tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post1720464275178994898..comments2024-03-28T05:04:06.624-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: A TALE OF THREE LANDSCAPESDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-31348381733108821242018-06-01T15:12:12.586-04:002018-06-01T15:12:12.586-04:00Tom wrote
" A painting is a focal point in a ...Tom wrote<br />" A painting is a focal point in a room it demands more composition then a repetitive pattern of a sidewalk which is never intended to be viewed as a center."<br /><br />Sorry David my sentence was not very clear. I was not writing about the sidewalk as a subject. I literally meant hanging a painting on the "center," of a wall in a room. My statement had nothing to do with what constitutes a valid or profound subject matter for a work of art. I was writing about the design pattern of a sidewalk (as I got the notion in my head that this was a subject Dubuffet was interested in) , which is one rectangle of equal shape after another, as being too weak to hold the center of attention of a room. Maybe that is not quite right. It may gain our attention because of where it is hung on the wall, but it disappoints in its lack of artfulness, it doesn't engage because it doesn't project any visual delight for the eye.(IMHO) Its a pattern of division. It's static and predictable. A simple repeatable pattern that has decorative intent when giving visual interest to a tile pattern, or a floor pattern. Such patterns are design to please but do not demand or expect our full attention . But Kev has already address this in his last post.<br /><br />From this perspective simply dividing the rectangle into two equal parts, or four equal parts creates a static equilibrium. Perfect for floor patterns but creating visual interest demands that the artist consider his subject in relation to the space his subject is going to occupy. The rectangle becomes a central player in the act of composing. It forces you to consider your subject in relation to a frame. Understanding this relation can bring ones work to life or it can rob it of life. No matter whether the artist has consider the relationship or not, it is going to influence the nature of the picture.<br /><br />How profound can one's understanding of nature be, when one composes in such a manner? How profound can one's science of the miracles beneath our feet be when all the marks he makes are of such a repetitive nature with no planer development?<br /><br />So yes what I am pointing out is the lack of art in the piece, it has nothing to do with the subject. Manet's work still contains age old principles of art. He never fail to compose his subject. He doesn’t fail in the consideration of how to handle his brush. Its always the art that carries the subject. It’s the art that embodies the idea.<br /><br />The irony is that art in the service of god, king and country tends to last because of it's art not because of its subject. How much has been written about Velazquez's art compared to his subject Phillip the 4th? Its almost a role reversal, the subject at first was the king but now it has become the magic of Velazquez's brush, or the art itself has become the true subject. The arrangement of values, the light touch, the simple grandeur (sometimes I wonder why the English language has to borrow so many words from the French language when describing aesthetic phenomenon.) of conception. So much so that people often point to his painting of "lesser subjects of the court," because he was no longer constraint by the exceptions of his royal patronage and so his art can be more clearly seen and experienced.<br /><br />The true nature of the subject is the demands it makes on the artist's creativity.<br /><br /> This is just a way of describing how I felt in response to Dubuffet’s painting you posted. <br /><br /><br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-63295189131766325912018-05-30T16:03:32.547-04:002018-05-30T16:03:32.547-04:00Tom wrote: "I guess I don't think the art...Tom wrote: "I guess I don't think the artist aspirations matter that much."<br /><br />Perhaps I stated that inartfully. I wasn't suggesting that we are required to read a book about the conceptual underpinnings of a painting in order to appreciate it properly. As I've said many times (including in the comments above), I think a work of art has to be capable of standing alone, without a written explanation. My point was rather that a work of art should be judged against what the artist wanted to do. For example, if the artist wanted to make a rapid, impressionistic image of movement, it wouldn't make sense to fault the image for an absence of careful detail. If an artist wanted to give us a blunt, high contrast black and white drawing, it would not make sense to criticize the artist for a lack of ability with subtle color.<br /><br />" A painting is a focal point in a room it demands more composition then a repetitive pattern of a sidewalk which is never intended to be viewed as a center."