Why these strong opinions?

[cheesepaws]

Originally Posted by GlennT

What I am not "getting" is what has not been given and is therefore missing.

You are still assuming that something is (or should be) intended for you to get. It can't be missing if it was never intended for you to get in the first place.

Also, cherry picking my remarks to comment on me rather than the ideas I am suggesting is a bit of a thin way to build an arguement. For example, I pointed out that I felt none of the sculptors I had listed on another thread "mock current culture, and are full of self-loathing". Your response of "Yep. We are reaching an understanding" is obviously meant to build off the mockery from earlier in the post. If you disagree, please give me some examples of work that you feel embody these negative attributes. Then we can debate. Otherwise we are in an is so/is not spiral.

Lastly, to facilitate discussion, it is helpful for you not to put your comments directly into the bit you are quoting. It makes it harder to dig them out for response.

I have no wish to convince anyone to like what I like, but I think your original post raises some interesting ideas that are relevant to much going on in sculpure today ...as well as just a fun topic. Hopefully you will take any comments I make as non-hostile.

[GlennT]

First, let me point out that my putting comment in between lines of a large quote is only done because I don't know how technically to isolate several different quotes onto the same page of a reply. If someone would advise me on how to do that, it would make it easier for me to write and for others to read.

My " yep, we are reaching an understanding" line was apparently based on a misunderstanding of what you wrote. When you wrote that none of the sculptors on your list emmulated the values I had mentioned, I thought you were referring to the fact that they are devoid of the positive traits that I look for in sculpture. I thought that in a moment of candor you were agreeing with my premise, though perhaps from your perspective it was a good thing for the works to lack a message of inspiration or striving for something positive.

For the sake of clarity I may review the sculptures on your list again and be more specific in my critique, pointing out the mockery and self-loathing attributes. I really don't look forward to doing that because it would mean having to look at them again. I don't mean that as an insult, its just honestly hard for me to look at many of them, like being stuck in a bad movie, or more accurately probably, like a bad acid trip.

Again, for you, it is a sign of success of a work when it attacks ones sensative nature and causes a strong negative reaction. As this thread has proclaimed, I look at art differently. I don't want to have to fight with it, I would prefer to love it, because it was born of love from the artist's heart.

[evaldart]

I'm with Crofton. I have been consistently and uniquely moved by Pollocks and Rothkos since my early twenties, I visit them whenever I can (the chapel at the Menil changed my life...and Evaldart don't go for chapels). It was such a joy this year to finally get to the newly renovated MOMA and reconnect with those paintings after five or so years.
Most abstract expressionists were lame - lost flounderers - and some of them got famous.

When you look back you can understand that great Art was great not because of its contributions or agreeances to the culture that claimed it; it is good because it stood out, separated itself, challenged, or ignored altogether that culture. Culture would claim all the good for itself - when actually, anything exceptional was actually done DESPITE that culture. Culture has bogged-down real art throughout history. Imagine how strong you have to be to make something unfathomable against all that damn culture around you. Whew!

[cheesepaws]

Originally Posted by evaldart

When you look back you can understand that great Art was great not because of its contributions or agreeances to the culture that claimed it; it is good because it stood out, separated itself, challenged, or ignored altogether that culture. Culture would claim all the good for itself - when actually, anything exceptional was actually done DESPITE that culture. Culture has bogged-down real art throughout history. Imagine how strong you have to be to make something unfathomable against all that damn culture around you. Whew!

Well put!

[GlennT]

In the age of Pericles, which great artist did their standout work by ignoring the culture of its time?

[Ries]

We will never know, as 99% of that art never survived, and we have no real way of attributing what did survive to individual artists.

[StevenW]

Well, right Ries, but aside from survivability I'm not sure ignored is the right word Glenn chose. Certainly any artist in any culture of any age will be bound by their own limited knowledge of anything outside of their experience. It's quite true that artists have gone against the grain, but that's different than sayng "up yours" to convention and it does seem that this is the case more often than not these days.. Michelangelo and full genatilia etc is going against the grain of culture without saying fuck you mr pope... I do tend to lean with Glenn in that sculpture should aspire to be more than some god aweful-group of naked poser-like manniquins.

