QUARTERLY ON ARTS, PSYCHOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION
a completely subjective choice from mails to the ARCO list
Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:19:23 EDT
The list is now functional. You can start testing. The initial password
is set to changeme.
Bob Zenhausern, Ph.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 17 Oct 1995 14:38:40 -0100
I beguin with a question!
What's the meaning and the use of the PassWord
changeme (the word sounds very good!) ?
Welcome to you!
Danilo Curci
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:05:30 EDT
The password changeme is one I frequently use as an initial. It is
a suggestion: Change me! That is change the current password to one
of your own. ;-)
Bob Zenhausern, Ph.D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:24:42 -0100
Welcome to Bob, welcome to Susan, welcome to the other ones that are passing
through the Arc!
Bob Zenhausen used a password to start: now doors are open.
I've in my hands a book that overawed me very much, when I read it: DREAM,
PHANTASY AND ART, Hanna Segal, 1991.
I translate, in a free way, from my italian ediction:
... the artist realise a durable change in the reality and in the phantasy...
This durable change creates, she says, a new world...
And dream / Of waves, flowers, clouds, woods, and all that we /
Read in their smiles and call reality (Shelley)
This world has in itself traces of a lost world, that we knew: so Art tell
us something we lost; we can repair it, by CHANGING
it in a new thing: so we can find IT again.
To do this, we need to tend our arc; Wordsworth writes:
Ah me! that all
The terrors, all the early miseries,
Regrets, vexations, lassitudes, that all
The thoughts and feelings which have been infused
Into my mind, should ever have made up
The calm existence that is mine when I
Am worthy of myself!
Looking forward... and far, beyond the obstacle!
Danilo Curci
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:17:52 EDT
The concept of virtual reality, as separate from physical reality, creates
an intermediary stage between phantasy and reality.
GrassRoots is a MOO that is being built here by children throught the world
to create their own community in text based reality. Right now Eskimos
from Alaska and Lapps in Finland are building their own spaces and chatting.
Brooklyn, Montreal, New Brunswick Canada, and others. WWW pages for each
community will provide a multimedia complement. Walking down the streets of
Barrow Alaska and chatting with the students: Is that reality or phantasy?
Now suppose someone staged a dance in the MOO by choreographing in text,
and others took that text and converted it to graphics. Is the resulting
product reality or phantasy? In either case, it is a unique artform.
This world has in itself the seeds of a new world that never existed: so Art
preserves for us what we have newly learned.
Bob
Sun, 5 Nov 1995 09:55:05 -0100
Good Sunday to all of you!
This morning (8 AM GMT+1) here in Milano the sun is shining, also if it's a
little cold.
I'd like to warm the day speaking with you. I've found a piece from Wassily
Kandisky (Ueber das Geistige in der Kunst, 1910, About the Spiritual in the
Art).
I free translate from my italian edition:
Every work of art is daughter of his time, and often she is
mother of our feelings...
Our soul is awaking up after a long period of materialism, and
holds in herself the germs of that despair that borns from the
lack of a belief, of an aim, of a goal. Not it's yet vanished the
nightmare of materialistic conceptions, that considereded the
life of universe as a perverted game, without any pound.
The soul is awaking herself up, but she feels still pray to the
nightmare. She just foresees a weak light, as a point in a
immense black circle. It's a presentiment she hasn't the
courage to deepen, for the fear that the light be a dream, and
the black circle the reality...
In our soul there's a crack, that, if it's touched, resounds as a
precious vase again emerged from the depths of the earth, ..
cracked itself...
Well, I stop here.
Kandinski was thinking to the art of the past (and to primitive art),
and to the new art, in his actual time.
The spiritual life, of which the art is an essential part, is a
ascending and progressive movement... It's the knowledge's
movement... has different forms, but... the same purpose....
(The artist) sees and makes to see...
What it's changed from the Kandinski time ? What's similar to our time?
Good morning.
Danilo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 5 Nov 1995 08:42:34 -0500
"Art is the expression of a personal dilemma in Universal terms"
The above is a quote from one of my characters in the novel "God's Voyeur" -
the connection being that artists provide the "window" or the "keyhole"
through which humanity "peeks" at itself, discovers its own secrets,
continually adjusts its impression of reality - art is what we see when we
peek through that keyhole.
Good morning to Danilo - Kandinsky has warmed my Sunday's in the past,
and it was a pleasure to find him sharing cyberspace with me this morning.
Garland W. Black
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 5 Nov 1995 09:16:03 -0500
The Kandinski ideas you posted are most interesting. I tend to think that not
much has changed since his time. People make art because they are driven by
something from within themselves. Often there is a spirituality within art,
but sometimes it may just be a person's need to say, "I am here! I exist!" to
other human minds.
It is a hard life we live, each alone in the vastness of his/her own mind. We
want to reach out and touch, to share, to feel that communication is
possible. I think that sometimes an artist might simply want to tell others
about a flower he saw, and the way he saw it, and the wonder he felt at the
curve of a petal and the color of the stem. He wants to reach another human
who will look at his picture and say, "Yes, now I see! I join you in your
view and now I am with you -- I give you understanding!"
And there is another case in which an artist is playing, experiencing the
colors and textures of his paints for the pure joy of seeing what happens
when he does one thing and another. This is how I most often feel when
working in watercolors -- it is the pleasure of flowing colors about the page
and finding out what happens, discovering what emerges, that brings joy to
me, for me -- these are not works I need to share to get satisfaction.
Oh, I have been up all night and am too tired to be thinking clearly.
Lotus
# "Freedom means self-fulfillment. It also means
putting up with other people's irritating pursuit
of the same. It means being confronted by
disturbing images and ideas." ---Wendy McElroy #
Fri, 27 Oct 1995 17:07:19 -0100
I welcome all of you: an image came in my mind today, when
I was thinking about our list: the cover of a little book that
Cristina Cappa Legora dedicated to the life of Marc Chagall.
The book is for children (and adults): Cristina writes with the
"voice" of Chagall, telling us his story, in first person.
I translate for you the first lines:
In a hen-hause of the big Russia, is there a hen, that
narrate every night the same story. She says she has
been, when she was young, the "friend of the hearth"
of ... Marc Chagall
Chagall: dreams, hens, violins, children, flying men and
women, past and future, realism and hyperrealism (virtuality?),
a grandfather of all of us.
I send you this image, waiting for some news from you: for
exemple, who you are and what did move you to the ARCO.
Apologize my English!
Danilo
Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:29:54 -0600
One may experience greater depths of appreciation for the Arts, Lit,
Psychologies, and Communication Modes by investigating and practicing
'immortalist psychology'.
The immortalist believes that death is not inevitable. The mortalist
believes that death is inevitable within approximately 80 years.
The pure immortalist needs no proof or evidence to support his belief
that he can choose to live indefinitely (following healthy and safe
lifestyles, of course). No one can prove him wrong. It is impossible to
prove one's own death to a person.
So why choose to believe you will die with less than 100 years? Half of
all the people who ever lived on earth are still alive today.
The theory is that we program ourselves to live or die. By really
choosing to live indefinitely instead of a popularly accepted life
sentence of 80 years, one can subconsciously program one's physiology to
develop immunity to the aging process.
Strangely enough, when one does choose immortalist beliefs, one takes
better care of self, instead of letting go of safe, healthy standards.
Each present moment takes on its truly artful qualities, leaving the
majority of life's mundane stresses to be contemplated by the mortalists.
This is deep thinking. It takes some major effort to escape the shackles
of mortalist indoctrination. The mortalists are not the enemy, plotting
to pessimize society. They were born into a world that teaches 'monkey
see, monkey do'. That is, if we see or hear about others dying, then we
must emulate them.
But, as mentioned before, over half of everyone ever born is still
alive. So why do we have to obsess on the half that didn't make it.
Examine your fears about immortalist thinking. What holds you back?
What have you got to lose? Once again, immortalists don't just quit
their jobs and go out and do life-threatening thrills because they think
they have superhuman qualities or invisible shields. This is not
eternalist thinking.
Immortality does not mean eternity, it just means that we are not
programmed (condemned) at birth to the lifespans of the mortality tables.
Choosing the popular mortalist theory of less than a century of life
presents an escape for people who are uncomfortable with life's
problems. 'We won't have to put up with it much longer'. This is a subtle
kind of depression.
Immortalist thinking is liberating. To get into it even briefly, exposes
how much we typically limit ourselves in our choice of lifestyles and
avocations. 'Nope, no reason to learn a new language or start a new
career...just won't be around long enough to make it worthwhile'. 'Not
enough time at my age to take up art or flying or a new degree plan.'
Immortalist referencing allows us to closely inspect a blade of grass or
small pebble that has an eye-catching color over there on the driveway.
We now have time to enjoy life's aesthetic rewards that are not measured
in economics. We no longer rush in traffic. We leave earlier and abandon
stressful driving.
We find ways to make our jobs and careers more fulfilling. Relationships
become more harmonious and we develop regard for community. We circulate
among people who genuinely appreciate life and expect a lot more of it.
Consider exploring the immortalist philosophy. It doesn't have to be
threatening or farfetched. It could open up a new perspective on life.
Send no money or credit card numbers. It costs nothing but could offer
more than is immaginable. (More time for art, lit, psych, and comm'n).
Don
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 9 Nov 1995 00:20:03 -0100
Once again, reading your mails, I'm thinking to a serious question I had in
my mind thinking to the ARC.
ART: is it alive; now: ART is it LIFE?
I think that ART is necessary to Human Beings (I use the capital letters to
mean "civilized", actual, human beings, since about 10,000 years or more) as
the AIR they breathe.
I like paradoxes: mails from Don are for me paradoxes:
it seems that, since Walter Benjamin and its "Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter
seiner tecnischen Reproduzierbarkeit" (1935),
art became unable to give us life; in the world DEATH is everywhere, and ART
seems just able to repeat, repeat, repeat,
the world DEATH.
Art is a commercial business, art is techonologically assisted, artist
cannot life and survive without accept the world as it is.
But ART cannot accept any WORLD AS IT IS.
(Don: in the world as it is human beings dye: so, art has to be
. GOOD!)
The fact is that since our list started, this is the main argument, and we
aren't able to curve the arc, to put it in tension: are we hypnotized from
DEATH ?
Or death is beyond the obstacle that we want to center ?
(or is it THE center ? Empty, black, so similar to our SELF...).
I wait from the art and the artists (of colours, of words, of sounds, of
metals...) A CHANCE: am I wrong if I say that ART has a RESPONSIBILITY ?