<br /><br />Now you've put your finger on what I think is a key issue. For millennia, people felt that suitable subjects for art were gods and kings and uplifting Biblical parables that were intended to be "viewed as a center." As recently as the 19th century when Manet began painting scullery maids and ordinary bar girls, people criticized them for being unsuitable to be viewed as a center. <br /><br />But the order of things shifted, and people began to hold less regard for gold thrones and to learn more through science about the miracles beneath our feet. As Walt Whitman wrote, "I believe a leaf of grass is no less than the journey-work of the stars." It is conceptually more difficult to convey the miraculous in dirt or grass than it is to paint movie-star handsome figures in heroic poses with dramatic lighting (even if the latter notion of worthy content is outmoded). Turning back to our friend Whitman, he could've been talking about Dubuffet when he wrote, "The press of my foot to the earth springs a hundred affections, They scorn the best I can do to relate them." I like Dubuffet's paintings of dirt or concrete, and I think they ask good questions, but ultimately I think dirt scorns the best Dubuffet can do to relate its miracles.<br /><br /> David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-40917108200670582422018-05-29T13:37:30.034-04:002018-05-29T13:37:30.034-04:00That's my point Kev it is a boring act of desi...<b>That's my point Kev it is a boring act of design, it is a failure to give emphasis. And of course there are no rules, no one said there were.</b> <br /><br />I'll grant that simple bifurcation might be a boring design decision in many cases, but you seemed to have asserted that such wasn't an act of design at all. But there is no reason that design cannot be boring. Much of design in commercial applications is willfully boring, while still being creative. <br /><br />Further, regarding "emphasis"... I think it is beneficial to understand that having a point is compositional thinking, not purely design-oriented thinking.<br /><br />The word "composing" goes back a long way in the arts; synonymous with essays and musical works as well as paintings. Composing consists in developing, selecting, arranging, orchestrating, and editing material into as optimal and complete a logical-narrative structure as creativity, taste, intuition, conventional wisdom, and intellect can manage. The point has always been to produce an engaging journey which wrangles on a theme eventually productive of some kind of concluding understanding, possibly cathartic, with aesthetic force assisting as much as possible and in various ways. The only reason for emphasis in composition is as an aid to the transmission of meaning. <br /><br />A composition never referred to: a fragment, or any simple or repetitive sensation, or decoration for its own sake, or engineering, or something found. <br /><br />Narrative logic was only separated out from the meaning of the word composition when modernist designer types and photographers, and their literary allies started declaiming, out of marketing and thorough ignorance of inherent linguistic/structural differences, that what designers and photographers were doing was the same thing as what composing artists like J.W. Waterhouse and Sorolla were doing. <br /><br />Wallpaper, for example, was always understood as <i>design</i> and <i>not composition</i> just because it makes no point by its sensation-repetitions; it has no emphasis, there is no abstract argument providing the scaffolding for the content. It is purely design for design's sake. Pure design, if emphatic, or decorative, or sensational, is so simply because it needs to attract attention or delight or set a mood, for that is its sole value as a product. Whereas composing, as a rhetorical act -- in the original (rather than pejorative) sense -- is an art of marshaling sensation to the benefit of a narrative argument. <br /><br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-20954351972089916482018-05-29T11:15:38.161-04:002018-05-29T11:15:38.161-04:00Dividing a space in two is an act of design.
Ther...Dividing a space in two is an act of design.<br /><br />There is no "rule" that forbids bifurcation or any other kind of spatial division.<br /><br />That's my point Kev it is a boring act of design, it is a failure to give emphasis. And of course there are no rules, no one said there were. Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-58136481431435012802018-05-29T10:46:36.239-04:002018-05-29T10:46:36.239-04:00David said,
"He did something untried and un...David said,<br /><br />"He did something untried and unorthodox that may or may not work, but if you're willing to measure it against his aspirations, rather than against the aspirations of Raphael, you may find something of value here."<br /><br />I guess I don't think the artist aspirations matter that much. I am not going to go read about Dubuffet's intentions so I can better understand his aspirations. I only took a look at the painting and responded too what I saw, which struck me as monotonous, to say nothing of the value or the color which only further contributes and reinforces the boredom of the work. A painting is a focal point in a room it demands more composition then a repetitive pattern of a sidewalk which is never intended to be viewed as a center.