I'd post a picture of the 300 lb shower pan I just ripped out of my bathroom and call it "don't piss on me and tell me its raining" and see if I could finally make the top-10 list, but I'm just too damn tired...

[cooljamesx1]

as a viewer its a huge burden on an artwork to expect it to represent you....I like it when sculptures don't seem to care what I think of them...its an elementary school psychology kind of thing. what were we talking about?

[chris 71]

hey cheesepaws me again i was trying to not say anything and i am not trying to insult you or any thing but i wanted to ask you or anybody elles that could try and explain and i did read a bit about what these artist are trying to express or get across in there art work but i want to know why they are held in such high regard by some people and get in to these prestigious galleries and i would like to know what you find so great in some of there work like what you personally like about it like this one that is supposed to have somthing to do with feminist stuff but does that make it a good peice of art
http://www.timeout.com/newyork/resiz...rt.benglis.jpg
or this one which is supposed to be about the inner workings of the human machine and our squmishness about it but does this make it great art
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgur...icial%26sa%3DN
or how about this which i dont have a clue what it is supposed to be or say
http://www-tc.pbs.org/art21/slidesho...-002.jpg?Log=0
or why this is so good
http://www.comune.modena.it/galleria...ch/fritsch.jpg
or what about theses mutant maniquins
http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/assets.../3451/bild.jpg
and there was lots of other stuff i did not like but i will say there was a couple things i thought were interesting but i really would like to here why some of these guys are your favorites i would think that if i said these were some of my favariotes i would just be being a follower and not really now why i was likeing them other than because some one elles says there great. again i am just trying to understand art and i think i read you were a art teacher so would you teach me thanks chris

[grommet]

Chris,
I enjoyed your links. The umbrellas were a bit boring, but the rest I could get into. All had a pleasing form or composition, attention to color, could have a variety of interpretations, and in general felt like a cohesive piece. They did not have the opressive weightiness of "tradition", yet were aware of traditional design principles. They make you say "hmmm...". They engage and don't rely on your obedience to tradition (stop fidgeting and pay attention)as part of their draw.
I'm not cheesepaws, but I'm not asking permission to speak, I'm just giving my two cents whether you want it or not.
There's art for everyone, luckily, and it does not have to be the same piece.

[chris 71]

ok well thats what i was looking for some explantion like that thanks grommet

[grommet]

de nada

[cheesepaws]

Hey Chris

I am looking forward to offering up some reasoning behind my attraction to the artists on "the list". Unfortunately I am in the middle of a huge computer crisis. The one I am on now is impossibly slow. I will do my best to add my two-cents as soon as possible.

Cheers!

[sculptor]

Originally Posted by GlennT

...
The modern works that I am at best indifferent to, and more likely to be disgusted with, are bothersome because they mock or attack the culture and civilization in which we live. ...
GlennT____________________________

What I refer to as the "art" of alienation

always reminds me of spoiled obnoxious children

Once when in a museum in Quito, I walked a wall length painting the faces in which were made intentionally ugly by the painter.
I said "lets get outa here, i've seen enough of this crap"
Which led to a long discussion with my son (the lawyer), started by his claiming that I knew nothing about art...
maybe
maybe not
I feel that art has a responsibility beyond itself
and that the people currently in the world are alienated enough
so that responsibility of art should be one of uplifting the spirit
and not one of emphasizing the ugliness of the culture and focusing on people who are inherently mean and dishonest.

for me, it matters little if the art is sculpture, painting, or music
modern or classical
if the art embodies beauty, I love it
if it embodies ugliness, i don't

....
grommet-rick nelson--"you can't please everyone, you've got to please yourself"
nice reference

[grommet]

....

grommet-rick nelson--"you can't please everyone, you've got to please yourself"
nice reference

Thanks. I don't always know if people are paying attention.

