Conditions for vigorous, innovative art ambience ?

Maybe its because your only looking in galleries. The days of the paintbrush and the mallet are gone like the wagon wheel. Most of the output in college art departments is in digital format.
In my science, in the early 1970's, when I was in Grad school, there were a whole lot of famous geologists that just decided to quit and retire instead of taking up the new cult of continental drift and plate tectonic driven structural work. I have a feeling that the old guard artists (in the paint and sculptural media) should remain to give ideas on what to do with all the computing power available to kids. Everybody can now paint like Rembrandt, as long as they can handle Photoshop or Paintshop and clip art, except they havent a clue what creativity even means.

Were letting our mesozoic backgrounds show.

I have a feeling that Farmerman's feeling that just about anyone can create to Rembrandt's level "as long as they can handle Photoshop or Paintshop...
etc." is part of the effect that a dying art ambience has on the minds, eyes and attitudes of the public.
If this is so, then the contemporary viewer of art must be blind. There is a sensual difference in the output of a computer from the hand of the artist...therein lies a huge spiritual vacuum.
No Farmerman, if you had read and thought about what I said carefully, you would realize that I touched upon far more than galleries. I touched upon art schools and museums and the art press...I could have gone further than that...into the education of the public in the public schools, which has stripped art and music from the common curriculum.
I don't quite understand why you think that all artists should jump into computers. Many many artists have become engrossed with computer art, but there has been nothing to equal the quality of a Rembrandt...unless the viewer is blind.

Heck, I can dowload a Rembrandt, scan its attributes , mess with the color pallette, distort i9t, punch it and prod it and Bingo, instant art. I dont need no steenkeng education.
Listen, Im not trying to rub salt but I actually hear this crap all the time. Photoshop has a feature called "watercolor" which allows us to take a photo and mess with the "focus" and pallette, so that it becomes an erzats EDward Hopper. I can make an El Greco out of a photo by adjusting the coordinates and layers.

Im taking this position because there are many artists out there and theyre part of whats being sold as the "tsunami" effect of art schools as mere trade schools.
However, the computer graphics and fine arts programs at many universities and Art SChools have almost reinstated an "apprenticeship" program by engaging kids in the technology of graphics generated by machine. Ithink that sampling in music has done a similar thing in the audio.

ME personally, I feel that art(painting) hit the wall about 40 years ago. The public was sequestered from the artists by some artificial "priesthood" . When the act of painting was understood to be as important as the product of the effort, I no longer saw a point. After all whats "good"? One of my early instructors as a kid in PA was a "colorist" named William Baziotes. I saw nothing in his work that stimulated me like some of my illustration teachers. Yet Baziotes was a minor celebrity (and allaround lousy teacher). He saw that creating little clones of himself was the creation of a new generation of masters. (To me it was like taking painting lessons from that Afro headed guy on tv Bob Ross).
For me, I find the "cutting edge" of a lot of art nowadays is in animation and specifically in games . Games manufacturers have always looked at hiring the best and most talented art students and have taught them computer skills. They havent gone after the computer graphics crowd and then tried to teach them art skills.
Of course this is all my total bullshit opinion. Ya can take shots at this as much as you wish, Im glad theres a new art thread on the board.

What can anybody say to the Farmermans of the world who "do not need a steenkeeng education'?
If you have never made love to a woman, you cannot possibly write a poem about it....but
eureka! Farmerman can...with the help of Yahoo.

yes but I have more degrees than a compass including a BFA which I did "for fun". Brush up on your reading skills you need to understand the concept of "sarcasm"

Farmerman says, "ME personally, I feel that art(painting) hit the wall about 40 years ago. The public was sequestered from the artists by some artificial "priesthood" .

It seems to me that both the audience and the artist
are becoming more and more removed from the process of art through the use of increasingly abstract materials.

Just as the tools at our disposal become more abstract....i.e. the mouse instead of the pencil,
the www instead of our own sketches, so we become more and more removed from the art object original. It is replicated, reproduced, appropriated, created on a computer screen etcetera.

In this distance, I suspect our appreciation for
the actual art object diminishes. Yes, for an
unsustained period of time we can appreciate awesome graphics, or a computer generated image, but I suspect these will not be the art objects which become the symbols of our time.

I am about as moved or impressed by digitally produced "art" work as I am by the skills of a juggler--amazing but insignificant. Farmer, T. Stamos and W. Baziotes (as well as Hoffman, deKooning and many others of the 1940s and 50s) have produced work that does not so much amaze but move me deeply.
I agree totally with Florence's statement that "There is a sensual difference in the output of a computer from the hand of the artist...therein lies a huge spiritual vacuum." The "accidents" and "spills" in the work of a Matisse or Diebenkorn reflect the 'human touch," which is, perhaps, the spiritual component of the act of painting.
I feel the same regarding the playing of string quartet by Haydn on a synthesizer. Something vital missing.

An interesting point you make, goodstein.

I'm not so sure it's a decline of creativity among artists, more so, I believe technology has pulled those who are more organically inclined to pick up a real brush, or pen, or pencil into the technological morass.

Perhaps that is the definition of the decline of creativity. However, I'm always happier to stand in front of a painting and reflect upon it then I am to be wowed by high-end graphics. And, this is the minority view.

The reality is, long before there were computer graphics the majority of the world didn't know Jack S*** about art, nor did they care very much.