<br /><br /> Looking at isolated parts of his work as in your Andrew Wyeth example is in a way just recomposing Dubuffet's work. But like I said I am only responding to the picture you posted, I don't think Raphael had anything to do with it. I wasn't coming to any conclusions about Dubuffet's art work in general. I'm glad you love his work. <br /><br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-15353581394773804722018-05-28T23:35:04.815-04:002018-05-28T23:35:04.815-04:00Tom wrote: "all the shapes in the sky and in ...Tom wrote: "all the shapes in the sky and in the ground and even the convexites and concavities along the horizon line are all the same size. There's not much design to that, in fact it makes me think he really didn't consider design or better yet he may not have had any knowledge of it."<br /><br />It goes much further than that. I think Dubuffet proved himself a "designer" with his early drawings and paintings which had powerful compositions. But at some point he began to break things up, and explore painting dirt with no central focal point or shape. He wrote: "Look at what lies at your feet! ... A crack in the ground, sparkling gravel, a tuft of grass, some crushed debris, offer equally worthy subjects for your applause and admiration." If you think the shapes in the example I showed here are all the same size, look at some of Dubuffet's paintings that look like the surface of concrete, made up of thousands of tiny dots and splatters almost the same size, so there are almost no vertebrae or center to the painting. He did something untried and unorthodox that may or may not work, but if you're willing to measure it against his aspirations, rather than against the aspirations of Raphael, you may find something of value here. <br /><br />Years ago I contrasted one of Dubuffet's paintings of earth with a very similar Andrew Wyeth landscape, hoping that the Wyeth landscape could be a stepping stone to help make Dubuffet more accessible. (https://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2009/01/andrew-wyeth-abstract-painter.html). What do you think of the comparison?David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-57512891947510159202018-05-27T21:31:54.857-04:002018-05-27T21:31:54.857-04:00Dividing a space in two is an act of design.
Ther...Dividing a space in two is an act of design.<br /><br />There is no "rule" that forbids bifurcation or any other kind of spatial division.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-44206766618856656452018-05-27T19:26:44.685-04:002018-05-27T19:26:44.685-04:00Everything is a pattern but a designer does more t...Everything is a pattern but a designer does more then divide a space into two.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-43473553712229165532018-05-27T14:43:34.804-04:002018-05-27T14:43:34.804-04:00Is that Dubuffet canvas divided equally in half be...<b>Is that Dubuffet canvas divided equally in half between top and bottom? And all the shapes in the sky and in the ground and even the convexites and concavities along the horizon line are all the same size. There's not much design to that, in fact it makes me think he really didn't consider design or better yet he may not have had any knowledge of it.</b><br /><br />Pattern making is a large part of what designers do.<br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-17005009404567342982018-05-27T09:53:20.259-04:002018-05-27T09:53:20.259-04:00s that Dubuffet canvas divided equally in half bet...s that Dubuffet canvas divided equally in half between top an bottom? And all the shapes in the sky and in the ground and even the convexites and concavities along the horizon line are all the same size. There's not much design to that, in fact it makes me think he really didn't consider design or better yet he may not have had any knowledge of it.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-51724548892403639242018-05-27T09:51:58.183-04:002018-05-27T09:51:58.183-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-30416191538649861432018-05-26T08:37:12.192-04:002018-05-26T08:37:12.192-04:00Kev Ferrara—Thanks, Kev. I think that’s a very fa...Kev Ferrara—Thanks, Kev. I think that’s a very fair response. I appreciate your taking the time to check out the pieces I mentioned. You’re correct, I didn’t expect my answer to convert you like Saul on the road to Damascus and I think your discussion of our different views of design is a reasonable one. For me, physical attributes such as design, line work, composition, color are the barricade that protects the art you love from being lumped in with sour, conceptual post modern art. They may not be everything but we should be awfully glad they’re there because they make classification a lot easier.<br /><br />It helped me to spell out why I thought Dubuffet was “great,” I focused for the first time on the difference between an artist who I think is great because he led a principled, unconventional, playful, creative life, and a specific work of art that I thought achieved greatness. Dubuffet certainly remains one of my heroes of art, and yes, I value his “creativity” a lot, but after this exchange I at least have a satisfying understanding of our differences on this.