Next: olitski capsule review (11)
some art news you probably didn't catch
Post #565 • June 24, 2005, 8:43 AM • 65 Comments
This paragraph, by Michael Hoinski for the New York Times, resists summation:
Soon to roll down the lost highway: a fuchsia teardrop trailer wearing a 10-foot-long cowboy hat and smoking a cigar. It will be a mobile kiosk - stuffed with T-shirts, bumper stickers and other swag - slated to cover more than 50,000 miles of Texas's nooks and crannies during the next 17 months. It's "It," the writer and musician Kinky Friedman's conduit to the "little fellers" in his quest to become the first independent governor of Texas since Sam Houston.
Kinky Friedman, of course, heads up Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys, who triumphed with a cult hit entitled "They Ain't Makin' Jews Like Jesus Anymore" ("They ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore / We don't turn the other cheek like we done before"). Mr. Friedman has gone on to become a bestselling author, and is running for Governor of Texas on the slogan, "Why the hell not?" I'd vote for him in a heartbeat: "If you elect me, I'll be the first Governor in Texas history with a listed phone number."
The trailer is being built by Bob Wade.
Mr. Wade is the creator of such larger-than-life public structures as the giant iguana that used to sit on the roof of the Lone Star Cafe at 13th Street and Fifth Avenue in Greenwich Village. ("Kinky and I were up there doing weird things forever," he said.) At a cost of $12,000, which was raised via e-mail solicitations in less than two weeks, It will comprise a high-density urethane foam hat and cigar that will take three weeks to build and apply to a trailer. Then, after an unveiling tentatively scheduled for July 9, It will hit the road.
In other news, David Sutherland died last week.
David Sutherland, an artist whose work appeared in various Dungeons and Dragons rule books, has died. He was 56 years old. ... Although he remained faceless to Dungeons and Dragons players, a generation of gamers grew up with Sutherland's otherworldly images in the 1970s and '80s.
And I was one of them. I drew out of these lovingly and copiously illustrated manuals, and they constituted an important early influence on my development as an artist. (As my friend Davee put it, I was a geek from a young age.) Also, one of my first coding efforts was a character generator written in BASIC on an Apple II+. While it's easy and probably necessary to rag on the D&D crowd, we had a great time while we were at it, and Mr. Sutherland gets much credit for helping the fun along. Thank you, sir, and rest in peace.
2.
June 24, 2005, 6:29 PM
yo - anyone see that piece in the new times art capsules about that show at Ingalls?
bit sad. what has to be the best show i've seen all year - i've been three times and last time spent over an hour and a half - the pieces slowly all meld and begin to work to tell a story, or transmit an extremely worrying sensation, once in the gallery there is no escpae - it's like being surrounded - or inside, some sort of definately deranged mind.
i suppose that it was only reviewed in a capsule because none of the critics was bright enough to get it - or brave enough to try....
ps what was that nonsense at transeat about?
3.
June 24, 2005, 6:46 PM
carlos - you are right, the stranger question is why anyone smart enough to make art like that is dumb enough to show it down here where no one will get it.
4.
June 24, 2005, 6:48 PM
garbage thats what last night was.
i'll have to go back to that bucknell show - the more i think about it the more it worries me - i bought the catalog and its by my bed and disturbing my sleep.
5.
June 24, 2005, 7:04 PM
Another out-of-the-blue flurry of Bucknell rooters, I see. Are you really 3 different people? I think we had the same question last time this happened.
6.
June 24, 2005, 7:08 PM
The Bucknell show is a testament to how creative torpor, writ large enough, translates to big artistic ya-yas among the I Wanna Be Disturbed crowd. Sohn's description of it was the very definition of blankism, and I feel obliged to note that the capsule review I wrote for the Olitski show at the Goldman Warehouse never ran, telling you exactly what people down here are not prepared to deal with: serious art made on art's terms that mobilizes huge talent instead of individual spasms of personailty. In comparison, the Bucknell show was a uselessly protracted exercise in onanistic boredom.
7.
June 24, 2005, 7:11 PM
Are you really 3 different people?