Other people, I think, wait this chance JUST from technology and computers:
but they forget that COMPUTERS AND INTERNET COULDN'T EXIST WITHOUT THE
PHANTASIES AND THE IMAGES AND FEELINGS (AND ART!) IN THE MIND OF GENERATIONS
OF HUMAN BEINGS THAT, STEP BY STEP, ARRIVED TO THEIR IDEAS, TO PUT THEM
IN A MACHINE.
Danilo
Mon, 6 Nov 1995 08:47:18 -0500
Dear Friends,
These were forwarded me from another list.
Couldn't resist sharing them.
Why doesn't Santa have any children?
Because he only comes once a year, and when he does, it's down
the chimney.
What do the female reindeer do when Santa takes the male
reindeer
out on Christmas Eve?
They go into town, and blow a few bucks.
What's the difference between snowmen and snowladies?
Snow balls.
Why is Christmas just like a day at the office?
You do all the work and the fat guy with the suit gets all the
credit.
Whit Garberson
Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:07:21 -0500
Humour/Literature - Subjectivity
I think the issues you raised will be around forever. It is the asking of
the questions, not the answers (they will change depending on the time),
that is important. When we stop asking, then art is in trouble.
, I can only address one issue today, "I may not know anything about Art but
I know what I like." I have heard this many times from clients of mine. I
am a painter, realistic watercolors, varied subjects. My clients seem to
think that if something is recognizable, that there is no more to the
image, no depth of meaning, what you see is what you get. And to justify
their selection, they utter those infamous words. So, my question to
everyone is, why is realism maligned? Is it maligned, or is it my
imagination? If art appeals to a large audience, is it good, or bad? Can
we educate the audience to look beyond the immediate image, whether it be
realistic or otherwise, for deeper meaning?
Beth, a newcomer, who says she has only one question, but in reality . . .
Beth J. Steinkellner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 7 Nov 1995 19:01:48 -0500
Realism, when meant to be photo-perfect might as well be done by a camera.
Now when the realism includes more than the camera can capture, is more than
mere technical skill -- then it becomes interesting art. Some people cannot
tell the difference between those two types of realism. They probably don't
care. If the eagle looks like an eagle they are happy. They take the art
home, hang it on their wall, and the art serves its purpose.
Personally I prefer impressionistic art because I think the artist is showing
me something from his/her unique inner viewpoint. And I tend to like
magnified colors. When I am painting I look for the subtle colors I see and
paint them vividly. A little boy once asked me why I was putting "all of
those colors" in a pastel drawing. I pointed to the dressmaker's form that
was my model, showing him where I saw those colors, and when he looked, he
saw them, too. I hope I gave him a different way of looking and seeing. And
that is my purpose in my art -- to show what I see, but more so, so that the
casual observer of my painting can see what I dug to find.
Lotus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:41:29 -0500
I have a couple of questions about your reply. You say "when realism
includes mor than the camera can capture" - what do you mean? I agree with
your second paragraph "to show what I see ... so that the casual observer
of my painting can see what I dug to find" up to a point. I would like my
viewer to invest something of himself in the image, via taking the time to
evaluate it, explore it, and see if there is meaning beyond the apparent.
I think that is probably what you would like too, for them to find the
concept behind the work, not just the execution. I think all artists show
"something from his/her unique viewpoint," that is unavoidable, but do you
think one style vs. another makes that easier to do? When faced with an
impressionist painting, I know immediately that the artist is not trying to
reproduce nature, as in a photo, and begin to look for a deeper meaning.
Why is this courtesy not afforded to the realist? Just curious.
Beth J. Steinkellner
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 12 Nov 1995 12:56:14 +1100
Realism in art/trends and values
With the trend towards non representational art in the first half of the
20th century, concurrent with new developments in technology (such as the
camera) which made more "exact" representation possible, it seems that
"realism" in painting and sculpture did became very unfashionable. Just
as the discovery of perspective (it was always a way of seeing the world,
there was simply no need to "find" it before cos it wasn't seen as important
in painting) in the western arts led to more "realistic" representation of
3 dimensional objects and a change in styles and tastes, so too the styles
of impressionism, cubism, abstract art etc. led to a new way of looking aty
at the world. But it seems tastes become jaded very quickly, or else
commercial pressures and trends in the art world and the desire to be
"individual" recognized as the creator (genius) of a new style leads to
constant changes and innovations. It seems no sooner had a new style been
accepted as the norm (eg abstract impressionism) than it was challenged by
another, styles and types chasing each other across the pages of art digest
with bewildering rapidity. Now there seems to be an acceptance of a wide
variety of styles, types of art, although "photo-realism" while making a
comeback in painting,perhaps because of the competition from photography,
still seems to be despised by many artists and art critics. I think it is
a good thing that different styles are all accepted as having equal validity,
although without the question of style (innovation, what is new and fresh)
as a guide to who is the most "happening" artist or movement it can be hard
to know what to value. In the past it was easier. The artists who followed
the impressionist school are seen (though not then) as being the "best" of
the time and the painters who followed the style of the academy were "bad".
But now, with no real dominant style or fresh approach that is dramatically
different from past styles it is hard for people to pick a "front runner"
as a style or artist. It is hard for critics and historians in particular
I think to value on content of a piece of art work alone, cos it is so
subjective and usually critics and social scientists like to seek (or pretend)
to some sort of "objective" reasons for their evaluation.
A variety and complexity of styles can be confusing but I think it is
wonderful, although I sometimes feel I like TOO MUCH and that I should be
more discriminating. But how? Do you blindly follow the recommendations
of some "great artists in history" canon? Or do you just like all paintings
(for example) with the color blue, cos that's your favorite colour? I some
times wonder how many good artist or pieces of work from different periods
we just don't see cos it was not recognized as good at the time. With such
a plethora of artists and styles now, what will be recognized as "great" in
years to come? True quality? Or just those who live in New York and know
the gallery owners and critics of the right papers? Time will tell, but time
can lie also. If you are working as a artist in a remote area your work may
be absolutely fantastic in many peoples eyes but only if large numbers of
people get to see it, will it be remembered in years to come. By living and
working in certain countries you immediately loose some chance of being
remembered. After all who knows anything about the artists of New Zealand or
Argentina during the time of the impressionists. Who is to say that ther
there wasn't a genius working at the time, the equal of Monet and co. but
who, except perhaps the local community at the time, would ever know?
Sorry about the length of this post. I just get carried away
Megan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 12 Nov 1995 00:07:44 -0800
Not only did it become "unfashionable", it (realism) became political. As
part of the Cold War, the United States Government spent money to
organize world wide exhibitions of its Abstract Expressionists. Although,
those in the government may not have liked the artwork itself, promoting
the non-realistic, free thinking(?), art of say Jackson Pollock seemed to
be the perfect foil for Socialist Realism. The art of Communist countries
at that time - to be official - had to follow certain rules as set by the
ruling state. Pollock was first introduced and honored to the American
public through multiple page spread in _Life_ magazine which helped to
(or did)instigate the astist as media a celebrity phenomenon.
All the above is not to say that politics was _THE_ reason as to
why realism became unfashionnable, but politics was a key factor.
-Scott S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 14 Nov 1995 19:40:53 -0500
Scott S:
Your note on the involvement of the U.S. in promoting Abstract Expressionism
during/after WWII invites a detailed discussion - re: The thought of Germany
"capturing" the art center (Paris) prompted that the center be moved - since
it wasn't possible to move the actual paintings, it became necessary for the
U.S. to promote an Art that was not "contained,"not accessible to Germany.
The history of ideologies defacing the art of the defeated culture is common
- Art (helps to) define(s) a culture and its occupation has always been
significant. Western European culture (the allies in this instance) could
not afford that symbolic subjugation - thus a concerted movement to promote
abstract expressionism.
Garland W. Black
Sun, 12 Nov 1995 14:47:06 +1100
Will new forms of technology lead to new forms and expressions of art? If
art is everywhere and there is an art to living, or if art is simply a
creative expression of our deepest held beliefs, then the means will
reflect the developments in technology. It is the end, the work of art
that is important, though this will of course be influenced by the medium.
But sometimes I feel it is perhaps easy to get sucked in by new technology,
to see it as a wonderful expressive medium simply because it is new, and
ignore older perhaps more effective technologies. I feel some of the hype
about "video art" is a bit like this. Computer generated images can be
very interesting and striking, giving us new ways to see the world, but
often I feel they can be repreditive and boring, patterns we wouldn't bother
to value if they were in a traditional medium such as painting.
But I wouldn't want to downgrade the efforts of anyone working in such a
medium, or try and set up a hierarchy of arts. I guess there can be snobbism
in a reverse way also, with people thinking painting as one of the highest
forms of art, because it is traditional, and looking down on those who work
in video, film or computer art.
I guess there is also a question of value and mass production. With the
new technologies there is a capacity to generate so many more copies than
with a more traditional "hand craft" art like painting or sculpture (though
there were and are workshops where the artist just gave the concept or
only worked on particular parts of the work and left the rest to be done by
anonymous assistants). And with computer generated images there is really no
sense of an original or a copy, maybe human nature being what it is, we
value more what we get less of, or often the more accessible, the more we
take for granted. I think this is true in art also. With an artist working on
a machine (like a computer or with a camera) a certain amount of expertise
is in the hands not of the artist but the manufacturer of the machine the
artist is using. Of course mastering technology is an art in itself (one I
haven't mastered). You are not going to be able to produce the images you
want if your machine is faulty, in this sense the machine or medium has a
degree of power over the artist. In another way a graphics artist producing
images using programs written by many other people, though creating new work,
is riding on the backs of others in a more obvious way than say a painter.
But I guess we are all indebted to the work of previous artists/writers/
creators so maybe I should stop being such a troglodite and simply embrace
new technolgies and all they can offer. I just would hate to see the medium
become the message, or dominate the message so content or the ends are
forgotten.
cheers
Megan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 12 Nov 1995 10:11:50 -0500
While I have similar reservations about the "new" technology, it is true that
art has been traditionally bound by the medium. For example, the discovery
of a particular type of stone "enabled" Greek Sculpture, the development of
new pigments inflouenced the Renaissance, etc - the list goes on. In the
early stages of any developing technology, the forms appear repititious
because they are - the struggle is still underway to develop the form - it is
the nature of artists to explore, develop, and cast off those elements of the
new technology which can best express their work "over time."
The idea of a "Creative mind" behind an individual work of art is relatively
new - there is a long history where artists did not sign their names to their
work - with 88 Million dollar paintings, maybe it is time to return to that
"communitMon, 13 Nov 1995 09:37:56 -0800y" approach - the new technology may be able to help us think in
more global, rather than individual terms - that sounds okay to me.
My over-riding confidence is that art will survive in any technology, in any
environment. Of all political, social, psychological ideals, I believe in
art more than any other - it makes it possible for me to survive.
