WetCanvas
Home Member Services Content Areas Tools Info Center WC Partners Shop Help
Channels:
Search for:
in:

Welcome to the WetCanvas forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit our help center.

Go Back   WetCanvas > The Think Tank > Creativity
User Name
Password
Register Mark Forums Read

Salute to our Partners
WC! Sponsors

Our Sponsors
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-15-2012, 05:32 PM
Keith Russell's Avatar
Keith Russell Keith Russell is offline
A WC! Legend
Lenexa, Kansas, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 32,661
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jemmett
If it's art it's the essence of the thing itself.

I disagree. As A is A, the essence of a thing, is the thing itself, in toto.
  #32   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-15-2012, 05:33 PM
Keith Russell's Avatar
Keith Russell Keith Russell is offline
A WC! Legend
Lenexa, Kansas, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 32,661
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking55803
I don't think anyone believes we must develop the skill of a Rembrandt before attempting a De Kooning approach to creativity.

And yet, given Rembrandt, why would anyone "settle for" (or "accept") DeKooning?
  #33   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-15-2012, 05:40 PM
jemmett's Avatar
jemmett jemmett is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,208
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Russell
I disagree. As A is A, the essence of a thing, is the thing itself, in toto.

Brancusi said, "What is real is not the external form, but the essence of things... it is impossible for anyone to express anything essentially real by imitating its exterior surface."

Quote:
And yet, given Rembrandt, why would anyone "settle for" (or "accept") DeKooning?

Yet you're comparing apples and oranges.
__________________
Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty? ―Paul Gauguin
http://jwre.wordpress.com/
  #34   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-16-2012, 08:54 AM
stlukesguild's Avatar
stlukesguild stlukesguild is offline
A Local Legend
A large urban setting in the Mid-West
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,928
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Brancusi said, "What is real is not the external form, but the essence of things... it is impossible for anyone to express anything essentially real by imitating its exterior surface."

Such may have been Brancusi's belief... but it doesn't represent some universal truth. Any number of artists would have wholly disagreed with him: Van Eyck, Monet, Courbet, Caravaggio, etc...

given Rembrandt, why would anyone "settle for" (or "accept") DeKooning?

Yet you're comparing apples and oranges.

This is the usual argument... but does it make it true? If I can compare Praxiteles to Rubens to Degas... why can't I compare DeKooning as well? What must be realized is that you do not make comparisons in art starting from an assumption that one artist or one period represents the ideal against which everything else must be measured. Rather, you compare the similarities, the strengths and weaknesses of each, and the stature, innovation, etc... of a given artist within his or her own era and style. I think Keith brings this up in response to another member's earlier suggestion that technical skill was in a way detrimental... less expressive and likely to shut out the viewer. I personally love a well-done, well-rendered and polished painting ala Ingres as much as I admire a painterly canvas ala Monet or Van Gogh. I suspect, however, that the vast majority of those who look down upon highly polished paintings and speak of them as cold or inexpressive simply lack the skills or the discipline to create such themselves.
__________________
Saintlukesguild-http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats
"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."- John Ciardi
  #35   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-16-2012, 10:32 AM
jemmett's Avatar
jemmett jemmett is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,208
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Brancusi said, "What is real is not the external form, but the essence of things...

Such may have been Brancusi's belief... but it doesn't represent some universal truth. Any number of artists would have wholly disagreed with him

I've heard, that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

It seems to be a universal truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
given Rembrandt, why would anyone "settle for" (or "accept") DeKooning?

Yet you're comparing apples and oranges.

This is the usual argument...

I stand by it.
__________________
Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty? ―Paul Gauguin
http://jwre.wordpress.com/
  #36   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-16-2012, 03:54 PM
stlukesguild's Avatar
stlukesguild stlukesguild is offline
A Local Legend
A large urban setting in the Mid-West
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,928
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

This is the usual argument...

I stand by it.

If a work of art is worthy of any serious consideration, it must be able to stand up in comparison to the art of the past... and the future. As the poet and critic, T.S. Eliot well knew, art involves a dialog with the art of the past as much as it involves a dialog with life. Eliot argued this eloquently in his classic essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent:

No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists. You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead. I mean this as a principle of ćsthetic, not merely historical, criticism. The necessity that he shall conform, that he shall cohere, is not one-sided; what happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature, will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. And the poet who is aware of this will be aware of great difficulties and responsibilities.

In a peculiar sense he will be aware also that he must inevitably be judged by the standards of the past. I say judged, not amputated, by them; not judged to be as good as, or worse or better than, the dead; and certainly not judged by the canons of dead critics. It is a judgment, a comparison, in which two things are measured by each other.


In other words, the art of the present will inevitably be judged in comparison to the art of the past... not judged solely by the standards of the past, but judged with recognition that the "meaning"... the interpretation of all art involves a dialog with the art of the past... the eventually the future.