You would think that I would learn to ask that question first thing by now. The answer: no. I checked the logs, and Carlos, Jose, and Christian are the same person. I suspect that all of them are Bucknell.
8.
June 24, 2005, 7:25 PM
I didn't realize that you had written a review of the Olitski show, Franklin, and if I did know I forgot. It's a damn shame it didn't run.
The response to the show, including the fact that it was only reviewed (twice!) in the Spanish language Herald, was very odd. I went several times, and I noticed that the people there were very puzzled; they seemed to realize that they were seeing something pretty heavy-duty but did noit know what to make of it. I think many of them had never before been in the presence of very good new art (or maybe very good art of any age outside of books) and that the experience was too strange for them to cope with. The apparent reaction, up and down the line, was to simply turn away and avoid it.
9.
June 24, 2005, 7:50 PM
Carlos, Jose, and Christian are the same person. I suspect that all of them are Bucknell.
Lame beyond words, but it figures.
10.
June 24, 2005, 7:54 PM
Hey, Franklin, watch your language in #6, pal, better adhere to your own guidelines (address the work, not the person, remember?). Though I admit: bile-releasing is better than bile swelling.
11.
June 24, 2005, 8:07 PM
Oldpro, you raise an interesting, if depressing, possibility--namely, that many people may have seen so much inferior work in so many venues for so long that they can't assimilate something significantly better. It's as if their receptors, if you will, have either atrophied or deteriorated, and are no longer able to process heavy-duty input. Hence, such input is treated as a kind of unreadable or non-sense data, which is ignored or bypassed.
13.
June 24, 2005, 9:47 PM
Franklin,
Have you ever written anything on Luis Gispert?
14.
June 24, 2005, 9:57 PM
Jack, that is exactly what I think has happened here, because we are so insujlated from better work, and is happening everywhere through attrition.
Melis: Franklin has on occasion bent his own rules slightly, with justification, I'd say, but in this case he merely said some strong negative things in an amusing way. Read the guldlines.
15.
June 24, 2005, 10:32 PM
Don't play Franklin's mouthpiece OP: you're out of tune.
16.
June 24, 2005, 10:44 PM
A "mouthpiece" is an old slang term for lawyer, Metis, which I assume is how you meant to use it. It is also part of a musical instrument, which is what you switched to when you stumbled into your mixed metaphor. Do you have anything besides clumsy snide remarks to offer here?
17.
June 24, 2005, 10:45 PM
Oldpro, You didn't know. I'll post it early next week. Might as well.
Pants, I had to look back over my work to get an answer to that question. Basically, no. I'm fond of his cheerleader series. His sculptures don't do much for me, and his installations, in reproduction, look cockamamie, but I'd want to see one in person to be sure. About as close as I came were this and this, but Gispert was sort of a collateral target.
Metisss, the guideline says "Address the writing, not the writer." And I did. Oldpro's assessment was right on, as it often is.
18.
June 24, 2005, 10:49 PM
No, I meant it as an elongated piece that connects with the instrument. Obviously youre are not the instrument.
19.
June 24, 2005, 10:51 PM
Thanks for the slide show, George. A friend wrote me about that exhibition. She said it was excellent is every way. I wrote back that as far as I know there is nothing by either painter regularly on view in this cultural desert, and nothing anticipated. Of course right now I shouldn't use the workd "desert"; it has been pouring rain every day and we have flooding. Whine, whine.
20.
June 24, 2005, 10:59 PM
I shouldn't run this into the ground, Metis, but you tempt me too much.
I should not have assumed that you would be aware of slightly out of date slang terms, though "mouthpiece" is still much in use. Meaning "lawyer" it is precisely the right term for the context. Your ignorance saved you from the mixed metaphor but allowed you to blunder into the appearance of one while using an inferior analogy.
Who's out of tune?
21.
June 25, 2005, 12:07 AM
With six interventions so far, I'd say you like mudwrestling. Are you retired oldman? Listen, metaphors change. Did you know "gay" doesn't mean "cheerful" no more? You probably don't. "Mouthpiece" is exactly what you do in this blog.
22.