Garland W. Black
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 13 Nov 1995 09:37:56 -0800
Megan- I work in both painting, printmaking (s0 called
traditional forms) and computer art. I think the material (machine) you
use and your mastery of the tools in any medium define what results you
will get. In the same way you cannot produce the intended image on the
computer if you do not have mastery of the programs, you cannot produce
the picture that you want without mastery over the brushes, the color,
etc. And to some people's way of thinking they do not want a predictible
image, but enjoy the unexpected, unplanned for "the happy accident". I
think there is a satisfying hands on quality you get from transforming
raw materials into art that may seem lacking when working on the
computer, and yes, to an extent the computer is a great leveler, in that
a person with no artsistic background can make just as nice a circle as
someone with years of training. But look at what has happened with
desktop publishing. We still see many ugly pages because the people
producing them are ignorant of design, but I think it's getting better (
hope). Thanks for bringing up some really interesting stuff.
Sharon Cooper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 16 Nov 1995 17:21:58 +1100
I would have to agree with Garlands comments about perhaps needing a return
to a more communal anonymous art with regards to the outrageous prices being
paid for works of art these days. It is true that many pieces of art could
be said to be "priceless" or to deserve very high price tags for the pleasure
they give people, the profound thoughts they inspire or whatever. But it is
terrible when art is hoarded or kept as an investment in some locked bank
vault or in some boardroom, away from the general public where no one has
a chance to look and enjoy also. The high prices mean galleries have no
chance of buying these art works. This may have a good effect with galleries
looking at younger artists or more obscure (cheaper) artists who may have
been unfairly neglected in the past. But it doesn't seem right to me that
certain rich individuals or corporations are able to exclude many from the
enjoyment of what are often to them just appreciating assets.
One development which I think is interesting with regard to the cult of
the individual in many western art circles, is that of "original" cartoons
or stills of cartoons (I am not sure of the exact process here) that have
been produced by a studio, often under the hands of a number of anonymous
animators, most likely not drawn by the creator of the figure, and are now
being sold, like paintings for increasing sums of money. They are seen as
works of art in their own right, even though they are mass produced and do
not necessarily have the one "author". It is kind of an obvious extension of
pop art I guess, artists imitating cartoons, turn into cartoonists becoming
artists. Why settle for an imitation of an imitation? But like all things
once these stills become even more popular, they are increasing in value,
they will soon be out of the reach of the ordinary person or even gallaries.
So watch out! Mickey MOuse may be hanging in a corporation near you!
Megan
Tue, 14 Nov 1995 19:40:53 -0500
Scott S:
Your note on the involvement of the U.S. in promoting Abstract Expressionism
during/after WWII invites a detailed discussion - re: The thought of Germany
"capturing" the art center (Paris) prompted that the center be moved - since
it wasn't possible to move the actual paintings, it became necessary for the
U.S. to promote an Art that was not "contained,"not accessible to Germany.
The history of ideologies defacing the art of the defeated culture is common
- Art (helps to) define(s) a culture and its occupation has always been
significant. Western European culture (the allies in this instance) could
not afford that symbolic subjugation - thus a concerted movement to promote
abstract expressionism.
Garland W. Black
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 16 Nov 1995 17:39:58 +1100
Art, politics and history
I suppose part of the politics of the relocation of the cultural centre of
the western art world from Paris to New York in the wake of the Nazi
invasion, can be seen in the change in architectural styles and design as
many of the leading architects and designers in Germany (particularly from
the Bauhaus) emigrated to the United States and had such a big influence there,
gaining important teaching posts (Mies Van Der Rohe and Gropius) and shaping
the architectual vision of generations to come. The promotion of the "Internat
ional style" by capitalist corporations, rejecting the more ornamented art
deco styles or the more elaborate organic fantasys of home grown architects
like Frank Lloyd Wright, may have had more to do with simple economics (most
efficient use of small space, pack in the most rents at cheaper, no ornament-
ation costs). But it was an irony that those that begun with such socialist
left wing ideals as the bauhaus, looking for architecture that would be
right for the "common man", cheaper and more healthy than slums, part of an
art that would transcend national boundaries and unite all in solidarity,
ended up being the major signifiers of economic capitalist development (high
rise). Not that a sky scraper can
can't be aesthetically pleasing, but there is something about the mass
production of them all over the globe, with sometimes it seems little regard
for local climate conditions or culture, (or the value of the buildings that
may have been previously on the site) that makes me wish the international
style hadn't been quite so successful. The dominance of one form of artistic
expression, or a movement over all other types and varients can be a
dangerous thing historically and politically, and often I feel aesthetically.
But enuf!
Megan
Fri, 17 Nov 1995 20:22:15 -0800
Hi - I'm Scott S. and I'm a recovering Art-History major gone book-keeper.
When thinking about psychology and art - I think more specifically about
psychoanalysis and art. After soo many years of its inception,
psychoanalysis appears to have become more useful as a tool for theory
and criticism focused on art, literature, and film than as a talking cure
that eliminates troubles buried deep within the human psyche.
Anyone who wishes to study "Postmodern Culture" in depth will sooner or
later have to learn concepts/models developed by first Freud, and later
Lacan. Starting from, lets say, the late 60's, and coming to a full steam by
the eighties, artists became writers and critics - critics became
artists, both became potential curators, and many became informed by
psychoanalysis which became a source for both art works and art criticism.
So what's the point of that last splattering of words, well... it has to
do with boundaries. The boudaries between those who focus specifically on
a topic - art, writing, psychology have been blured. The roles -
schizophrenic. Sometimes reading an article in _ARTFORUM_ will read like
a medical journal - appearing to have no real relationship to art.
So right now I have one, possibly two future essays/or short posts in mind:
"Wiley E. Coyote: Whatever happened to America's champion Immortalist" -
most should remeber his role as the "sisyphus" type character in the
Roadrunner cartoons.
Thanks for reading - and be sure to get your flu shot before the flu gets
you- yuck!
Scott S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:07:29 +1100
Responding to the suggestion to introduce ourselves makes me feel a little
uncomfortable. Once people know what your mundane real life comes to, will
they lose what respect (if any) they had for your opinions cos of your
perceived lack of qualifications, specialized knowlege, authority to speak on
the topics of art/psychoanal/communication etc.? With the internet, one
advantage I believed (apart from its global reach) was its supposed greater
anonymity, allowing people to reflect on expressed opinion without the
distraction of appearance and background. One could accept or reject postings
without as much consideration of "What is their personality/background that
makes them post this way? They are only saying this cos of their ethnic group
, social strata etc." In other words, you didn't psychoanalyse everything in
quite the same way.
The same could be said of the way we look at a work of art. Once we know
something of an artist's or collective's background, how easy it is to see
parts of that life and background reflected in the work of art, till perhaps
you are not so much looking at the object but the artist in the object. You
may dislike an artists personal life ("this guy was a sexist bastard (Picasso)
That can distort your view of their work. Or else you see every brush stroke/
sculpture/page/chord/graphic as representative of some repressed desires, or
suppressed tendencies. Although every work of art (like every work of life)
must reflect something of the human creator and this can add to our
understanding, I have found myself getting so caught up in the gossip, the
psychoanalysis of the personality of the artist, it distorts my view of what they do.
In fact I often find the people more interesting than what their achievement was
supposed to be in the first place! Maybe Freud was just an old scandalmonger
at heart.
However since introductions seem to be in order, I am a part time verging on
no time history student, working in a library for income and the opportunity
to use the internet, residing in the coastal city of Melbourne, Australia.
My main interests in joining the list were to read and discuss any/all aspects
of art appreciation and production. All of the topics mentioned in the
intro fascinate me and I can and will blab on about them for hours. i know
nothing about Global Psych. but certainly improving communication between
people and bringing about good relationships through internet or any other
means is a worthy ideal at any time. I guess the only rules should be
patience, tolerance and respect for all, which is easy to say and hard to
pratice.
I will try not to test the readers patience any more with my long postings
best wishes
Megan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 21 Nov 1995 03:23:52 -0100
Dear Megan,
you are right. When I started the list I wanted it more open and unmoderated
as it was possible.
You wrote very interesting letters to the list, so, don't worry: they
weren't nor are too long.
My purpose, asking for an intro, was only to invite subscribers to participate
to our debates, AT LEAST telling us something about themselves.
What I like, in this context, of psychoanalysis is not to psychoanalyse
people, but its (infinite, I think, so I don't think there was in any
time, since Sigmund Freud, the interpretation) to better understand
past and actual art.
Psychoanalysis was also a FACT in our century, that had a lot of
interactions with art, literature, cinema, music and so on.
I also think that the private life of an artist, and of each of us, is holy
and inviolable: this is perhaps a risk of Internet communication.
It's late in the night, and I cannot write more than this.
I never replied to your letters in a private way, since I'd like better that
our conversations be un-personal, also if it's true that writing letters can
beguin some kind of friendship (in this sense, why not speak about ourselves
IF WE LIKE TO DO THIS!).
No one HAS to reply to my questions: subscribers just CAN, if they want.
Ciao / Hi! Megan, and all of you.
Danilo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 26 Nov 1995 17:56:51 -0800
Long ago Megan wrote regarding the her views towards the spread of the
International Style of Architecture. After reading her post I remembered
hearing that Walter Gropius was hired by Coca Cola as a consultant to
choose the perfect color of red for their product. Just the possiblity of
this fascinates me - it makes me wonder of all the products
(advertisements, sign paintings, etc)that are produced by artists
(in most cases - before recogntion) and have been put out into the
common consumer market.
Later Danilo replied to my post on psychoanalysis and art. To continue
with that conversation - I do not question the potential therapeutical
powers of art, writing, music, dancing etc. Compared to the study of
medicine, psychoanalysis is somewhat of a new science. Popular culture
did not have any sort of construct(s) as the sub-conscious and/or
unconscious mind until the work of Freud. I think the only thing close
prior was the daemon of Socrates (???- I'm unsure) which was a "voice"
that talked to him.
If one accepts that the mind is structured as (a) language - then it can
be read as such. To extend on this - what can be read is also open to
variable interpretations. It's at this point that I believe that
psychoanalysis is called into question. The "ailment" and its source can
vary depending on who is doing the reading. In short, how much of what is
diagnosed is really "written" into the patient?
I'll agree that I personally prefer to see a means of therapy for non
chemical ailments treated with non-chemcal treatments. Regardless of
whatever arguments exist about psychoanalysis as a treatment -
psychoanalysis has been used as a tool (in varying forms) for both social
and artistic criticism.
Now in terms of Art Therapry, I do not really know what Art Therapy is
so I do not really understand Danilo's questions below. Has anybody on
this list studied Art Therapy? Also, Danilo - you stopped short - I would
like to hear about the interactions of art and psychology.