DeKooning does not stand isolated from the whole of art history. Art historians and critics recognize in his works a dialog with the tradition of painterly painting going back especially to Rubens and Hals (the artist's Netherlandish predecessors), Fragonard, Van Gogh, Soutine, etc... His incisive line clearly echoes Ingres, John Graham, and Picasso... while clearly his fragmentation of form owes much to Turner, Impressionism, and Cubism. By the same token, DeKooning will be looked at in comparison with subsequent artists such as Lucian Freud, Cecily Brown, Joan MItchell, and Jenny Saville.
__________________
Saintlukesguild-http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats
"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."- John Ciardi
  #37   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-16-2012, 11:04 PM
jemmett's Avatar
jemmett jemmett is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,208
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Representational and abstract are apples and oranges.
__________________
Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty? ―Paul Gauguin
http://jwre.wordpress.com/

Last edited by jemmett : 04-16-2012 at 11:52 PM.
  #38   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-17-2012, 05:48 PM
saje's Avatar
saje saje is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,306
 
Hails from United Nations
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jemmett
Brancusi said, "What is real is not the external form, but the essence of things... it is impossible for anyone to express anything essentially real by imitating its exterior surface."
totally agreed upon...

truth is in the smile of the beholder!
  #39   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-17-2012, 10:17 PM
stlukesguild's Avatar
stlukesguild stlukesguild is offline
A Local Legend
A large urban setting in the Mid-West
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,928
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Representational and abstract are apples and oranges.

Can't argue with that logic.
__________________
Saintlukesguild-http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty—that is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." - John Keats
"Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."- John Ciardi
  #40   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-18-2012, 12:37 AM
Clive Green's Avatar
Clive Green Clive Green is offline
Lord of the Arts
Otaki , New Zealand
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,932
 
Hails from New Zealand
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Nope, not logical so can't argue with it It's hardly one versus the other, as foolish an assertion as any we come across.

Brancusi may have thought about the essence and even expressed the essence but he did it with real things. His work 'flight' is a prime illustration. Art without artefact or audience is like dancing on your own in a dark room and calling it a performance, an empty gesture. Brancusi's abstractions represent things as do most
__________________
Kia Ora o Aotearoa Feckless and Irresponsible
My blog http://clivegreen.wordpress.com
  #41   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-18-2012, 12:56 AM
jemmett's Avatar
jemmett jemmett is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,208
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
Representational and abstract are apples and oranges.

Can't argue with that logic.

Context:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzie
the question of why some artists choose to create abstracts and others representational or realistic work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking55803
I don't think anyone believes we must develop the skill of a Rembrandt before attempting a De Kooning approach to creativity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Russell
And yet, given Rembrandt, why would anyone "settle for" (or "accept") DeKooning?

In the same way it wouldn't matter a poet is not good at prose.

de Kooning and Rembrandt are both perfect at what they do.
__________________
Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty? ―Paul Gauguin
http://jwre.wordpress.com/
  #42   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-27-2012, 02:14 AM
Keith Russell's Avatar
Keith Russell Keith Russell is offline
A WC! Legend
Lenexa, Kansas, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 32,661
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I personally love a well-done, well-rendered and polished painting ala Ingres as much as I admire a painterly canvas ala Monet or Van Gogh.

I'm probably not going to surprise anyone, but I greatly prefer Ingres, David, Courbet, Van Eyck over Monet, Van Gogh, deKooning, etc.
  #43   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-27-2012, 11:20 AM
jemmett's Avatar
jemmett jemmett is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,208
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Russell

I'm probably not going to surprise anyone, but I greatly prefer Ingres, David, Courbet, Van Eyck over Monet, Van Gogh, deKooning, etc.

I'm sympathetic but cautious, the latter painters are beginners of something new. Art is evolving....
__________________
Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty? ―Paul Gauguin
http://jwre.wordpress.com/

Last edited by jemmett : 04-27-2012 at 11:22 AM.
  #44   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:52 PM
Keith Russell's Avatar
Keith Russell Keith Russell is offline
A WC! Legend
Lenexa, Kansas, USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 32,661
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jemmett
I'm sympathetic but cautious, the latter painters are beginners of something new. Art is evolving....

I disagree; I don't view deKooning as an "evolution"...perhaps a devolution. But then, I don't recognize a teleological direction for art. To eschew certain of the basic fundamentals of art (as nearly every 20C art movement did to some degree or other) isn't [r]evolutionary, and it certainly isn't "progressive".

A great many of the "major" painters of today (Yuskavage, Saville, Nerdrum, Currin, Cotton, Hale, Hirst, Koons, Helnwein, Rosenquist, Murakami, Nara, Richter, Hockney, Theibaud, Katz--even Ofili!) are representational painters, and most of them would be considered "realists".

Abstract Expressionism, indeed most of Modernism in general, may be the dead end its detractors always claimed it was...
  #45   Report Bad Post  
Old 04-27-2012, 10:36 PM
jemmett's Avatar
jemmett jemmett is offline
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,208
 
Hails from United States
Re: Repesentational or abstract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Russell
Abstract Expressionism, indeed most of Modernism in general, may be the dead end its detractors always claimed it was...

This forum is the dead end....
__________________
Art requires philosophy, just as philosophy requires art. Otherwise, what would become of beauty? ―Paul Gauguin
http://jwre.wordpress.com/

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Copyright 1998-2013, F+W Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.