Art With a Capital F

I loved the Joseph the Carpenter, and it was just as I remembered it in my mind.

Thank you, Mr. Wizard and Osso, and all.

Problems here...................................................................

i don't agree with you, lightwizard. i think it's healthy to challenge art conventions, and art historians, for that matter. it's not sour grapes.

Gala, I have expressed in these threads reservations about the role of art historians and critics, so I am not one to blindly support the art establishment--or any institution.
Nevertheless, I agree with Lightwizard's suspicion of those who attempt to debunk a Motherwell, or even a Duchamp--as I've attempted recently. Those at the top are the best targets for the frustrated who would be at the top. There is, I suppose, a strong but subtle difference between expressing one's personal reservations regarding an artist or school of thought and the pretension of "debunking" them, as if they have been exposed for some fraudulence. I can see how some people might not make sense of Motherwell's work. But as one who passionately responds to it, I sense a stark difference between those who don't yet respond to it and those who claim there is nothing to respond to. The latter are, frequently, the so-called sour grape debunkers.

i don't think my professor was attempting to debunk Motherwell-- he challenged him. that's not debunking. and, i never doubted duchamp's genius, as a matter of fact, i think he had it right.

Setanta, I think it was, connected me with a mural called Still Born Knowledge. Diego Riviera? The whole idea was that many ivory tower folks tend to deliver "dead babies from dead mothers" ...and the implication is that academics are trying to justify something that is dead at birth. Gruesome, but strong, it was.

diego rivera, now there was an artist. i travelled to detroit, detroit, i tell you, just to see his murals.

another thing about the ivory tower types, they're hired because their veiws fit with the institution. i don't really think art can be taught-- sure, the fundamentals of drawing, line, space, perspective, etc. can be introduced and the student can learn from that, but after those basics are taught, it's up to the individual to take what they've learned and make it their own.

a teacher can only offer their own experience and knowledge as a guide-- their views are not dogma.

Yes, Gala. That would be Rivera. Detroit? Upon my word. Last night I dreamed that I was in DEtroit city.lol.

The first thing that I learned when I was in grad school was to psych out the professor. Had to take one class in experimental psychology. The prof had a terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE stutter. He got hung up on one word, and I finished it out for him. I swear to this day, that's why I only got a B+. I guess I was more interested in applied science as opposed to experimental science.

letty, i know gertrude stein said something about berkely california like "there is no there, there." that applies to detroit a well.

geez, i wonder what detroit city means to you that you would have a dream about it? those murals, though, were amazing. i'm not a particularly religious person but standing in front of those paintings i felt the presence of something other wordly.

i'm a little confused about psyching out the professor part though.

Art historians and critics have credentials that should be taken into consideration -- they don't form their opinions in a vacuum. It doesn't mean because they overwhelmingly laud an artist who has also developed a respectable collector market that anyone is compelled to love the work. The dissent can be for someone's own satisfaction but it isn't going to change one iota where the artist is placed in art history. If one is talking about some high society head who thinks they know about art and indulge in the virtually unintellible artspeak of elitist dunderheads, I can agree. As with almost everything, one has to consider the source.

Motherwell's : "Elegy to the Spanish Republic" series of canvases were on tour years back and came to the L.A. County Museum I believe. I know I did attend the exhibit and the paintings in their full scale were stunningly composed. He explored two-dimensional forms and used negative space as very effective tension within the picture plane. His works wasn't as architectual as Frank Kline but he made visually bold statements that have some really profound meaning. Those who don't have an abstract eye won't get it -- maybe like body type, it's just to be expected that we are all different.

I have changed over time to be moved by a lot more kinds of painting and sculpture than I started out liking. I've railed against some conceptual and process art, but while I rail, I've accepted a lot of the premise of how those can be exciting art, while often boring me silly. I am particularly crabby about landscape art installations, as some here know. But Diller and Scofidio interest me, for example, in some blend of installation and concept.

My own work is rather ordinary and old fashioned.

I am a little troubled by a sense here that anyone who wants to learn from and convey the intricacies of art history both past and present is somehow at least an associate-elite-academic who should let go and enjoy plain and accessible. Do people not get to understand complicated aesthetic matters and comment on them?

Yet I agree that some teachers close out all but their own pet way of being.

People from the abuzz studio and other threads may grin, since I used to whine about the heavy art historian points of view, at least in those beginning threads. I was surrounded by everyone entirely more knowledgeable than I.

Well, I am an odd duck, I've had thirty or forty studio art classes over a batch of years in the early seventies, and have picked up what art history I know by a class or two, but mostly by reading and looking. In landscape architecture training, I had a lot of immersion in the latest (at the time) conceptual work going on in the field, and actually do rather practical design work. I had teachers that many disliked for elitism, and I did well with and liked them, and teachers who sought me out and have associated with me as occasional design partner.

There was one fellow in particular that people very nearly hated. The class after mine who had him mutineed. I guess he could be described as a snot, but maybe being older (I started landarch at 40) I understood where some of it was coming from. He was an ex good catholic boy trying to be both perfect and cool (something I relate to).