In regard to this obligation stuff with art. Certainly you can pose questions and puzzles to yourself or for others, but you can't always dictate where your hands/heart/ soul will lead you. Is that so wrong? Why isn't "that's what came out of me today" a good enough reason for something existing? You don't have to like it. It may in fact speak to someone else. I don't think that speaking from your heart instead of to lofty thought makes something less valid, I think it's MORE valid. I think it's potentially the difference between a job and a passion. The difference between a statue and a sculpture...

[chris 71]

if nothing really matters about art and what you make or why. then why do people go to school for long peiords to study it if nothing matters.

[chris 71]

i think i just relized something with my last post if you wanted to be a doctor you have to go to school same thing if you want to be a lawyer or mechanic or cop or almost anything but you dont have to go to school to be a artist so i geuss it really doesnt matter although i geuss it looks good on a resume or portfolio and you could become a teacher of art but besides art history i wonder what you would teach

[grommet]

Chris,
I, for one, never said nothing matters. I learned a lot about how to learn about art in school, if not actually the mechanics of producing a specific object. There's only so much time in a day. Every bit adds to the artist's vocabulary. limited education, autodidact or otherwise is potentially a limited vocabulary. you can teach yourself dentistry too, but how good will you be? not very without lots of practice or an innate sense.
I have produced things for and at the request of others for long periods of time. What I learned from that is that it's a poor way to live your life if you have more than that to give. There must be things you do for yourself & damn posterity, responsibility and the culture of it all. It's the stuff of your heart, with your hair let down & the proper oxfords off. All that you've learned, and more, is used to produce the work

[chris 71]

hey grommet i agree with you about just making whats in your heart. and what i say isint directed at you i think you are saying very good things. but i really think the type of art that i posted links to is just done for bad reasons not from there heart not just what came out of them that day. but more like they are trying to desturbe. .

[chris 71]

i only wanted to know if there was a reason why it is good in art tearms which i really dont know much about and was hoping someone who went to art school could explain more than just well i like this and you like that

[grommet]

I have a BFA from a private art college-- does that count?

[chris 71]

yes and you did tell me why you thought you could get into them for a minute i thought you were jokeing

All had a pleasing form or composition, attention to color, could have a variety of interpretations, and in general felt like a cohesive piece. They did not have the opressive weightiness of "tradition", yet were aware of traditional design principles. They make you say "hmmm...". They engage and don't rely on your obedience to tradition (stop fidgeting and pay attention)as part of their draw.

this is kinda what i wanted to here what was good about them. but i geuss i dont understand because i dont have a degree and they still look like bad art to me that does not desevere the attention that it gets even though i am contribriuting to it

[GlennT]

The work that "just comes out of me that day" and is "speaking from the heart" is mosre than likely going to be a good thing if it comes from a person with a good loving heart.

In this thread, the work I was addressing does not seem to be of that type, but rather, a calculated mental energy expended and intented to cause a certain reaction. In fact, it is bothersome to me because it feels totally devoid of heart, and from a deeply cynical mindset. Some of it seems like immature game playing..."let's see if we can shock 'em with this one".

There was one artist among that group I recall who did some neat things with bridges when he put aside the gamesmanship, nothing spectacular or revelatory to me, but just having fun with construction, which I thought was a good thing. It is not that these artist are incapable of doing good works, just that to get noticed, or for whatever other reasons, they produce gimmicks instead of art. I think they should listen to grommet and work from the heart instead.

[grommet]

Originally Posted by chris 71

yes and you did tell me why you thought you could get into them for a minute i thought you were jokeing

All had a pleasing form or composition, attention to color, could have a variety of interpretations, and in general felt like a cohesive piece. They did not have the opressive weightiness of "tradition", yet were aware of traditional design principles. They make you say "hmmm...". They engage and don't rely on your obedience to tradition (stop fidgeting and pay attention)as part of their draw.

this is kinda what i wanted to here what was good about them. but i geuss i dont understand because i dont have a degree and they still look like bad art to me that does not desevere the attention that it gets even though i am contribriuting to it

If there's something specific that you don't get, I'd be happy to expound ad nauseum in layman's terms. Keep in mind it's only one grommet's opinion.

[chris 71]

i am wondering were is chessepaws