Thanks for reading. -Scott S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 26 Nov 1995 19:45:28 -0700
I have wondered whether Jung's method works at all; perhaps it does for
the right patient of an artful analyst; but I have found it definitely
very interesting as an imaginative springboard. Somehow it has value far
beyond its nominal purpose.
Fred, Crestone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 26 Nov 1995 19:29:33 -0800
Can you, Fred (or anyone else) talk a litle more about what Jung's method
is. Jung, was usually overlooked with the open attitude that he should
be overlooked. Because of this I myself have held some bias against Jung
although now all I can remember are some vague notions ofn the mandala (?)
sign and a theory of universal consciousness. Thanks. -
Scott S.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 01:31:07 -0700
Fred,
I think your statement ("for the right patient of an artful analyst")
probably applies equally well to therapy or analysis of any persuasion.
After training as an analyst, practicing, discovering what I didn't know, I
became more concerned with being simply a good therapist.
I think Jungian theory, with its emphasis on imagination and creativity,
probably lends itself especially well to the development of fresh ideas
about art, the environment, politics, etc. but Jungian authors haven't
done it yet and I'm not sure how to proceed either.
William Don
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 01:44:27 -0700
It's a bit hard to say what Jung's method was because it is somewhat
obscured by the preoccupations (gender, archetypes) of later writers. If
I think about his basic ideas, I'd say 1) he respected the individual's
basic intelligence and creativity and tried to create an analytic
container where healthy strivings could unfold, 2) every person has a
story that makes sense and deserves thoughtful attention, 3) the psyche
is composed of fragments, complexes that exert at times powerful effects
on us--his theory of complexes fits nicely with the current object
relations approach and the "self psychology" approach of contemporary
psychoanalysis, and 4) he was preoccupied with private religious
experience and with archetypal, universally human experience--archetypal
theory and the collective unconscious are most commonly associated with
Jung because it set him apart from Freud and others and because the
theory is both interesting and troublesome.
That's all I can do for now.
William Don
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 09:16:56 -0500
Jung Passion
DW>>> 4) he was preoccupied with private religious
experience and with archetypal, universally human experience--archetypal
theory and the collective unconscious are most commonly associated with
Jung because it set him apart from Freud and others and because the
theory is both interesting and troublesome.
I'm new here, and I hope y'all don't mind me spinning off completely
sideways, but the mention of the collective unconscious brings to mind that
myth of the west, the Passion of Christ, which in it's last incarnation was
pretty skewed and confused, but powerful nonetheless.
I've seen lists of passion stories found in older cultures, Egyptians,
Greeks, Sumerians, whatever. These lists were posted mostly to irritate
Christians, but I'm wondering if this myth of rebirth and hope isn't wired in
somehow in the CU, and that's where it gets its strength, its rightness in
spite of being a total anachronism.
Maybe eons ago this story was necessary for survival in times of famine
and disease, war. What do you think? Is the passion story an artifact of the
collective unconscious?
Ed Atkenson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 08:00:43 -0700
In response to Don,
Who wondered if there was Jungian fiction, I have always thought that the
Earth Sea Trilogy by Ursula K. LeGuin was an exploration of shadow. But
I don't know but what she wrote that without reference to any such concept.
Fred
the books are Wizard of Earth Sea, The Tombs of Atuan, and the third one,
name slipped away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 10:59:04 -0500
Le Guin's Wizard of Earth Sea--and archetypes and shadow, and
supervision.
In my ( 2nd yr psych grad student) placement at a mental health clinic, The
psychologist supervising me requested that I read Wizard of Earth Sea--to get
some insight re: clients who are into rituals/paganism. He said with a
smile, "Don't worry it is only fiction."--as if to say that it is frightening
and has some truth to it. He said that clients could pull in powers that they
were with which they were unfamiliar and that they wish they hadn't brought
to themselves. He apparently believes that archetypes have qualities I
hadn't considered. I haven't gotten the book yet. Any thoughts about this?
Lynda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:28:21 -0500
I enjoyed Ed's question to the group, and I wanted to respond. It
seems to me that any religious story or myth relates intimately to the
collective unconscious, because myths/stories relate so clearly to
unconscious figures. The external sacrifice of Christ relates to our own
desire/need to believe that sacrifice can be ultimately justified and that
God bears some kind of understanding responsibility. He is willing to
sacrifice a part of himself to save a part of us, just as we would be
willing to sacrifice our lives for children, or whatever.
I don't believe that stories are ever necessary for survival, but I
will concede that humanity has a deeply held need to believe that moral
action and sacrifice are not without value in an ultimate sense, to fight
against the fear of chaos, which is, indeed, a product of our collective
fears and collective unconscious. They also have a need to believe that 1)
order and justice will prevail and 2) faith has meaning. If God has faith
enough in the good part of man to sacrifice the messiah to give everlasting
life to the race which would ultimately kill and usurp God's dominion,
which, as I understand it, is what the Christian myth is all about, then
surely we should believe as well.
Jim Lewis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:17:34 -0700
Wizard of Earthsea assumes a different set of rules for how things work.
Knowing the true name of a person or thing gives you power over it. Some
have talent, as David of Hebrew scripture did as a talent to interpret
dreams. I also enjoyed The Golem by Gustave Meyrink and of course the
work of Tolkien.
Persons with pathology who think they have magic powers is a little
different, but the more you know
All the best, Fred Bauder
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:26:33 -0700
Dear Lynda,
There are practioners of magic who believe they can call a demon to their
aid and even gain power over it. A person who has this delusion will
have some remarkable adventures and may even come to the attention of
mental health practitioners. If they do their ceremonies during the dark
of the moon, be extra careful.
Fred
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:55:39 -0700
In some small or great way the situation, inviting you to sacrifice will
come; not in imagination; or delusionally; but really come. Not once, but
many times. Sometimes you will answer; sometimes not.
Fred
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 27 Nov 1995 22:44:49 -0500
Dance!
Let us dance in honor of Artemis...
O lift your voices
Lift them to Artemis
In honor of my fate
And of my dying.
Euripides, Iphigenia in Aulis
None of us ever sees Her in the dark
or understands Her mysteries.
Euripides,
on Artemis, She Who Comes From Afar
Well said, Fred.
Lynda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 06:31:12 -0700
The call, clearly heard, demanding but unresponded to, is explored in The
Fall, by Albert Camus.
Fred
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 09:10:32 -0600
I would like to get in on the conversation about Jung. I spent a year in
training analysis with a Junigian and read most of what Jung has written.
However, there is no way the depth of his thought can be devoured in one
year or with only one year of training analysis.
Jung made the point that symbols are outward manifestations of
archetypes. Archetypes can only express themselves through symbols since
archetypes are buried in the collective unconscious and are unknown and
unknowable to the person. However, the archetypes are constantly
influencing and directing our conscious behavior. It is only when we
analyze and interpret symbols, dreams, fantasies, visions, myths, and art
can we obtain any knowledge of the collective unconscious. If Jung is
correct, then there is a close correlation between psychoanalysis and
art. There is also a stong connection between Jung's theories and Paul
Tillich's concept of religious symbols.As you may know, Tillich also had
a lot to say about art.
Could I suggest a reading of Jung's book "Symbols of Transformation"
which signalled his departure from the teachings of Freud. Also,
for an easily-read paper-back book, try "A Primer of Jungian Psychology" by
Hall and Nordby, published as a Mentor Book in 1973. Included is a
bibliography.
Happy hunting!
Bill Hooper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 28 Nov 1995 11:07:10 -0500
Fred,
Trying to remember my existentialism...Where does the call originate for
Camus?
Can the call itself be anything but his own?
Enjoyed the quote! I had forgotten how much I enjoyed Camus.
I am sad that existentialism has not been mentioned in any of my class work
so far.
(grad. psych) I find myself wondering, whatever happened to existentialism?
How would existentialist therapist approach a client who was "invoking
spirits in the dark of the moon" ?
Lynda
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 30 Nov 1995 20:46:42 EST
I recommend Part 3 of James Frazer's The Golden Bough, entitled "Death &
Resurrection: The Rhythm of Nature" and the subsequent chapter on "Dying and
Reviving Gods" to any of you who want to study further the ancient versions of
these myths.
As for the influence of Jung, "Women who run with Wolves" is a good contemporary
example.
Steven Slap
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:52:26 -0500
I recommend Part 3 of James Frazer's The Golden Bough, entitled "Death &
Resurrection: The Rhythm of Nature" and the subsequent chapter on "Dying and
Reviving Gods" to any of you who want to study further the ancient versions
of
these myths.
Ed Atkeson
Tue, 21 Nov 1995 01:00:50 -0100 I'd like to debate the question of mysticism in two directions: 1. I arrived to Martin Buber and Gershom Scholemfrom different directions. In the 20th cenntury, I didn't find authors like them so interesting in the of mysticism. When I wrote about them I hadn't in my mind only their logical or phylosophical position, but also other aspects of their books: Martin Buber, for example, wrote a book on the of women of different religions, in different centuries. I'll look for its title. 2. Mysticism, I think, influenced art in many ways. Here I'm not the expert... Danilo Curci -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thu, 23 Nov 1995 15:47:02 EST A lot of theorizing about mystical experience has to do with the experience of transcendence, which can be difficult to define (e.g."not this, not that"). It is usually thought about as an area that leaves precise verbal description behind. This interests me, as a writer, philosopher and critic. Is there any similarity between this mystical transcendence and the modern trend toward more abstract art? Specifically, is the goal of some of these artists to express in some artistic format this experience that is beyond literal expression? I write this, aptly, while listeneing to music by Morton Sobotnik. As for Buber and Gershom Scholem, I am particularly interested in Jewish mysticism because of its attempts to be "midrashic'" to try to present mystical interpreatation as a gloss of literal texts. In this, it reminds me of Freud and the poststructuralists. Steven Slap ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sun, 26 Nov 1995 20:44:23 -0800 While going through the previous posts / introductions there were two separate quotes that made me think of a particular work of art: In the context of mysticism Steven E. Slap wrote: "...specifically is the goal of some of these artists to express in some artistic format this experience that is beyond literal expression." and in answer to the questionnaire was in response to aesthetics (apologies if I'm wrong here): "Shared appreciation of shared experience." Both statements made me think of John Duncan who, in 1976, after being mugged he wished to convey the elation of escaping an apparent near death experience to other people. To do this he did a performance piece called _Scare_ where on two different nights he went to a friend's house (a different friend each night) wearing a rubber mask and ski cap. Ducan rang the doorbell and when the door opened he pulled out a gun, fired a round of blanks at his unsuspecting friend, and then ran away. Make of it what you will. - Scott S.