June 25, 2005, 12:10 AM
Osceola High School and the Mural Vandalism
Hello, I would just like to share some info. about my artwork at Osceola High School. I was involved with art and painted four murals for each of the foreign language classes. I volunteered about four months of ten hour days over the summer, plus paid my own transportation (taxis) to get there and back.
The problem started with vandalism. Kids wrote on the murals, defaced them, and even scraped them up. I had to constantly maintain them. I estimate that I put five coats of polycrylic protector and the kids still scraped it up.
I made several complaints to the teachers, administrators, and staff about the problem. At first they were concerned, but then they just ignored it. I was most surprised to hear from a teacher in the art department, Ms. Cynthia Porter, comment that: "there's nothing we can do about the vandalism. It's public domain!" After all that I contributed to that school they had the nerve to snap at me! How rude!
Osceola High School located in Seminole, Florida, is one of the lowest rated schools in the state. Not only was the quality of education poor, but also the lack of teacher enthusiasm was reflected on the student's bad grades.
My recommendation: "Don't let your kids attend Osceola. It is a bad school. I remember seeing three or four school fights in the cafeteria in one hour. That is just pathetic."
If the school appreciated my artwork, they would have defended me, not scold me!
Dave W.
23.
June 25, 2005, 12:31 AM
Metisss, Oldpro contributes loads of interesting content. You whine. Get interesting or put a sock in it.
Dave, sorry to hear it. I live across the street from a junior high school whose students recently vanadlized my fence, and I pointed out to the principal that they may not want to put me into a position in which I have to defend my own property. (I didn't mention that I have a small arsenal of traditional, combat-grade Chinese weapons.) I'm not sure how that relates except that there are some important lessons here:
1. Most people in authority would rather not go through the work it takes to insure just outcomes.
2. Sometimes generosity turns you into a doormat, so aim it well.
3. High school is a thoroughly wretched affair that will end before you know it; life afterwards is altogether different. You will flee Seminole, flee Florida, and go to art school, at which point everything will become better for you: more interesting people, more people who appreciate art, better friends, better conversations, better drugs, better sex, and more time spent doing what you want to do. Make it happen.
24.
June 25, 2005, 1:48 AM
That's your opinion, Franklin. Not mine. Or am forced to agree with you, only because this is your blog?
25.
June 25, 2005, 2:05 AM
You're not forced to agree with me, and I'm not forced to leave your comments up on my blog. Disagreement is fine. Being boring is not. Ask not what the guidelines can do for you, but what you can do for the guidelines.
26.
June 25, 2005, 2:23 AM
IN OTHER NEWS
NOMI gallery walk tonight....go see the work..
MOCA
Ambrosino
Tachmes
if you haven't gone,
GO!
The weather's nice for a change.
Be supportive.
Go see the art.
27.
June 25, 2005, 2:24 AM
I still disagree with you, Franklin. Take me off the air.
28.
June 25, 2005, 2:39 AM
Franklin wrote:
1. Most people in authority would rather not go through the work it takes to insure just outcomes.
That is true, though I have found it more to be a case of most people in authority want problems to solve themselves, which they never do.
And regarding #2, no good deed goes unpunished.
29.
June 25, 2005, 2:46 AM
Nice of you to give Dave that answer, Franklin.
Metis, disagree all you want. Only say something.
30.
June 26, 2005, 8:03 AM
i am not sure where to begin. i am confused about the idea of this site in general. what are your intentions and what do you see as the bounderies of commentary? for instance, is "old master" really old? is s/he a standard? and as a master are we to assume s/he is accountable.... or just a master? is s/he a classic master or are we to assume s/he has been given this titel either to himself or by a friend? i like the direction of content but have some reservations about how to respond. keep up the good work.
jack
31.
June 26, 2005, 3:10 PM
Jack, the tagline is "The chronicles of an artist in the world," so content varies and terms get hashed out as we go. Jump in whenever you feel comfortable. And we already have a Jack who comes around quite a bit; another handle would help us out.
32.
June 26, 2005, 3:11 PM
Jack, there is another Jack who has been commenting here a long time. It might be a good idea to vary your name slightly to make the distinction.
