purchase turned out to be a sly tax dodge. Some Sotheby's leadership have got into serious legal trouble lately. Whatever. It's not about art.

JinK, I still can't get over your assertion that Picasso is a formula artist, and wish you explain what that formula is, exactly. There are plenty of criticisms one can reasonably aim at Picasso, but that one takes my breath away for sheer wrongness. When asked what he thought of his many imitators Picasso said "but they can't do the bad ones." And I think so--the real stinkers in that mountain of stuff are part of his 'star quality' and why he's more exciting than more stolid, safe, and dependable artists.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 09 May 04 - 06:51 AM

Couple of thoughts...first of all, I realized I had made a pretty Freudian error in my last posting by saying that the young Brit Artists made me grit my "teach". Hmmm.

Freda, thanks so much for such gems! I'm still making notes of all you mentioned!

It often seems stange to me that one can never assume that the art and the artist contain the same beauty. There are a huge amount of real assholes amongst the great artists, as some of you noted. I often have trouble with this one, needing to make sure I don't throw out the art BECAUSE of the artist (I keep thinking of Wagner, though really Mozart is a better example for me, since I don't think I'd have cottoned to Wagner even if he hadn't been such an anti-Semite...Or Ezra Pound. All had nasty streaks so I've been informed, but all were capable of such sublime creative talent.)

And I think this is connected to the discussion going on about Picasso. Just because the man had it in him to churn out gobs and gobs of stuff, doesn't necessarily diminish his talent for me. I see it rather as a constant purging he had little control over. Having said that, was he aware that people would eagerly pick up his napkins that had a squiggle on it and sell them for a small fortune? Of course he was. But I would tend to think those squiggles as important a part of the body of his entire work as I would if I had access to Shakespeare's thrown out limericks (would that we had FOUND some of these!) He wasn't responsible for their being priced out of orbit...

..xx..e

(PS- Hey, Bobert! Find room somewhere on your walls for that Gauguin again soon!)

(PPS- And I have to confess to having had on my wall as a girl, copies of both Picasso's "The Old Guitarist" and Paul Keene's Big-Eyed Children. It was all part of Art's Rich Tapestry for me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 09 May 04 - 03:55 PM

One of the reasons Picasso has been labeled a 'formula' artist is the way he always seemed to develope a new 'period' when sales of the last one started to decline.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: mooman
Date: 09 May 04 - 04:33 PM

Having made a passion of visiting virtually every Picasso museum/gallery in Europe (and some outside Europe as well...not that I'm hooked on Picasso but just over art in general) I think the man was a superb artist. True, his style changed from the the almost classical at 12-16 years old many times over his long life but I would call that evolution rather than being formulaic. I've also watched some videos of him working and, with a few simple brushstrokes in a few minutes or seconds, he managed to capture the true essence of the subject.

With art as with music, it's hard to have a favourite as there are so many good artists (just came back from an exhibition this afternoon of 30 or so relatively unknown artists and some of the work was truly astoundingly good) and everything is in the eye of the viewer and how they interpret the work. A bit like a good writer and how the reader interprets the words and the response they evoke I suppose. As with music too.

Peace

moo (old art fart)

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 04 - 04:59 PM

ah, such a wide variety of opinions there are about art & beauty! Let me show you several examples--

This was describe by one critic as "The most beautiful painting ever made"

Then look at this image, and the comments about it.

and here is one by John William Waterhouse called The Soul of the Rose It is pleasant, but is it "the most beautiful painting in the world"? as one woman says?

It seems many judge the best art by whatever they consider 'beautiful', where others look for 'technique' and still others for 'expressiveness'....some like realism, some the most abstract concepts you can imagine. I tend toward 'understated realism' with mnay, many detours. I am NOT a great student of art, and many of the items I have liked best were by people I know who will never be famous, but had fine visions nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 09 May 04 - 06:21 PM

For many years, prominently displayed in my promo packet was:

DOING STRANGE THINGS IN THE NAME OF ART

I wanted to write that in bold letters arounmd my banjo head. It wouldn't fit. So I settled For:

THIS MACHINE KILLS TIME

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Artsy or Fartsy?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 09 May 04 - 06:44 PM

Well, I have actually studied the subject; got a BA in graphics and a master of fine arts degree, even, and it is my Expert Informed Opinion that "Art" is not a particularly Useful Category. I am a traitor to my class.

"Art" is good for Talking About Things, if you've agreed on a definition, or if you're trying to arrive at a definition, but as a standard of what you should hang on your wall it's not much good.

**My Theory** is you should hang things on your wall that you like to look at, & that's it.

Whether you like it because it's Art, or because it's your girlfriend, or because your two-year old did it, or because it reminds you of that great movie, or because it matches your couch -- whatever -- it don't matter; you don't have to have an excuse for why you like it.

And some works I like better than others, but I can't really rank them in any order; Art, as somebody (Duchamp?) said, isn't a horse race. And then I have a personality defect that makes me unable to rate things on a scale from 1 to 10. All those decisions.

Ruben's paintings have wonderful & beautiful brushwork, but the subjects & composition tend to the pompous and flatulent, and anyway most of them were painted at least partly by apprentices. But if you like them, why listen to me?

clint