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-36170023626659661802018-05-24T05:25:08.333-04:002018-05-24T05:25:08.333-04:00George Inness is more realistic though. No much wo...George Inness is more realistic though. No much word about that.Kings Ndubuisi Bloghttp://www.kingsndubuisirealityxpression.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-48325503735629429372018-05-24T00:31:43.195-04:002018-05-24T00:31:43.195-04:00Well, David. Thank you for taking the time to lay ...Well, David. Thank you for taking the time to lay out that case. Even though, obviously, you knew that words wouldn't convince me of anything, given we had just agreed that art must speak for itself. I suppose you wrote that out as a testament to your appreciation of Dubuffet's work, if nothing else.<br /><br />Since you did write that out, I took the time to look up all the different styles and pieces you mentioned just to refresh my sense of the scope of his work. Having done that; I think there is no doubt of Dubuffet's inventiveness and industry and I wouldn't be honest if I denied it. As well, some of his designs are fun, and his textures, particularly in a few of his beard paintings, are interesting. For what my opinion is worth, that's my "informed" take. <br /><br />I guess, the essence of the issue is one of categories. I consider Dubuffet a designer, essentially. A graphic artist. Who uses the visual lexicon of cartoons, now and again, as Leger and Miro did before and Lichtenstein did later, as design elements. I don't think he composes anything. I think it is all design.<br /><br />To me, these words - composing and designing - have distinct meanings. Or they once did, before sensationalism addicted high culture.<br /><br />Given these sharp distinctions - which I hold as inviolate, in spite of the receding tide of philosophy - between composition and design, I might agree that Dubuffet was a "great" designer.<br /><br />As an artist, however, well, he's actually just a designer. <br /><br />I know these distinction hold no value for you. And thus no meaning for you. Your definition of artist seems to be "creative person." Therefore your definition of Art must be something like; "those creative things created by creative people." And really, that's that. Pomo here we come.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-75456611510975870432018-05-23T21:50:23.728-04:002018-05-23T21:50:23.728-04:00(cont.)
I admire that Dubuffet was so prolific. ...(cont.) <br /><br />I admire that Dubuffet was so prolific. I like that he was very thoughtful, writing a smart and eloquent series of essays attacking "asphyxiating culture." Even his half baked ideas are quite thought provoking and intriguing. I like that he plowed all of his success back into new experiments, never resting on his laurels. I didn't like the path his experiments took in the early 1960s; I found his l'hourloupes repetitive and boring,so I essentially wrote off that phase of his career. Then one morning I was in Manhattan near the trade towers and came across his l'hourloupe sculpture of trees in the mist (http://www.archi-guide.com/PH/EtUn/NYo/NewYorkGroupFourTreesDu.jpg ) and was bowled over by its effect. So I reconsidered and began to tease out things of value even in the phases of his work that didn't register with me at first. I liked that surprise. Several of the last five volumes of his catalogue raisonne presage Basquiat (whose work I also enjoy). <br /><br />Dubuffet worked his ass off to the very end, working on bigger and more ambitious projects and never kissing the butts of the art establishment. I give him kudos for his artistic journey, but most of all (since we just got through agreeing that a painting first has to stand alone as an object) I really like the designs, compositions and colors of his pictures. The first time I saw one of his pictures of a cow (https://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2007/04/glint-of-madness.html ) it knocked my socks off. I knew nothing about his background but I could see he had what it took. And those, in short, are the reasons I regard Dubuffet as "great." <br />David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-54629421191477612182018-05-23T21:49:04.237-04:002018-05-23T21:49:04.237-04:00Kev Ferrara wrote: "I feel strongly now, that...Kev Ferrara wrote: "I feel strongly now, that anybody who insists, as you have, that it is "great" (when it is merely constituted of rudimentary visual effect tests, unimaginatively colored) should be met with immediate opposition....The word 'great' should be used with a modicum of perspective."<br /><br />Kev, I agree that in our era of hyperbole and false praise, the use of the word "great" should at least be questioned if not "immediately opposed." (You might better ask, "greater than what?" or "less great than who?") But I'm quite happy to explain my use of the term, because Dubuffet is one of my personal art heroes (Please note that I used the term "great" to describe Dubuffet, not this particular painting.) Pull up a chair.