Dont you think that, somewhere in the vaccum of space(wherever artists spirits go) Guys like Diebenkorn, and Albers,Pollock, and BAsquiat, are having a big laugh? (Id like to inure a sense of passion ABOUT various work, sort of the stuff we used to get from 400 over at afuzz0

Ive never bought into the concept of the Giant accident that created the genius of Frankenthaler (for example) Her work is, for the most part, the greasy smudges of a hoagie wrapper smeared with some sauce. Many artists produce stuff like this and we always spiral down into a "grateful appreciation" of the mastery of their works.
Whatever happened to skill and hard work? Mastery of craft ?

I made up my mind quite early when Baziotes would come in to class, drunk as a skunk,(I was about 14 and on a scholarship to the Phila Academy at the time and was there with students going for MFAs)
They would circle around him and swoon over the
"many subleties that one can achieve with the many values of BROWN)
One of his paintings he did in class was a really gin produced POS that now hangs in a Public Museum in the city of Reading Pa.. As I said, I gave up my art for science for many years and came back to it after re-seeing some watercolors of Hopper and Wyeth and viewing some of the Lancaster scenes by Demuth (There I was , growing up in his home town and my original art teachers in HS didnt have a clue). I believe in painterly "accidents" that can only be achieved in watercolors, wet on wet oils, and pastels. Seeing some of these one wouldnt have to have training to understand that something of greatness was going on . Since these opinions of mine are deeply held, Im willing to argue loudly, but it will always be in fun, I wont take personal ****. SO, I realize Ive speculated about the greatness of some artists ( Ive omitted some like deKooning {there was something going on there}) So, when we abutt, remember we must be specific.
PS, Is Florence Vivien or goodtein-shapiros name, I dont know . Is that the same Florence who was on abuzz?

What really glares at me from Farmerman's inability to distinguish the spiritual from the non spiritual is his fear of getting too close, of coming to grips with reality. He has a big big swagger, an arrogance of globs of artistic references and vocabulary...but doesn't really look too closely at any of the stuff he throws out. But throws it out, he does.
On my part, I would like to see the artist that can deal with the ambience of our present age with the tools of our present age, and also, with the passion and the sensuality of life ( as artists in the past have dealt). Unfortunately, that artist has not made his appearance, despite the presence of many fine artists on the scene. Is it possible for such an artist to appear? Or are the possibility of such an appearance too weak for the carbon monoxide of
the world we live in?

So my honest opinions are to be a subject of ridicule and dismissal. HMMMM. Theres an open mind that artists are supposed to possess. What'd I say thats got yer anklets in a roll? Maybe you have something to say, maybe not. I at least listen.

I wonder, Florence, formerly of ABUZZ fame, if it is a matter of decline in creativity (as ability) or a collapse of the ambience needed for the encouragement of creative investment. How many people were inspired to explore their creative possibilities at the height of that idiot, Warhol? The industry has too great an influence. It seems to me that artistic dedication will always be something of a minority activity, as will the audiences who appreciate it. It will not likely be a way to make a living.
Farmer, as you know, I too went from art to (social) science and then back to art--but only when I could afford to do so. I wish I had been able to paint full-time all my life, but THAT would have probably driven me to drink, like Baziotes, deKooning, Pollock, or worse, like Rothko. It takes not only talent and dedication but money or a strong asceticism.
BTW, you are not a swaggerer.

Ms Goodstein-Shapiro says

You write like one of those artists statements that we all do for shows. Mostly BS peppeered with avgue references about classics and a little svcience thrown in to sound profound. I always make mine a bit more "applied" . So it doesnt sound like I work for a poetry magazin

Do I have to throw cold water on you guys?

JL, as you know, Im nothing like what the lady sez, Im a big pussy who works with rocks for a hobby and paints for a living. (So Im the only guy whos supported by his hobby). Im approaching my retirement (56 and Im outta here).
I want to do my art,I envy you and your ability to work at it regularly, and as far as seeing whos out there, I wish we could get vivien so she could put up some of those PRENTICE (SP?) pastels of the skidding skies of Kerry and the Whicklow Mountains. . Theres some good stuff that shows skill and not a little bit of a sense of place.

Actually, I've never seen a worst fight match. I'm sure you and Florence would be great friends if you could both take off the neuromuscular armor.
You are nothing like what she sez, and she is nothing like what you think at this point. But you both seem to be living up to the other's expectations. I hope it at least feels good.

Hee hee. I think Ive become my avatar.

Now that everyone's getting toweled off, I'd like to drop a few words into this thread.

Firstly, I would submit that the digital phenomena has done nothing to diminish the brush and canvas art genre. If anything, it has infused the public with a greater appreciation of the skills and talents of those with the ability to paint competently in either the Realist or Impressionist styles.

Modern art and it's ilk are the real creative cause of any current art depression amongst the onlookers. To an artist, the theory and reasoning behind such works might be rather interesting, perhaps invigorating. To the average Joe Museum-Goer you really only want to see 1 Pollock, or 1 Rothko and then you're done.

Secondly, I made mention of the real creative cause, the main cause of the lull in art appreciation stems from the TV and other media. It's just more entertaining to see a movie or watch a game than go to a museum.

As for where art is heading. . . barring another large-scale spiritual revolution, I really think computer art is the next frontier. Or to further qualify it, Digital Media, both electronic and in Print. This media is extremely versatile, it allows for expression and creativity while not limiting either in size or form, and it's becoming more and more accessible to the masses.

Like I said, fine art will always be a minority matter.