Fri, 1 Dec 1995 09:52:03 -0500
In MKundera's new book of essays, he mentions that the impressionists painted
a scene as an optical phenomenon, "giving a man the same treatment as a
bush." I'd never thought of it that way, I always thought impressionism was
more about a painting style.
I'd learned that they were experimenting with ways of seeing and
presenting color, but not this idea of painting without the hierarchy of
humans over all. Subverting the uses of painting up until that time.
According to Kundera, impressionism is an expression of enlightenment --
environmentally, politically.
Ed Atkeson
Fri, 1 Dec 1995 10:52:29 -0500
EA>>> I wonder if anybody has looked at all the times a passion-influenced
event has occured in history. Joan of Arc. Maybe it influences assassinations
-- what a thought.
Sorry, gotta quote myself here. The Myth of the West is this ritualized
glorified human sacrifice. Way old, coming from eons. Powerful stuff. Some
special person, martyr, dies for the good of mankind. Tragic, purging, dies
for your sins. Glorious, excruciating, painful, real.
So. Famous person gets assassinated.
I'm not saying the myth artifact is the cause, I'm saying it may be a
factor. The myth artifact may be the reason such an act may have an
inexplicable absolute rightness to some people. There's a pattern buried
deep within us which may make a wrong act feel inevitable. Lennon, Martin
Luther King, Ghandi, the Kennedys, is this our Passion of Christ?
Ed Atkeson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:08:37 +1100
With regards to the comments about the passion archetype myth whatever we
are calling it, it really doesn't relate to assassinations I don't think
because the whole point is that it is a voluntary sacrifice by the person
involved. The assassinated had or have no choice in the matter. The persons
with the choice are the murderers and their motivations are as numerous as
all the different forms of madness and self delusions and sometimes they
are even done for apparently altruistic reasons. One of the best examinations
of the question of assasination for whatever reasons remains "Julius Caesar"
by that choice of english teachers everywhere Shakespeare.
A question or 2. How does art remain relevant? Why is Shakespeare still
studied and regarded as one of the primemost genuises of literature? Or is
this only in english speaking countries? Is he only the most famous of a
cannon of "Dead White Male" artists who have been promoted by the establishment
for whatever reasons? Does art really retain value because of its inherent
worth, or are there too many other factors to consider?
cheers
I hope all this psycho analysis does not exclude more "amateur" or less
expert oriented discussion.
Megan
Sun, 3 Dec 1995 19:36:46 -0700
Shakespeare is even more popular in non-English speaking countries than
in English. They have the benefit of a readable translation. Japan is
one country that seems to appreciate his work. Dead White Males wrote a lot.
Some authors and stories speak more to our time and culture than others.
Some stories we can retell and reshape to meet our current fashion. The
story of Billy the Kid from the American West is retold and retold.
Fred Bauder
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 4 Dec 1995 07:19:19 -0500
Art is always relevant, it is inherently a reflection of culture and the
society that produces it. You can never divorce art from culture. Art is
more important as a communication tool than any other medium, for instance,
look at Paeolithic societies, we understand people's religious beliefs,
social structure, economics, history from art before the written word.
I think that it is a little rediculous to ask if art is relevant.
As far as the value of art, it is inherent to some degree, genius or
excellent will always prevail over the mediocre, however, with a good art
dealer (remember art dealers are a contemporary phenomenon (17thc +)) the
mediocre can sell. But will it be recognized as genius in the long run,
doubtful.
Shakespeare is important because he is the first artist to explore the
tragedy of man in contemporary terms. We can understand his character's
plight easier than say Sophacle's Oedipus or Antigone. However the same
theme underscores all good tragedy - the mortality of mankind and its tragic
consequences.
Carol Ferguson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 4 Dec 1995 10:08:59 -0500
Us amateurs are confronted by this huge canon of artworks chosen by
critics and smart people over the centuries as the absolute be-all and
end-all of expressions of humanity. Who knows if it is "any good?" This is a
big and valid question that lots of experts ask their whole lives. Just look
at Harold Bloom's last book, The Western Canon.
My humble answer is: Give in! Study it. You will find some stuff in there
that bats you into the blue sky. Just start somewhere and read. Find a
teacher and ask for guidance when you hit a snag.
Maybe you could tell this list a bit about your interests/situation and
ask them for suggestions about what to read.
You or I may finally come to the conclusion that village circle
storytelling in Dahomey is the far superior art, but our experience with the
"classics" will never be regretted.
Ed Atkeson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 14:41:34 +1100
To Carol, I suppose I should have said "work of art" rather than art in
general, as to its relevance. It is good to see such a resounding cry for
the necessity of art as a vital part of life and culture. Too bad so many
world leaders, business people only seem to agree when there is money or
votes in it.
Each culture and time "decides" what bits of a work of art are relevant
to its concerns I suppose. For example in english "Pilgrims Progress" (if
we can see literature as art, which I hope we do) was as one time the most
read work of literature. It was viewed as a spiritual guide, a profound
window into the journey of an individual through torments of faith, a
work of great depth and artistry. But how is it seen now? A historic relic
of earlier, more extreme times? Can we admire it for its robust use of
language while feeling no emphathy for the dilemna it deliniates? Or who has
even read the thing anyway? What I guess I am trying to say is, I am
intrigued by the way different times respond to different aspects of a work
of art, finding things that no one "noticed" before, or ignoring parts that
may be don't seem relevant to the times. Of course different people, different
sectors of various societies may have quite opposing views, so how is
the consensus formed? We may admire Shakespeare now, but how popular was
he in his own day (I guess he made a living) and what about all those
people out there who found the compulsary english play nothing more than
a confusing torment? Why are their (perhaps the majority) opinions dis-
regarded? If translations of Shakespeare into other languages "modernize"
the idoms and expressions, what about the original english? Is it a
travesty to "modernize" a work of art to make it more accessible to the
majority of people?
Just some more random thoughts.
Megan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 07:33:50 -0500
Megan,
As far as the time period that produced a work of art, and how we view it
today - these are two very separate issues. As an art historian, I study a
work of art as though I am in that period (medievalist) so that I understand
the iconography - its symbols that do not transcend time. We also study art
that was not popular in their day - i.e. Van Gogh - he never sold a painting
in his life (if you do not count the one that he swaped for a month's rent)
but today you need 50,000,000 to get your fingers on one. But if we look at
the period - it is very easy to see why Van Gogh was unacceptable. So art
can transcend - if it is ahead of its time like Van Gogh, or if it has a
universal message that does not change through the centuries - like
Shakespeare. But Pilgrims Progress is lost to us because of its contemporary
concerns and its mediocre moralizing that is not applicable to today's
standards (for good or bad). Shakespeare, and not all Shakespeare, deals
with universal, unchanging themes (i.e. man's mortality, man's inability to
set his fate, man's indecisiveness, man's inequities). So he trandscends into
our time.
I do not feel that modernizing the language is necessarily bad, if I did,
then I would say that translations in general are bad. It is better to read
it in any language, than not at all.
And, Shakespeare was very well accepted in his day. And the English theatre
was extremely popular, all wanted to go, and only a few could.
Thanks for the response,
Carol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 08:31:07 -0600
To Carol, relative to the discussion about "Pilgrim's Progress," et al.
Is art valuable only if and when it transcends in to "our time?" Art
history books cover a lot of people and materials which have not transcended
into our time except by way of textbooks. Does this make them any less
valuable? I make a distinction between what gives me insight into a
period of history and what can give me personal satisfaction through
interaction with the art work. While I can understand and appreciate most
works of art - visual, musical, literary - I buy only what I personally
interact with. My lack of interaction does not lessen the overall value
of the works.
Bunyan is still read in England today and certainly gives us
insight into Puritan thinking. Perhaps the difficulty with Bunyan is not
his "moralizing" but his use of language. Americans, by and large, have
lost any sense of the beauty of language. All one has to do is compare
most British newspapers with most American papers - excluding the
tabloids - and it becomes evident.
Bill Hooper
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 09:43:40 -0100
I think, I feel that arts are at the first place in human culture: science
is a different thing, for example. Human culture is for me artistic or it's
nothing, a non sense.
The same is for psychology, as a science: in it's field it has the right to
fix it's own rules, but it's ever a specialization, and if psychologists or
scientists forget that a part cannot be the all, and that the all is
un-delimited in a logical, conscious way, they do a big mistake and a big
confusion. This about my opinion on the relationships between S-cience a-nd
C-ulture (SaC).
Culture is not just a collection of knowledges, of rational instruments to
know a thing. It's better, for me, like the ancient ,
and Platone thougth the as the representation of human mind in
terms of (philo) and , at the origin of which is the Sacrates
. So passions, life, gods, insights... Dionysus and Apollo.
I don't want to use too difficult words to say simple things: the greatness
of artists as Shakespeare is the fact that they expressed not just concepts
but worlds of words, images, phantasies, and did let us live in these worlds
and something we couldn't see in any other way.
I think that human communication can be possible only if we to meet other people, and meet them in their own , so risking
battles, delusions, but also love and friendship.
Danilo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 07:47:53 -0500
To Bill,
No, art has value for its contributions to the society and culture in which
it was produced- whether it be aesthetics, political, religious, or personal-
it stills documents the culture and tastes of its period. However, the
original questions that I had responded to were "Why is Shakespeare popular?
Is art relevant today? Why is Pilgrims Progress rarely read or appreciated?"
Knowing the context of my response may make you understand the comments on
transcending time.
Most of my favorite works do not, in fact, transcend time, because they are
mostly medieval works with an iconography that is not easily read. It
certainly does not make them less valuable because the majority cannot
understand them.
Carol
Mon, 4 Dec 1995 16:01:27 CST
I have forwarded this for those of you who may not get New-list. Of
philosophers who wrote fiction I was most taken with Albert Camus. As a
teenager I got into Ayn Rand, but you must keep that a secret as it is so
embarrassing.
Fred
From: Alan Sondheim
The Fiction-of-philosophy email list at majordomo at jefferson.edu
has moved to LISTSERV@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU with accompanying changes,
including the new title FOP-L
FOP-L, Fiction-of-Philosophy, is devoted to issues and presentations
of philosophical fiction and fictional philosophy. Both original texts
and critiques are posted. Writers such as Jabes, Blanchot, Ballard,
Cixous, Muller, Lautreamont, and theorists such as Kristeva, Heidegger,
Sartre, Haraway, are considered. The forum is open.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat, 9 Dec 1995 07:59:44 -0700
I realized the other day after I suggested that we might look at the crew
of the Starship Enterprise that indeed we might seriously analyse
fictional protrayals of groups. Startrek Second Generation is quite rich
with characters and alien species standing in for archtypical human
traits and interaction patterns.