<br /><br />Although he had a talent for drawing as a youth, Dubuffet gave up art altogether and worked as a businessman instead until he was in his 40s. He didn't like what he was seeing in the art scene of his day, and had spells where he questioned the value of high culture. I admire that he didn't spend his life pickled in art technique, worshiping the icons of art and peddling his work in an art market where so much of art was about nothing more than making art. Instead, he got on with life, earned a living and when it came time for all decent men to to enlist in the military, he did that too. But all the while he kept his eyes open and formed original, iconoclastic conclusions about the world. <br /><br />In the 1940s he decided to quit his successful business and turn to art; he did so with guns blazing. His work was not imitative or derivative, and he made no concessions to the fashions of his day. He was willing to view the work of insane people and children on a level playing field with the demigods of art of his day. It should not be surprising, then, that when he began exhibiting his work it was very controversial and some "cultured" people slashed his canvases in outrage. He didn't give a damn, he kept on going.<br /><br />His work changed rapidly as he made up for lost time. I'm not a big fan of his work from the 40s or his work from the mid 60s on, but in between he put forth an astonishing torrent of highly improbable work that I find beautiful, original and intelligent. I own volumes 2 through 19 of his catalogue raisonne and when I page through them I enjoy his fresh thinking, his courage, and most of all his designs which I find remarkable. The efforts that flop tend to flop because he took too many risks. The ones that succeed-- well, I'm particularly impressed by his series of beard paintings, his "tables paysagees," his cow series and his materiologies. If you ever decide to buy his catalogue raisonne I'd recommend you start with those volumes.<br /><br />I admire the way that his work combines great humor (his sculptures often make me laugh out loud and his drawings have a wonderful whimsy to them) with a sometimes frightening savagery (he made images from tearing the wings off butterflies and his "Corps de Dames" series rivals de Kooning for misogyny). His "pisseur" series (which I wrote about here: https://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2007/04/glint-of-madness.html) features a funny little fellow with his penis in his hand facing the viewer and urinating to the left, to the right or to the front. Crazy, right? I mean, who would do such a thing, especially back in those days? But the compositions are all very powerful, stark and bold, and the direction of the urine stream in each case alters the design of the drawing. Part of this is very child-like and innocent, but part of this is very sophisticated and smart. <br /><br /><br />(cont.)David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-39659143725052760212018-05-22T15:49:55.187-04:002018-05-22T15:49:55.187-04:00ERATA: Please ignore the two orphan words 'The...ERATA: Please ignore the two orphan words 'The lines' dangling on the end of my post above - they are the fallout from some edit that got overlooked...chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-41555514086373245842018-05-22T14:22:59.241-04:002018-05-22T14:22:59.241-04:00Rather, your objection seems to be that the infrar...<b>Rather, your objection seems to be that the infrared photo and the Dubuffet painting don't "evoke looking at something real" for you. Have I got that right?</b><br /><br />The Dubuffet yes, the infrared photo not so much because I can sense that the origins of its source are photographic.<br /><br /><b>You can describe to me in detail how Giacometti's hundreds of thin lines "evoke" the feeling of something real for you, and I can describe to you in detail how Dubuffet's night sky "evokes" the feeling of something real for me.</b><br /><br />But there is a fundamental difference in the function of what we are describing. Your feelings about the Dubuffet 'sky' are, for the reasons I've already laid out, subjective wool gathering in response to unspecific graphic texturing. So in fairness to you I present a Giacometti to consider:<br /><br />https://npgshop.org.uk/products/a-giclee-print-of-bust-of-annette-by-alberto-giacometti<br /><br />The lines and gestures in this portrait of Annette are describing the path of the artist's eye as it searches out connections between the planes, nodal points and edges of the form (it makes no difference if this is done from life or from imagination - technically speaking there is no difference, but this is not the place to get into that!). In other words every gesture upon the canvas is a graphic equivalent of an optical experience and we are meant to read it as such - take the lines away and the head disappears. But to interpret this image in the way you are doing so with the Dubuffet would be like saying it evokes to me 'grandma's knitting after the cat has played with it'. Now one may very well think this about the appearance of Giacomett's work, but I am talking about the function of the marks as a means of expressing forms, not whatever it might be that the resultant graphic handwriting reminds you of. <br /><br /><br />The lines chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-33587132084894090112018-05-22T14:01:39.275-04:002018-05-22T14:01:39.275-04:00Consider the Sistine Chapel, then tell me Michelan...