Franklin has all kinds of links on every page explaining the guidelines and what the site is about. Try "Franklin" at the bottom of the page and "About" etc. on the upper left of the page.
33.
June 27, 2005, 5:25 PM
Responding to oldpro from #8 and jack agreeing (#11), I feel compelled to agree also. As far as I can tell the bulk of Miami's art is bulit on "sand" and can't hold itself up. New, young, art students and artists don't give a hoot about emulation. The great art of the past is of no interest to them. It is old and boring and irrelevant. That's why they don't know what to "do" with Olitski, and others. Our great precedents of the past are being ignored. We have no real museum to show for it. That, of course, is no excuse.
34.
June 27, 2005, 5:58 PM
beWare maybe part of that problem is from not having apparent standards for Art. I had a conversation with someone recently that made me think of standards. We discussed that there seems to be art made FOR other artist and then there is art made for the rest of us. The proof seems to be in the sales aspect in many galleries that are with or part of the "art" crowd. Meaning their sales usually suck but they bring out the coolest people. Then watch what happens when the same work is in a very commercial type gallery-sales are pretty good but we tend to make fun of their patrons or are considered "sell outs" that is of course if there is an image or a decorative aspect that appeals to the buyer. How do you buy a performance piece? Why would anyone buy a rag with semen on it as art? There doesn't seem to be a standard on what is good in all of our lives despite each of our education. Past or present work can not be looked at with out some sort of an idea as to what is truly good.
35.
June 27, 2005, 6:26 PM
Interesting observations, Sanyo.
The problem\ with standards is that they don't hold up when you spell them out. Standards are only effective when they (whatever they are) are part of a group attitude, when a circle of talented artists bust their butts trying to make better art and compete with each other to do it. This is the way it has always worked.
Our problem here is Miami is that we operate in a culture that derides even the simple idea of standards or "better art". Anything can be art and just about everything is at this point. This acts as a powerful solvent for any pressure on art to be better - as art - and leaves the field open for that which is novel, eye-catching, trendy and generally empty and short-lived.
When the market is flooded with stuff like this we adjust our sights downwards and accept less. I see this all the time in blog comments; people don't even demand an art experience. instead they are satisfied with a clever idea, or something that transmits a mood, or something that "shocks" (as if anything can anymore), or something their friends think is "cool".
Then when something really good, presented in a really professional way, like the Olitski show, comes along, people do not know what to do with it. It is not what they expect as "art", and they turn and walk away from it.
36.
June 27, 2005, 6:55 PM
So in a way you are saying that there are standards but those standards suck? My other question would be how then do we improve the standards? I mean there are circles of artist that are using the above kind of standard, how then does a better one catch on? Is it through our teachers and proffessors here? Is it self-motivated? And if it is the latter do other artist have to start doing what you are doing to make it a standard? I guess my real question(whew!) is-is there something outside of ourselves that we can check if some work we are doing is good? possible answers maybe Reality, Principles of art, principle in life. But where and how do we learn these if the teachers or professors are just as confused as there students? Its like some kind of philosophical dog trying to chase its tail. "I almost got it, NO! I read the artblog, wait AHAH! close" you know what I mean?
37.
June 27, 2005, 7:05 PM
This is what accounts for good, bad and worst. Some people make for really good ice skaters, others couldn't do it to save their soul. If ice skating became as trendy as making art we would have an increase in people falling on their faces.
38.
June 27, 2005, 7:26 PM
That's right, beware, and not only that but we would then make an event out of it and give them points for it. That is exactly how it has been working in the art business for the last 30 years.
Sanyo, you write "is there something outside of ourselves that we can check"
Yes. great art. Go look at great art. To do this you have to go to NY and other cities that have real museums and serious galleries. Failing that, look in books. just look and look, and make judgements on everything, even if you change them later (which often you will). if you can find a professor who is really serious and not just a copout trend follower (usually they don't even know that they are) latch on to that person and get all you can.
In the end it is up to you. Don't look for "standards", just raise your expectations and look and look again. Argue about it with your friends. Don't "like" anything your eye tells you is no good. be critical and judgemental and satisfy yourself, nobody else. Don't believe anything until your own common sense tells you it is right.