In the typical episode the task is somewhat nominal with a plot based
generally on some issue of how people deal with one another; but that is
very much the modern trend in television, NYPD Blue is another, there is
a task, but the story is rather loosely hung on that, being more about group
interaction within the precinct.
Fred
I have cross-posted this to ARCO, art and psychology, where the readers
will be agast at the notion that Startrek is art, let alone NYPD Blue,
from NETDYNAM, a very serious task-oriented list dedicated to analsis of
e-mail dynamics.
Perhaps I am serious, perhaps I am joking
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 11:04:46 -0500
One thing which may be causing trouble is changing definitions and uses
of art. And everything else has changed so much, too, concept of cosmos,
power of faith, perception, literacy, concept of the individual, the entire
psychological, sociological, and economic assumption grid has completely
revamped many times since Chaucer. To sit here at the end of the 20th century
and try to dope this out, is reeeely complex. Like you say, intriguing, but
no easy answers.
For me, popularity doesn't mean a thing. (talking contemporary now)
Popularity is arbitrary. Popular works are generally dull and deadening. They
succeed as product, other effects seem to be incidental. There is art to
enjoy and thrill to, be inspired by, but you have to search for it. (IMHO!)
I find I can't think about Americans when I think about an art audience
(Europeans are a bit esier to imagine consuming art). I train (strain) my
imagination, try to push my sensitivity, but I know others generally don't.
There is a world, a small but solid one, where artists can get citizenship,
can have a life. I try to live there, and sing that world into existence.
Which brings up a question. Why are there no "art" mailing lists?
Ed Atkeson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:12:58 -0500
Megan>>> It is good to see critical thinking applied to the mainstream,
and popular culture doesn't tend to be so elitist as some "highbrow" art
culture,
Just taking a snippet out of your rambles, Megan, if I may. The minute you
apply critical thinking to the mainstream, you get elitism, no? Because what
you're considering are the sources, motivations, psychological and economic
needs and opportunities of the time which are shaping these works and the
state of the masses which consume them. Big subject.
When you stop taking this stuff in with your tongue hanging out, and
start thinking about it, you go to another level, a sort of anthroplogical
analysis level from which vantage you will realize that this complexity is
NOT why these works are popular. You will realize that you're not studying
the work, you're studying society. And by that time, you're sure to be an
elitist. How dare you.
If you study ANYTHING for more than a week, you will be approaching
elitism. The "elitism" question is complex, lots of meanings, but doesn't it
usually just mean a higher level of study of something, or deeper
involvement? And can that be bad? Isn't elitism a good thing that gets used
as a slur because of the general (unhealthy) anti-intellectual climate?
You're happier when you're dumb, but it's not as interesting.
Forgive my tone. Do I have this right, though?
Ed Atkinson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 14 Dec 1995 07:26:52 -0700
I am the one who forwarded the water and wine quotes from the Mark Twain
forum. What I am interested in discussing is the analogous view
expressed here that there is "fine art" and the rest.
For example, is the tv show Roseanne art? Or the modern equivalent of
Twain's popular adventure stories based on his childhood or Shakespeare's
popular theatrical productions?
How can contemporaries evaluate such matters. Who are the modern Van
Gogh's and how could we ever know them as such?
Fred
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:10:57 -0600
In reference to Fred's query about how to recognize today's Van Goghs,
the answer is: we can't. Most what we consider to be "great" pieces of
art, music, et al, comes after the fact and after repeated analyses.
So-called great works stand up under repeated analyses while not-so-great
works do not. Music students recognize this when they are asked to
analyze a country music piece in an analysis class.It is only after we
have lived with works and their creators over an extended period of time
cqn greatness be perceived. Some of the Beatles songs will probably be
around another 50 years, for example.
Our problem in identifying greatness is because of the arts industry and
arts media. In order to "sell" the arts product we engage in a lot of
hype which makes people and their works greater, perhaps, than they are.
I am no denigrating popular culture here, but making an observation.
Another problem is our mixing apples and oranges. The music students who
are asked to analyze a country music piece need to analyze enough country
music pieces that they can begin to select what to them are the "best"
examples of country music, etc.
Bill Hooper
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 15 Dec 1995 16:54:39 -0500
I agree with Bill about recognizing great art - or Van Gogh's of today. A
great saying in art is buy it, if you can live with it for more than five
years - it is good art, otherwise it is not.
As an appreciator of art, you can certainly guess. But think about it - if
you knew who the great artists were - you could buy their work in the early
years and make millions. In this regard - art collecting is very much like
the stock market.
When I was an undergraduate student, I saw an artist that I thought was just
fabulous - Eric Fischel. He was just starting out and his works were
500-$2000 dollars. This was too much for a student - but only if I had the
money then, now his works are $50,000 - 500,000. Oh well... this will be a
Van Gogh though.
just a story and some thoughts,
carol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 18 Dec 1995 09:07:21 -0500
FB>>> For example, is the tv show Roseanne art? Or the modern equivalent of
Twain's popular adventure stories based on his childhood or Shakespeare's
popular theatrical productions?
I think you're saying not to make the usual judgments, ok, but I'm just
not interested in pop tv. You can't worry what is going to be art history in
the future (what a thought), you gotta go for what brings you pleasure, what
is interesting.
But maybe I c o u l d say pop tv lacks a certain satisfying depth?
If I try to judge a work by asking "is it art or is it commerce" I end up
with "art is commerce." Capitalist realism.
I doubt that Capitalist Realism will be an important genre in the history
of art. Except for the notable fact that it buldozed personal human
expression much like Socialist Realism did.
Corporate art--State art, not a lot of difference. They both exploit and
confuse people, rob us of our humanity. They both exist for the wrong
reasons. The motivation is off. And the motivation eventually overwhelms the
art.
There. I've got myself disgusted. I won't post on this subject again.
Then maybe it's the restraint that makes me feel lousy. I could just say,
"turn it off, Frank! Don't watch that crap! Do the world a favor and return a
valuable mind to the job at hand! We've got a civilization to maintain here!"
Just my opinion. Have I got this right?
Ed Atkenson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 18 Dec 1995 18:20:26 -0700
Nah, check out La pulce, (The Flea Hunt) by Giuseppe Maria Crespi, you
can view it at the Louvre, and ask yourself if Rosanne Barr's video show
in any way differs in essence.
Fred
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 19 Dec 1995 08:54:16 -0500
"Art" is a big word, lots of meanings. It encompasses many ambiguities,
often makes a problem, confusion, argument. It's emotionally loaded because
it is used as a term of high praise. It's tangled in class and academic
stratification and all the bitterness attached thereto. And you can always go
back to the 15th or16th century when the meaning was completely different for
additional confusion comparing apples to oceanliners. "Art" is perfect
bedding for recreational arguing (busting on people's art beliefs is almost
as fun as religion bashing). But I have other hobbies!
Tell us about the La Pulce piece, Fred. Sounds interesting, I don't know
anything about it.
I prefer a no-nonsense definition of the word which is simply-- a work
made or conceived by an artist, which is considered in an art context. This
includes both "bad" and "good" art. This definition is not without problems,
but at least it helps you around the "what-is-art," and "you-call-that-art?"
sinkholes.
Ed Atkeson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 19 Dec 1995 07:04:45 -0700
La pulce is a painting of a woman who looks rather like Roseanne Barr,
looking on her body for a flea.
Fred
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 15:19:28 +1100
Here is an extract from a book I was just reading that I thought was
vaguely relevant :
"Art had become more important than history. History belonged to an age of
rationalism, to the 18th and particularly the 19th century. The latter century
had shown great respect for its historians. The guizots, Michelets, Rankes,
Macaulays and Actons were read and appreciated, especially by a bourgeois
bent on explanation and integration. Our century has, by contrast, benn an
antihistorical age, in part because historians have failed to adapt to the
sentiments of their century but even more so because this century has been one
of dis-integration rather than integration. The psychologist has, as a result
been more in demand than the historian. And the artist has received more
respect than either."
I don't know if I agree with all the ideas expressed, but I thought it was
an interesting perspective on this century and the place of art, psychology
and history. What do others think?
Megan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 02:27:28 -0500
(In response to Ed Atkeson)Re: contemporary culture and lack of "connection"
to art.
The rise of capitalism and commodification of "art" certainly plays a big
role in the change we can see in society's relationship to art and it's
artists. I also wonder if the change from an "active" lifestyle (ie.
participatory) to a now (in USA anyway) dominantly sedentary and tv watching
one. "We" participate in life less and less and rely on movie producers and
networks to serve us up a diet of visual "junk food". "Our" visual abilties
are becoming atrophied and useless (as a culture). We don't know how to
spend quiet time with art/poetry in an attempt to understand and appreciated
it (viewers in art galleries and museums have been timed... spending about
3-4 seconds per item!) We are a nation needing to be spoon-fed fast-paced
visual stimulus. Horrifyingly passive.
But, the hopeful thing is that the children are still born with the ability
to see creatively and with joy and wonder. And many adults are willing to
spend time cultivating visual and literary perception. The hope for the
future may be to catch the children when they are ripe to learn to think and
percieve creatively...
It is very interesting to consider that the artistic revolution was silenced
in Soviet Russia and China at the same time our culture began to lose it's
way. My sense is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that in those countries the
arts were attacked by the governments while not necessarily shunned by the
general public (who were just busy trying to survive). Historically,
prolific art occurs only when a culture " thrives"... so what is our excuse?
Julene Thom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 07:39:58 -0500
Megan,
I wouldn't agree, and certainly a historian wouldn't agree. History is like
any other academic discipline, it has adapted to 20th c. "sentiments" in that
it has branched off into specific approaches, i.e. psychoanalytical (sp.),
marxist, feminist, etc. Therefore, why would history as a discipline be
targeted? Who is the source? and from what discipline? If it is an artist,
keep in mind that artists write from their hearts and rarely substantiate
their claims, and certainly lack any documentation.
Thanks, I would like to know the author?
Carol Ferguson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:47:31 -0500
You know Julene, I'm pushing 50. You're right about all this and it's a
shame to have to watch it happen. Used to be we thought it would change, we
thought we could change it. But I just don't care about these people anymore.
They are giving up their humanity. All they care about is soft bread and soft
toilet tissue. As artists, we can't change it, what are we supposed to do?
Maybe Claes Oldenberg has it right. Make soft art. : )
If it changes, fine. (they say poetry is "in" now. . . right) My job is
to make the best art I can. To try to find an audience however small, and
cultivate a little scene for myself and others. My job is to not compromise,
to tape the bottoms of my doors to keep the mainstream bullshit out, and do
my work the best I can. That famous Nazarine said to be in the world but not
of it. That's how I feel about culture.