<b>Consider the Sistine Chapel, then tell me Michelangelo aspired to convey "all" his meaning to those who hadn't read the story of Adam and Eve. </b><br /><br />I don't think what makes the Sistine Chapel great has anything to do with the story it is illustrating. The same stories have been illustrated endlessly, ineffectively. And nearly 100% of those other versions are long forgotten, and deservedly so. Right?<br /><br />Thus, the Sistine Chapel's success proves my point, not yours. Which is to say; to the extent that the allegories Michaelangelo illustrated on that ceiling are blowing minds, and blowing minds of utter unbelievers and people of all sorts of different religions, it is doing so utterly without regard to meanings dependent on its original tribal codes.<br /><br />Now "all his meaning" is an interesting loading of the argument. Because, actually, all Michaelangelo's artistic meanings are already up on the ceiling. You can then bring your meanings, or Christianity's meanings to the work if you want. But I would guess, a great percentage of people now walking through that chapel have barely cracked a religious text in their lives. Yet, how they are still moved!<br /><br />The psychologist Jordan Peterson, who among other things studies totalitarianism, has collected Soviet Realist paintings for decades. They hang all over the walls of his home. He discussed the discord or tension between the excellent artfulness of those paintings and their dogmatic political message; that there is an uncomfortable or unnatural opposition there, an oil-and-water mixture that causes a kind of internal rancor. But, he pointed out, with time as these paintings have hung on his walls year after year he's noticed something; "The Art is winning." <br /><br />I don't think this is a coincidental point. I think that is the case with most allegories. Tribal customs, text languages, codes, and polities don't last. Only human universals remain powerful with meaning into perpetuity. Because they are written in the common language of the imagination; form and archetype.<br /><br />Incidentally, just to be serious for a moment about Dubuffet...<br /><br />I have no "problem" per se with Dubuffet's work other than the hyperbole surrounding it. But I feel strongly now, that anybody who insists, as you have, that it is "great" (when it is merely constituted of rudimentary visual effect tests, unimaginatively colored) should be met with immediate opposition. The dumbing down must stop and each of us should take a stand against it where we find it. The word "great" should be used with a modicum of perspective. If not in the interest of advocating for better, more meaningful, cultural products, at least in the interest of having honest discussions constituted of reasoned positions and tenable observations. <br /> kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-23752795282258166412018-05-22T13:43:47.481-04:002018-05-22T13:43:47.481-04:00But another equally plausible interpretation is th...<b>But another equally plausible interpretation is that a zombie martian creature with death rays from his head is being beseeched for mercy from his now crippled, broken victims before he delivers the final death blow. </b><br /><br />No.<br /><br />David, this "take" of yours is clearly contrary to what is happening in the picture, in the gestures, the emotional attitudes, the interactions between the figures, the shape-theming of the image, pretty much by any evidence, abstract or otherwise, existent in the picture. It is certainly not "equally plausible" to the "universal read" I offered.<br /><br />And if you insist on the possibility of this zany pulp interpretation, instead of admitting it was a poorly thought out reaction, then the gathered throng must consider the possibility that you have a kind of deficiency of aesthetic sensibility at least, or worse some kind of peculiar mental aberration that causes you to mistake what content you wish to be in the picture (for the sake of winning an argument) for what content is actually inherent to it. <br /><br />So, strike one. <br /><br /><b>A third possibility: perhaps a radiant angel has come to earth to identify the next messiah, and the rich guy's wife is presenting their child for that designation, while the peasants in the crowd are begging, "Naw,naw, not the offspring of that jerk!" The rich guy is watching to see whether his bribe has paid off. </b><br /><br />Here rather than spinning a yarn contrary to what is in the picture, you are spinning a yarn of possibility around the picture, outside what it actually shows and expresses, and installing such as an additional level of content in your mind. <br /><br />And that's fine. If you want to, or can't help but, add such fanciful content to your viewing experience, go ahead. But don't tell me such is a necessary addition in order to understand the picture at its fundamental expressive or narrative level. It simply isn't. It's tacked-on content.