It is arduous and it takes a while but it is the only way. You are already asking the question, so you are halfway there.
39.
June 27, 2005, 7:31 PM
The way the Olitski show was ignored by the local (English-language) media is a clear indictment of said media's art coverage capacity. It's an embarrassment, and there's no legitimate excuse for it. Of course, it reflects the local art scene beyond the media, because if the "scene" had cared for such a show, the media, which is merely the tail wagged by the dog, would have followed suit. But Olitski isn't young, or new, or trendy, or a slick operator. He's dead serious, he means business, and he's way beyond playing PC or PR games. He's in it for the work, not the limelight, though I'm sure he wouldn't mind more attention.
The sort of work he does, in principle, is largely incompatible with the system as it now operates, and is therefore seen as alien by it, if not threatening. The system wants, runs and depends on a very different sort of product, which is much more readily procured and easily replaced when it's no longer the hot new thing. The system is not primarily interested in creating a market for the best work, but in finding what will be most marketable, regardless of quality. Low standards, obviously, mean greater sales.
40.
June 27, 2005, 7:45 PM
But, unfortunately, the ice skating example is too easy because the triple axle has some identifiable characteristics that distinguish it from the face plant.
Sanyo, you've hit the nail on the head - how do you improve the standards? Great question, because as Oldpro correctly says, they fail as soon as you spell them out. Indeed, that may be the reason they've gotten so out of whack in the first place. You make a shopping list of good qualities in art, and eventually you'll find something on the shopping list that stinks and something off of it that's great.
Here's a possible way out: don't think of them as standards, which are measurements and benchmarks, ultimately, and try to raise them. Think of them as tastes, and work to improve them. People who know wine can distinguish a cabernet sauvignon from a shiraz. People who really know wine can distinguish different years of the same brand of varietal. Developing that kind of taste involves studied consumption - it's not enough to read up, and it's not enough to drink. You do both, and you develop connoisseurship. (Although if you have to pick an expert between a reader and a drinker, you go with a drinker.) Art is the same way. You look at a ton of art, you read a bit about it, maybe you try to make some. You start to distinguish what floats your boat from what doesn't. You go back and revise your opinion. It's a lifetime process, and it's a lot of fun, really.
...is there something outside of ourselves that we can check if some work we are doing is good?
Did you notice the possible answers you supplied to this question? Reality, principles of art, principles of life... all good, and all things that you have to have inside yourself to have any meaning. Principles are out there in the world; many of them show a side of the truth even while contradicting each other. See which ones agree with your sense of rightness. The very act of looking is the ultimate authority. (Ah, I see Oldpro has beaten me to this.) You want to become a heavy drinker of art. You go look at the best stuff that has been made in all periods and places. You naturally like some better than others. Then maybe you change your mind, but after a while, your eye gets smarter and starts to settle down on some principles, even though they don't hold true all the time. And I second him - whatever you do, don't make yourself like anything. It's bad for you. Give everything a shot, but don't hand it crutches if it's limping along. Just let it fall over and go find something else to look at.
Your teachers don't really supply the standards. They supply themselves and their work, and the two should give you some sense about whether they know the score. Find ones who do and use them to figure out what the score is.
41.
June 27, 2005, 7:45 PM
Jack, (re 39) Regarding the lack of coverage of Olitski. Why didn't anyone (plural) there bitch about it directly to the newspapers at the time? The squeeky wheel gets the grease.
42.
June 27, 2005, 8:01 PM
re #39 again (regarding Olitski... as example)
The sort of work he does, in principle, is largely incompatible with the system as it now operates, and is therefore seen as alien by it, if not threatening.
Work seen as threatening is NOT ignored.
The system wants, runs and depends on a very different sort of product, which
is much more readily procured and easily replaced when it's no longer the hot new thing.
Like, what's in fashion?
The system is not primarily interested in creating a market for the best work, but in finding what will be most marketable, regardless of quality. Low standards, obviously, mean greater sales.