Forgive my rant.
Ed Atkeson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 7 Dec 1995 10:19:39 +1100
To Carol and anyone else who might be interested, the source for the quote
was by Modris Eksteins in his book "Rites of Spring : the great war and the
birth of the modern age" published in 1989 by Bantam Press. He views world
war one as the great catharsis of the 20th century, or at least describes
different artists and contemporaries and how they saw it as the trauma that
marked a new age. It has become a pretty common idea with the description
of the "lost generation" and many historians and artists (with our human
desire for classification and dividing things up neatly) marking world war
one as the end of the old times (for example "Magic Mountain" by Thomas Mann)
The author uses the example of Eric Maria Remarque's "All quiet on the Western
Front", a publishing phenomenon at the time, a real "best seller" translated
into many languages. It (according to the author) encapsulated the dissolution
ment of a generation, yet not really rebelling or taking active action
against the society, just drifting, disatisfied and seeing the war as THE
event that changed the world.
It is interesting to look at the novel in the 20th century (seen as the great
19th century literary form) and how it reduced in size, I guess as more
people went into full time work and other entertainment options replaced
reading in popularity. Very few books published nowadays exceed 200 pages,
cept the "pot boiler" romances which perhaps make up in physical bulk, what
they lack in conceptual depth. The most popular literary forms these days I
believe are romances, detective/thriller stories and science fiction. They
are hardly classified as works of art, but it is interesting how critical
opinion is changing and they are influencing more mainstream "arty" productions
(eg. "The name of the Rose"- detective, "Possession" - romance). Some
earlier forms of these genres are virtually seen as works of art themselves
(eg. Raymond Chandler ). Things seem to take less time to acquire "Art" or
"Classic" status. Just watch the way critical opinion can change about an
apparently mainstream film for example (eg. "Blade Runner"). In the same
way university courses in art and history study contemporary film, popular
fiction and of course pop music, with Madonna who used to be a good thesis
topic. (so fickle is popular taste that she is perhaps too pase now, an 80s
phenomenon). It is good to see critical thinking applied to the mainstream,
and popular culture doesn't tend to be so elitist as some "highbrow" art
culutre, but still, as many others have voiced their fears, does being able
to study and appreciate a 3 minute pop song mean you have lost the ability
to understand and enjoy a 2 hour symphony or oratorio? I suspect for most
one seems to exclude the other. Though I have hear many times the saying
"If Shakespeare was alive today, he would be writing for the soaps" I think
maybe the dialogue would be more imaginative or inspired if this was the case.
I enjoy pop culture, and maybe it is "art" but a lot of it is definitely
"soft art".
best wishes
Megan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 7 Dec 1995 07:01:04 -0500
Dear Megan, I am finding myself hating or resenting the pop culture - and
what it has done to art - especially literary art. Megan you hit the nail on
the head when you said many couldn't enjoy a 2 hour symphony. It is true,
and our society it so quick paced and needs a quick fix as opposed to reading
a book for the beautiful prose and the story - everyone wants to get to the
punchline.
My biggest problem in the classroom is convincing the student that it is
worth taking the time to enjoy a play, or literary work, that they needn't
know what will happen, and understand why.
Art Appreciation, I believe is more elite - or "high brow" as you put it,
less understood by the general public. I believe this has a large part to do
with lack of funding for the arts on a federal and state level, therefore
fewer people are exposed. Sadly, popular culture is replacing the fine arts
culture, and people are becoming slaves to mindless dribble about cops and
robbers, love and hate, etc., and are not understanding any larger picture.
Anyway, just my opinion.
Carol
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:13:03 -0500
Carol>>> Sadly, popular culture is replacing the fine arts
culture, and people are becoming slaves to mindless dribble about cops and
robbers, love and hate, etc., and are not understanding any larger picture.
Do you think there may be a renaissance around the corner?
Ed Atkeson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 8 Dec 1995 18:34:29 -0500
ed,
I didn't say that popular culture is replacing fine arts, just that they are
more separate. As an art historian, I would say that art is here, and the
fine arts are thriving. It is just that the mainstream or average american
citizen doesn't know about it. I must say that this is an American
phenomenon. Fine art is a part of the daily life of an average individual in
Europe (having lived there). The U/ S. government is largely to blame,
public school systems, and the "newness" of our country. As far as a
Renaissance, I do not know, I think we are at an end of things - but will
there be another beginning? This is hard to judge. Perhaps if we survive
globalization.
Carol
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat, 9 Dec 1995 14:25:38 -0500
CF>>> I didn't say that popular culture is replacing fine arts, just that
they are more separate.
It was a quote, you did say that, but no matter.
(CF>>> Sadly, popular culture is replacing the fine arts culture, and
people are becoming slaves to mindless dribble about cops and robbers, love
and hate, etc., and are not understanding any larger picture.)
CF>>> As an art historian, I would say that art is here, and the fine arts
are thriving. It is just that the mainstream or average american citizen
doesn't know about it.
Agreed. This is almost a contradiction, isn't it? Would you say that "art
is here"--in the university? Or associated with a few galleries in large
cities and magazines? Where is the art scene, anyway? The Kitchen and
Franklin Furnace in NYC can only afford to give their performers cab fare.
Could you hazard a guess about what percentage of the American public "knows
about it"?
CF>>> I must say that this is an American phenomenon. Fine art is a part of
the daily life of an average individual in Europe (having lived there). The
U/ S. government is largely to blame, public school systems, and the
"newness" of our country.
Agreed. Would you say that fine art is more or less a part of the daily
life of an average American individual now than it was 30 or 40 years ago?
On a recent visit, I was in 4 or 5 pretty typical homes in Germany. All
had many original artworks on display. There were modern sculptures in the
public squares, some pretty inaccessible stuff. It was a completely different
feeling from being in America and scanning around for art (forget it).
Artworks were part of the ambiance, daily life.
Thanks for the comments Carol.
Ed Atkeson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat, 16 Dec 1995 19:30:33 -0100
Dear Carol,
your sentence remembered me a word, , , I
don't know the original word in German language, used from Karl Kraus in his
book
"Dritte Walpurgisnacht" (I've the italian translation: "La terza notte di
Valpurga").
I'm very interested on all people that wrote or "made artworks" at the
beguinning of this century, and before, or just after, the beguinning of
nazism. AFTER, all things are changed, this is my impression, and risks of
"standardization" of human life - WorldWide - are bigger, I think, now than
in those times, when people spoke, wrote, did actions, and nazism was
something never seen before: now, similar "aims" or "purposes" are
"subliminal", seldom declared in clear words.
But Karl Kraus made also a linguistic analysis of "how" standardization is
masked under simple and primitives, but fascinating, forms.
In the same time, I think it's up to us how and if we are
"at the end of things", and "survive globalization".
Danilo
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 09:47:28 -0500
Julene Thom>>> But, the hopeful thing is that the children are still born
with the ability to see creatively and with joy and wonder. And many adults
are willing to spend time cultivating visual and literary perception. The
hope for the future may be to catch the children when they are ripe to learn
to think and percieve creatively...
Enjoyed your thoughts Julene.
On this subject, I'm wondering about the kids. The kids and these video tapes
that are being used to babysit 3 yearolds. Pocahontas. Beauty and the Beast.
The kids sit there d r i n k i n g this stuff eyes wide, moving their lips
to the words. What do y'all think? What does this do to the facility of
imagination in these kids? Shouldn't they be playing with cardboard boxes and
learning to make stuff up in their little minds?
Ed Atkeson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 6 Dec 1995 20:19:18 -0500
To Ed Atkeson:
Yes... videos as childcare is a terrible thing! ( I really believe that the
lack of consistant parenting in this country is at the root of many of our
problems... all leading back to our extreme consumerism. ie. both parents
working full time to pay for all of the "toys" and having no energy left
over to raise children.) It is a scary thought to realize our next
generation has been weaned on Disney and Game Boy. And yes, I have seen that
glazed expression on many childrens faces as they stare at the TV. I do
suspect that this will "train" this next generation of children to expect
passive entertainment and be unwilling to create and/or appreciate art. But,
there is research out there supporting the notion that art is not a "luxury"
or "frill", but instead an integral part of human existance; almost on the
level of food/shelter/clothing. (Ellen Dissanyake has written several
interesting books). Is our detachment from this vital human activity the
cause of many of our social ills? If so, how might one (with art?) grab the
attention of the "general" public and communicate this concern? (Obviously,
those attending the gallery and museum openings already have grasped the
notion and are already engaged... ) How do we reestablish a sense of
community and integration in our own society? I do believe that artists can
participate effectively in the rebuilding and create dialogue (instead of
remaining outside existing in a rather parellel "universe" to the rest of
society)
How one begins this dialogue is the most difficult question.
(Another book that addresses the commodification of art and the change in art
in the past 300 years:
"The Gift" -by Lewis Hyde)
Thanks for your feedback...
Julene
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 8 Dec 1995 09:13:02 -0500
We might try leadership. Pablo Casals used to play the Whitehouse.
Now, we know that the president doesn't care about art, the Congress
doesn't care about art. Every kid going to public school knows that the art
departments and music departments are struggling for supplies, space and
teachers. Art doesn't matter.
The feds spend more money on military marching bands than the entire arts
endowment. Makes you sick.
Then again, chamber music at the Whitehouse might be grounds for
impeachment these days. Why do I LIVE here?
Ed Atkeson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julene,
Weren't you the one who posted about the studies which show the average
engagement with a work of art in a museum is 3 to 4 seconds? The study may be
misleading depending on how it was done, but I'm interested in the stats like
these. "They" say that more people go to art museums in America than go to
baseball games. Really.
The arts people can say "see, people really are interested in art."
I shake my head and say, "they are? (can't be)"
George Will can say "why should the government support art museums when
they are more popular than baseball?"
When the Armory show hit these shores (1913?) it was the biggest event that
white people had ever had on this continent up till that time. By far biggest
attendance, loads of interest and commentary, outrage.
I would be interested in an analysis of the way America engaged the
Armory Show, and the way the throngs of Americans engage artworks in Art
museums today. I suppose I should look it up, then, huh?
Ed Atkeson
Tue, 12 Dec 1995 16:04:17 -0500
Hi, Folks,
Can anyone tell me the source of a statement MT made comparing fine
literature to wine and his to water?
Many thanks,
Jeri Zulli
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 13 Dec 1995 17:53:18 -0700
The water/wine quote appears in a letter SLC wrote to W. D. Howells on
2/15/1887 :
"...high and fine literature is wine, and mine is only water; but everybody
likes water."