<br /><br /><br /><br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-5209528377039662682018-05-22T12:00:42.071-04:002018-05-22T12:00:42.071-04:00to me, the Dubuffet looks like a cross section thr...to me, the Dubuffet looks like a cross section through a dried cabbage in the top half. the lower half resembles a randomised collection of brass-rubbings of decayed objects washed in on the tide (done on the same piece of paper). <br /><br />i’m going to call it “Dry Cabbage Over Detritus”. <br /><br />actually no, let’s imagine the scale differently: <br /><br />“Dry Cabbage Over City of Detritus”<br /><br />hmm, still needs something a bit more poetic:<br /><br />“Dry Cabbage Mother Ship Descends Over Abandoned City of Detritus”<br /><br />that works for me. Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-12425084826783689502018-05-22T06:55:41.524-04:002018-05-22T06:55:41.524-04:00Chris Bennett-- As far as I can tell, your object...Chris Bennett-- As far as I can tell, your objection is not that the infra red photograph or the Dubuffet painting don't "look real" in the photographic sense. As you note, Cezanne and Giacometti don't "look real" in that sense either. You're not suggesting that a "realistic" picture is one that employs the painterly skills of illusion and color manipulation to create the false impression of depth, life, etc. <br /><br />Rather, your objection seems to be that the infrared photo and the Dubuffet painting don't "evoke looking at something real" for you. Have I got that right?<br /><br />If so, that strikes me as a fairly subjective standard to apply. It also strikes me that you and I are not so different when it comes to the standard itself; our difference seems to relate primarily to its application. You can describe to me in detail how Giacometti's hundreds of thin lines "evoke" the feeling of something real for you, and I can describe to you in detail how Dubuffet's night sky "evokes" the feeling of something real for me. At that point, we can either give each other's feelings what the US Constitution calls "full faith and credit" or we can recognize that we have an impasse in feelings that language can't bridge.<br /><br />This same subjectivity shows up in the distinction between "wool gathering" and "searching." I would've assumed that "searching" is one of those conscious, frontal lobe activities you regard as inferior, while "wool gathering" is one of those subconscious, subliminal ways of relating to art that you think is ultimately more complex and sophisticated. Apparently that's wrong, although I can't for the life of me figure out why. You clearly don't like mental "free fall" but I on the other hand think that mental "free association" is at the heart of the creative process. The difference between when our freedom is "falling" and when it is "associating" seems to me to be a difficult standard to apply consistently.<br /><br /> David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-89130842328033987872018-05-22T05:30:09.396-04:002018-05-22T05:30:09.396-04:00Kev ferra (cont.)-- I'm guessing the reason yo...Kev ferra (cont.)-- I'm guessing the reason you disagree so violently (labeling the Dubuffet image "mindless trash" and calling my view "flabbergasting") is less because of your position on narrative content (which is nonviable) but rather because you don't think the Dubuffet image meets our threshold requirement of standing alone visually. If that's the real source of your ire, our difference isn't so much about the role of text as it is about our underlying taste. Well that's OK, my feelings aren't hurt. But here are a few rays of sunlight for you to consider (just like that Rembrandt etching of the art docent spreading enlightenment to a group of disabled visitors to the art museum.) <br /><br />Putting aside Dubuffet's title, I like the unorthodox palette and the composition, the shimmering odd energy, the textures of the earth. Yes, I understand that our eyes don't convey the sky to us as green, and that clouds don't look like Dubuffet's electrified cheerios. The image of the sky that NASA calls the "pillars of creation" in the eagle nebula 7,000 light years away looks green too, because they were captured in infrared using a process that identified the light emitted by different elements in the cloud. Hydrogen comes out green in the composite image. If you were standing in the eagle nebula it wouldn't look green, but are you going to wall yourself off from such a miraculous image because you don't think it looks "realistic"? Consider how Steinberg audaciously re-invents clouds in an imaginative way very similar to Dubuffet's: https://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2010/05/steinbergs-clouds.html . Jagged and raggedy, an eerie and alarming sky, not intended for "realism" in a reportorial sense, but you can take pictures of the clouds with your cell phone if that's all you want. I think the visual points listed above create a reaction worthy of art. You apparently don't, but that's OK.