Well, finding out what will be the most marketable doesn't exclude quality. The issue revolves around the fashionable. There will be one or two "quality" practioners defining the fashion, and a slew of knockoff's usually of lesser quality. I don't think the marketplace is specifically selecting lesser quality to promote because it will mean greater sales but because that's all there is.
43.
June 27, 2005, 8:06 PM
Franklin, we would develop indentifiable point-deserving characteristics for the face plant in no time at all.
George, I sent an email to the Herald and I suspect Tony Goldman's organization tried their best too, because i noticed there was a short writeup about the opening party sometime afterwards in some "what's happening" column. It had nothing to do with the art, just a "who was there' type thing.
44.
June 27, 2005, 8:08 PM
Tyler Green has this to say, "American landscape painting has long been about stasis, about sitting and enjoying a pretty scene. Americans do not sit and look at pretty scenes anymore."
45.
June 27, 2005, 8:18 PM
George, I thinking you are operating with an older model of how the art business works.
50 years ago work that was threatening was fought tooth and nail, not avoided. Back then the basic terms, the "rules of the game" were basically agreed upon. Newer, better art was a visible challenge, like a better baseball team, and the challenge had to be met.
It is now different. Now, if the better baseball team shows up, they say "sorry, we have our own game that doesn't depend on all that comopetetive stuff, who wins and who loses, and all that animosity and turmoil and nasty umpires. In our new game everyone is a winner. so just take your game and go home".
I know this is torturing an analogy, but something like that is happening. We have come to the point were we really do not need good art anymore. The market, all of it, does just fine without it. Those "quality" practitioners you invoke do not have to be very good artists, just someone who provides a new twist on the same old stuff with a lot of energy and drama - Damien Hirst, if you will.
Good art is in danger of beco0ming obsolete.
46.
June 27, 2005, 8:22 PM
George, to say that Landscape painting is "about stasis" is just fauous. Landscape is merely a method for making art, which will be either good or bad. I'm an American, and I "sit and look at pretty pictures", if that is what they must be called. I don't need Tyler Green to tell me what I do.
47.
June 27, 2005, 8:27 PM
The word is "fatuous". Sorry.
48.
June 27, 2005, 8:29 PM
I agree with Oldpro. I'm afraid Mr. Green presumes too much.
49.
June 27, 2005, 9:37 PM
Well that was a tepid response to the statement "...about sitting and enjoying a pretty scene. Americans do not sit and look at pretty scenes anymore."
You have it here in print Americans do not sit and look at pretty scenes anymore. what he is really saying is Americans do not look anymore.
What the hell is he talking about? How fast do I have to look at A to be correct? If I look really fast, maybe just blink, will I get it all? Maybe it's because someone grew up on paintings with just one or two slabs color on whitebread One quick eyeshot AND YOU GOT IT, yeh baby, lets go for Sushi. No time to contemplate, I've got to urinate.
Please spare me this kind of glib gab
50.
June 27, 2005, 9:41 PM
Con A Sewer Ship
51.
June 27, 2005, 9:53 PM
I should add to #40 above: don't make yourself dislike anything, either. That's even worse.
52.
June 27, 2005, 9:57 PM
George, you're taking Mr. Green too seriously, as he no doubt takes himself. He is, relatively speaking, a star in the world of art blogging, what with being carried by ArtsJournal and all. He's in with the "in" crowd, and means to be, and must be to be somebody with that crowd. It's apparently gone to his head, that's all. Nobody has to buy a word he says.
53.
June 27, 2005, 10:11 PM
Too seriously? This is the very issue you are all complaining about. He is giving the viewer a way to slide, to not look. As a sentence it was quite out of place in the remarks. He did speak about the work in a way which suggested he really did look and I mean this positivly.
But the one sentence is the issue because it infers that it is hip to glance, which undermines the role of connoisseurship, of informed and discriminating taste, among the viewers.
54.
June 27, 2005, 10:26 PM
In my world of making paintings, I spend more time looking than painting.
55.