Years later he married another landscape architect and she straightened him out, that it was time he softened up and opened up, or at least I heard that is what she did. At this point he is probably a superb teacher, having both great wit and savvy and now finally room for non perfection, even nonsavvyness, and a sense of letting his own frailty be okay.

People are on a continuum of learning, not all a straight line, and I wish we, not just in art, but everywhere, would leave room for the vagaries of that.

Orozco--It was Orozco who did the mural Still Born Knowledge. And of all people, Hiama, a Brit, clued me in.

I'll explain about psych out tomorrow.

I don't think your work is ordinary or old fashioned. You do what you aim to do (as i understand it) in catching a real spirit of place.

I like that second comment and agree totally, you never stop learning - or shouldn't. 'Difficult' art/literature often takes time and experience to appreciate - maybe never like, but learn to appreciate and respect. Like any other skill or talent it deepens with practice and study. You don't understand all the subtle complexities of music or literature in one go as a newcomer any more than you can with art.

well, i'm glad osso said something along the lines of what i was thinking.

Motherwell's prominence in the art world, his discoveries, his skill and all the fancy words used to describe his accomplishments does not mean he will be a good teacher.

my professor is a reasonable guy. while at Yale, Motherwell ripped into him because he wasn't painting like Motherwell.

yes, there are some students who can beautifully and skillfully mimic thier teachers-- and then there are those who cannot.

but mimicking your teachers isn't being true to yourself - which i think is essential (and you obviously do too)

and as a teacher i also think it is essential - i want my classes to be a group of real individuals with their own unique ways of working

I watched a show last night with an actor who
was describing his youthful employment as
a musician. His band had opened for a big name group and he asked the leader of that group what he thought his musical talents.

The leader replied, "Well although you got
a standing ovation, all you did the was a song from Beachboys, the Stones, the Beatles etc. Those groups can all do their songs better than you. What do YOU do? "

A teacher that can bring out the authentic voice
of a student is a maestro.

Here are some links on Diller and Scofidio, who I appreciate for their conceptual art + architecture.

an overview

the Blur Building

Joseph Giovannini review of show, mentions Duchamp

description/project at JFK airport

I've never been completely comfortable with well known, successful artists teaching art. I've had classes with two who were reasonably well known at the time on the West Coast. One of them is now in museums and very well known world wide. Any teacher who tries to imply their style of painting on a student is not a good art teacher. If art students are successful at learning technique, composition, color sense, et al, then they should develop their own style from their own consciousness and subconciousness. I could believe Motherwell would criticize an art student for painting in a dated representational style and he would be subjectively right. If someone wants to paint objective, figurative, or subjective paintings for a decorative market and more universal audience and is not tuned into producing anything avant garde, that's what they should paint. The chances that they will make some money of their work is much better, especially if they aren't really good enough to produce cutting edge art beyond the confines of academic art. It's extremely hard to impress the seasoned art collector.

I don't think all studio art is directed at a market, is it, even academic painting? or at being in prime collections?

I don't think all roads in painting have been fully explored before, though I agree many seem quite tried and tired - with a cut off at avant garde where new exploration can happen.

What I am getting at is, sure, much objective painting is dated, much abstract painting is dated, and what is happening right now is going to be dated soon, really already is. I think coherent rather idiosyncratic possibly lifelong explorations are of interest, and that schooling just gives you the tools. Sometimes the results will be valuable to someone.

Ah, but I am one of those people that doesn't think college is
all a career based matter.

Well, there is dated and the there's really dated. Not to mention prosaic. There's art that belongs on a canvas, then there's art that belongs on a dinner plate. Kinkade (oh, no, not again) in a world of sanity would have ended up on tin boxes of chocolates. Painting in a very traditional style is not in itself a condemnation that the art is decorator art and not serious art. I saw an artist a few years ago at a distinquished LA gallery who was painting landscapes and cityscapes of the area, many of them looking out of a window. It was not prosaic, decorator art. It had impact and it was difficult understanding why except most obviously the unique perspectives.

Lightwizard- I have a famous professor, Michael Ray Charles (does new versions of "Sambo" images) who is very successful (David Bowie buys from him! & he had a tv series on him.) He seems to think he doesn't impose his style on students, yet he requires them to do 10 paintings per semester ("no matter what style.") Of course, everyone in the class ends up having to do small, quick, generalized paintings that are supposed to have deep meaning (hmm... Kind of like the reuse of Sambo images...)

And as for Kincade - he's not a good artist. He's a crummy artist. However, what many artists fail to see is his appeal: his work is great for decorating houses. He is a clever designer, and has mass appeal - especially to female-run middle america type households. His work is light, cheery, calming, and doesn't demand attention. It makes the perfect non-controversial pleasant couch backdrop (think: Saturday Evening Post.) Even people who may love "The Scream" (for example) and have good taste in art might want something relaxing, cheery, pleasant, and non-demanding on their wall space. Think about it.