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-83123321704832895032018-05-22T05:29:35.573-04:002018-05-22T05:29:35.573-04:00Kev Ferrara-- Kev, you are such an earnest fellow,...Kev Ferrara-- Kev, you are such an earnest fellow, I won't unsettle you by raising the possibility that there's a difference between "misunderstanding" you and disagreeing with you. Let's put that unthinkable notion aside and see if there is instead some progress to be made in some of the other areas you raise. <br /><br />You say that artworks must be able to stand for themselves. I fully agree with that. 100%. Always have. I have no regard for conceptual pieces which rely on words as a substitute dealing with the challenges of all form creating work. I think artists who believe their clever concepts excuse their crappy drawing should give up visual art and become writers. I will not bother to read a word of those typed manifestos that accompany visually feeble post modern art. Hieroglyphs contribute to Egyptian art, just as the German lyrics to Beethoven's 9th contribute to his symphony, but if the Egyptian images or Beethoven's musical notes couldn't stand alone, it would be a huge flaw in the work. I don't have to learn hieroglyphs or German to appreciate those works. <br /><br />I hope we agree on that much.<br /><br />Having said that, I recognize (because I'm not a nut) that "our appreciation and understanding of pictures is guided by text all the time." When I refer to "text" I'm not just talking about the title of the picture, I'm talking about the role of words in creating narrative content or "intellectual" themes that are not readily apparent from the visual image alone. The words or hieroglyphs need not be visually integrated into the art (although they could be). They need not be pictographs or symbols with specific meaning. They could just be a story that you've read, such as the Bible, that enhances the image.<br /><br />Your explanation of the hundred gilder print provides an excellent example. You offer an interpretation we should all be able to draw with no biblical knowledge or title. But another equally plausible interpretation is that a zombie martian creature with death rays from his head is being beseeched for mercy from his now crippled, broken victims before he delivers the final death blow. A third possibility: perhaps a radiant angel has come to earth to identify the next messiah, and the rich guy's wife is presenting their child for that designation, while the peasants in the crowd are begging, "Naw,naw, not the offspring of that jerk!" The rich guy is watching to see whether his bribe has paid off. <br /><br />Who could make sense of a painting of the crucifixion without the some idea of the story? Who could give Fra Angelico's angels their due (beyond an appreciation of color and composition) without knowing what an angel is? You say "great art aspires to convey all its meaning without reference to intellect-contacting symbolisms." Consider the Sistine Chapel, then tell me Michelangelo aspired to convey "all" his meaning to those who hadn't read the story of Adam and Eve. <br /><br />David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-23524825580539042872018-05-20T16:09:52.865-04:002018-05-20T16:09:52.865-04:00...but I don't know of a single landscape (exc...<b>...but I don't know of a single landscape (except perhaps by Turner) without "the horizontal line (jagged or smooth)."</b><br /><br />Which is why a horizontal division, however crude or subtle, is instinctively read as a signalling the idea of landscape - a fundamental symbolism seen within nature evolutionarily hard-wired into our brains. There are scores, possibly hundreds (I've never sat down and tried to list them) of 'natural symbols', or gestalt patterns if you prefer, that are part of our brain's natural lexicon of short-cut visual clues necessary for our survival and comfort. In a realist picture this lexicon is part of the graphic vocabulary which is choreographed (plastic grammar) into an image that evokes looking at something real. Now, when all you have is a horizontal dividing incomprehensible texturing above and below it the image is reduced to a basic pictograph of 'the idea of landscape' in which the intellect can read whatever it wishes into the random texturing it is decorated with. <br /><br />So to answer your question:<br /><b>are you saying that a horizontal line that evokes "general associations" enables the viewer to put too many rags in the ragbag, while a horizontal line that triggers "specific associations" limits the variety of rags, and is thus more realistic?</b><br />A horizontal division that does not contain either side of it a legible graphic choreography evoking mimetic specifics becomes just a line between two ragbags for whatever the spectator's daydreaming is inclined to throw into it.<br /><br />Which brings me to answer your final question:<br /><b> I guess I'm having trouble distinguishing between associations which are "wool gathering" and associations which are "searching."</b> <br />Associations which are 'wool gathering' are those made in a state of mental free fall cut loose from the work being contemplated. Associations that are part of 'living the work' are those induced by the work yet simultaneously endorsing the plastic properties actually authored into the work. chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.com