June 27, 2005, 11:01 PM
George, again, consider the source. I can't get excited about what this guy says. If anything, he's a symptom, and while he may not be helping, he's hardly a chief culprit. The problem was very well established and entrenched before he got his gig on ArtsJournal. Even now, we're hardly talking a new Geenberg--and it doesn't matter what you think of Greenberg; I'm talking about credibility and importance, at least perceived importance. Green is hip and glib and connected to what's "happening," but do you really think he's a tastemaker? Even I give the flocks of sheep out there a bit more credit than that (but perhaps I'm being too kind, at least temporarily).
56.
June 27, 2005, 11:19 PM
Well, It was a copy&paste screw up and I didn't realize it until the click.
I meant to say connoisseurship as informed and discriminating perception, not taste.
Nobody is exempt. If you make retinal art, it is about perception. Painting has an elaborate and continuous history which is about our perception of our world. It is the kind of perception which is acquired over time and in my world, it is the responsibility of the critic to help the viewer acquire this perception. If you are a painter, you can't just toss this off with a "consider the source" or "the market does just fine without it" or whatever. You can't.
The problem was very well established and entrenched before, so I am just to go along with it?
...work that was threatening was fought tooth and nail, yeh it sucks, let's go to Fannies and have a beer. Sob, s. o. b. s. o. s. ...---...
What the hell, Low Standards Rule and All my Base Belong to You.
57.
June 27, 2005, 11:55 PM
Inasmuch as i tend to agree with both you guys, I can only conclude you are arguing at cross purposes.
58.
June 28, 2005, 12:04 AM
Spoken politely...
I'm not taking exception to either of you. In this context it may appear that way because I reference a prior comment. To the contrary, I requote the comment to take it farther. I happen to like Tyler Green and my criticisms exist only to further my point that the viewing audience needs to be elevated to a higher level of perception, to a higher level of connoisseurship. If you are a painter, a retinal artist, then you only need look around to see how the other philosophical scent marks exist to extend their domain. There is no free lunch, I'll fight for what's right.
59.
June 28, 2005, 12:28 AM
Keep on fighting, George. I think Jacks's disagreement is more in the style than the substance.
60.
June 28, 2005, 1:07 AM
Far be it from me, George, to talk you out of righteous indignation over a glib pronouncement from someone who may present himself as a critic, and may be accepted as such, but whose opinions have absolutely no bearing on mine. He is far too slick for my taste, and evidently rather pleased with his slickness, as no doubt his audience is. I am not part of his audience, and I just can't take him anywhere near as seriously as you appear to, possibly because you had a reasonably good opinion of him and are now disappointed. I would suggest, presumptuously or not, that you give your affections less freely, or that you ask for more in return.
61.
June 28, 2005, 1:33 AM
... from someone who may present himself as a critic
He is and I don't want his opinions to be the same as yours. I have no disappointment with Tyler as I have no affection with any ctitic. As a painter, I respect any other painter who stayed with the struggle over a lifetime. At the same time, I respect, respect, not necessarily agree with, anyone who expresses his love of art with words. The "global we" doesn't agree on what we call quality which is as it should be. Take any painter and ask him/her about the struggle, the vagaries of the solution and the difficulty of describing it with words.
I have no problem with Tyler. Raise the bar.
62.
June 28, 2005, 1:49 AM
Well, George, I'll leave Mr. Green to you, then. I do not choose to bother with him (I did, briefly, but it was not a profitable contact). You keep track of his pronouncements and praise or complain as you see fit, even if I think your attention would be better bestowed elsewhere.
63.
June 28, 2005, 1:49 AM
Well, now i really am confused, George. "I have no problem with Tyler"?
I must have a real problem with reading comprehension.
64.
June 28, 2005, 2:07 AM
Op. My issue was with his statement "...about sitting and enjoying a pretty scene. Americans do not sit and look at pretty scenes anymore." For me, it is about the climate which fosters this, not specifically Tyler Green as a product of his time.
65.
June 28, 2005, 2:59 AM
Ok, but somehow, when someone says something vacuous, smug and foolish, I have an irresistible urge to hold them responsible for it.
1.
George
June 24, 2005, 4:37 PM
and they constituted an important early influence on my development as an artist To some extent this is partly what I'm referring to regarding the way photography (and its descendants) changed the landscape.
This is the frontispiece from one of my favorite books as a kid. A long way from D&D