Some sources also give an earlier quote which appeared in Twain's notebook
of 1885:
"My works are like water. The works of the great masters are like wine. But
everyone drinks water."
Barbara Schmidt
Sun, 17 Dec 1995 19:45:50 -0700
I was to the college library again and brought home a book having
reproductions of many paintings and drawings of Leonor Fini, Olympia
Press, 1968.
She is a contemporary artist, from Trieste, worked in Paris, and
apparently lives in a ruined monestery on Corsica, perhaps she lives
there still, or not. Her earliest work is from the late 30s so that
dates her, I could not find her birthdate. She seems to make a great
development as she moves forward from decade to decade.
One period is partially devoted to sphinxes, but much of her work is of a
personal mythological vision.
Just thought I would point those interested to her and invite comment.
Fred Bauer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred- is this the same Ms. FIni who was involved with the
surrealist movement? if so she must be quite old by now. I am very
interested in her work. The pieces I have seen have some pretty intense
self protraits included.
Sharon Cooper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 5 Jan 1996 17:58:37 -0700
Not only does she do self-portraits but double ones.
Fred
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:44:24 -0700
Perhap the worst was the O.J. parade on the freeway.
The best I've seen or heard is the great outpouring of new music. The
technology seems to be on the side of creativity. About $2000 to master
a quality CD I think.
One my themes, Michelle, is that we live in the new renaisance.
Nobody agrees.
Fred
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 3 Jan 1996 05:22:05 +0200
> Perhap the worst was the O.J. parade on the freeway.
It`s really interesting to hear how it was percived in the USA.
Did your interest/reaction to the affair undergo a change since
spring `94?
Michelle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:24:27 +0000
Last week I went to the cinema with all my family to see Toy's Story.
I was amazed. I remembered then the cartoon (the first scene) in Who
framed Roger Rabbitt?. Its velocity, its cruel style? The amount of
images is often, too much for me.
Then I realized I had been thinking about this topic for a long time.
Do you have any opinions about the esthetic and style in art fields
addressed to children, and its multiple implications in the psychic
development of kids. I choose cartoons cos, given cartoon network and
the fact that cartoons are widely known all around the world,
everybody would be able to understand and to give an opinion.
Cartoons are shared by all cultures and that doesn!t happend with
books, magazines, theatre and music.
Well,. hope this will stimulate someone there.
Happy new year for all
Diego Gonzalez Castanon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 3 Jan 1996 07:33:21 -0700
I came home, expecting to watch my usual programs (Jeopardy and Roseanne)
and on every channel there was a white bronco slowly going nowhere.
So maybe the renaisance will have to wait a bit.
The final not guilty was rather interesting. And bodes ill.
Tragedy makes great art, I guess. The strength of the Hero is his downfall.
I guess I am in the Chorus of the O.J. Tragedy.
But an interesting thought, How could fiction even approach the drama of
everyday events as they come to us now? We live in the midst of the
drama of our times.
Fred
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:06:07 -0600
Now being from a non-european culture and growing up in the 50s and 60s
in America and Pakistan I think that I have a very different view of
cartoons for children. I know that when we were in the States the only
one in our family that consistantly watched cartoons was my father. In
case you think my father was totally unintellectual let me say that he
had been to some of the best universities in the world and had graduate
degrees in philosophy, psychology and religion. I for my part found
cartoons to be extremely violent, and couldn't watch them and never
enjoyed them. They always seemed to be hitting each other over the head,
large objects were hurled from over high. Small animals were always
being eaten by larger ones and if they weren't exactly being eaten the
whole show was about outsmarting. I on the other hand loved comic books
I liked the Super Heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman and the half a
dozen or so others. I often think of writing and creating things in the
comic visual pattern, the color and image appeals to me and I like work
that is made like comic books. I think the color is simple and like
sculpture that could be cut out in different shapes and than painted with
flat colors. I visualized scultpture like that in the form of puzzle cut
out shapes but never ever did it because I thought it would look mostly
like childrens puzzles!!!!
So I would have to say that "its velocity, its cruel style?" was too much
for me a child not being raised in it from early childhood and taking it
as a matter of course.
ann
Diego Gonzalez Castanon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:18:38 -0600
The other things I would like to add about comic strips is that I always
like a little writing with my image. I think this is what particularly
attracts me to computers where there is software that makes for
multimedia. Sorry to follow my own post with my own post but I guess I'm
busy tracing my interests and where they come from.!!!!
Ann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 29 Dec 1995 02:58:44 +0000
Annadora Khan: did you like to write yourself besides the image or
you liked the combination of tinies ballons with words and the image?
This relation between written words and images worthes mor attention.
When I was a kid I looked for ilustrated books to read. That meant up
to 10 monochromathic images. That was great. It was a sign of
growing, to read non ilustrated books (I looked to the portrait in
the cover thousands of times)
My eldest son, (8) love to read untill midnight Asterix. He would'nt
read something without images, even with simple images. But if I read
the story (or invent one) he hangs up untill I'm finished and comes
for more. Do you think this depends in the interrelation between
images and words. Do you think that oral (spoken literature) provides
another link? The images fascinate and the heard words estimulate the
imagination?
Diego Gonzalez Castanon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 4 Jan 1996 06:03:13 -0500
Fred,
I am a little late in getting into this discussion, but what do you mean by
"we live in a new Renaissance?" What makes you think this? When you said
"nobody agrees" did you mean to this idea of a "new Renaissance?"
Carol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 4 Jan 1996 08:22:43 -0500
Diego Gonzalez Castanon>>> Do you have any opinions about the esthetic and
style in art fields addressed to children, and its multiple implications in
the psychic development of kids.
Mostly considering the form here I guess.
Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean are taking the genre toward fine art imho.
But that's books.
On tv? I would limit exposure to this overjuicy imagination dulling
thing--for myself, for any kid. Also mho. Hour a day. Thank you.
But the books--you can make your own! They should teach it all through
school. All the genres, in every class--words and pictures, color and
communication. You need some paper and a crayon. I'm glad to see books like
"Cages," or Gaiman and McKean's "Mr Punch" coming out because they have an
adult appeal, so go a bit deeper than kid culture and they sense it and give
the material more serious consideration. I think it would be good for a kid
to grow up in a house with serious and seriously rIdiculous comics around
with everybody enjoying them.
And the kid thinking all I need is this marker
.. As far as content goes, I would decide who my kid is hanging with. Serious
censorship. I care, they need to know it. Teach discrimination.
Ed Atkeson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 4 Jan 1996 07:55:06 -0700
I believe that access to the tools of creativity by the peoples of our
times has resulted in a vast outpouring of art, of all kinds. That,
coupled with a mass market for art, has resulted in a golden age
unrecognizable to us,
To Art Teachers and education people,
I am currently embarking on teaching an independent study in methods of
teaching art to education students in their fourth year.
I am wondering if anyone else teaches this course, if yes, what are the
available textbooks in this area?
If anyone has any interesting projects that the students might benefit from,
please write me. Carolfergi@aol.com. I would appreciate any tips on
structuring the course, projects, exercises, topics of discussion, etc. Or
if you are an art teacher, what projects are you working on?
Any help will be useful.
Thank you,
Carol Ferguson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 11 Jan 1996 00:00:08 +0100
I believe that the art is there for anyone taking the effort to see.
I mean, before you can read you have to learn to read. To be able to look
at art you have to learn to watch and see. I don't mean this elitist. I
think that the appreciation of art involves a learning process, and also
the notion that it is a personal thing, not just an abnormal invention.
So is here a role for schools, for television maybe, or for the artists
themselves?
I think noone want to be seen as 'on the edge'.
Arthur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 10 Jan 1996 18:05:22 -0600
I think that one has to be some how trained to understand art is a
criticism and is an issue very much related to modern art. I for one
enjoy modern art a lot but have friends who can't stand (the friends not
on the edge that is) it.
My comment about the O.J. chase being long was tongue in cheek it was
more a reflection of even if it is reality on T.V. it can still be edited
and if it can than is it reality?
ann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 12 Jan 1996 15:57:48 -0100
It's a common idea, since at least the last 20 years, thar we are living The
New Renaissance...
I've a different opinion, but I'd like also to work on it, if someone can
help me.
My opinion is that a very interesting period, for the World, had been that
from about 1880 untill 1929-1933: I think that there are at least the
springs of our Renaissance, in all fields of human life: arts, literature,
science, psychology, politics, social questions, techniques..., or, better,
that THIS period was a true Renaissance Period; people lived in that
"spirit", also beyond the big break of the First World War. If you don't
like to name it that way, I suggest "Golden Age" (people in the States and
in South Africa were also looking for Gold...! Other people were looking for
new frontiers or thinking to go back and build a new land).
What I'd like to do is a big data-base about that period: it's a very
enormous job,
also if is there much literature. This is the firsy reason for which I call
for help.
The second one is that I don't know how to build the best data base on
Internet for this purpose. I think I'll start to collect in one or more web
pages some hyper-textes , with link to what yet does exist (eg, about
Wittgengstein, Freud, Nietzsche, but also Mach, Pascoli, Einstein,
Popper....Mahler and so on).
Is anyone interested on it?
Danilo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:33:29 -0600
Danilo,
at least part of what you call the "golden age" was called the "gilded
age" in America, remember that "all that glitters is not gold" it is also
the time of the Industrial Revolution which is a very big thing but it
also brings with it problems for man that might not be so golden. I
think besides the intellectual discoveries one also has to look at the
move from an agrarian to industrial socities. This might be a common
idea "the new renaissance" in Italy but I have not heard of it. I have
also not heard that the last 20 years was a Renaissance, but I think that
you are absolutely right that 1880-1929 was a very important age of
transition for man from the agrarian to the industrial societies.
ann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 12 Jan 1996 09:46:19 -0600
sorry for my double posts but I keep changing my mind and wanting to add
more after what I said. I think that you can start even earlier like
1850 for an interesting time period.
Annadora Khan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat, 13 Jan 1996 02:51:34 -0100
Dear Annadora, perhaps you'ree right, about the period: it's a difficult
question.
In my mind the "golden age" can start from Renaissance, through Illuminism
and so up to last century, ending (?!?) in 1933 or near that year: not just
for nazism, not just for war, not just for Hiroshima, ... I'm lost...!!
I also think, I'm not "pessimistic" that human kind never had before the
possibility to access to EACH period of the past, ... THE PAST.
A question is: WHAT ARE WE DOING AT PRESENT ?
But, coming back to period 1880-1933, I could say that I love that period,
like a childhood I forgot. Don't know why.
(My grand-parents ?!?)
Danilo
THE GOLDEN AGE 1880-1933
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 17 Jan 1996 17:25:38 -0500
Dear Danilo,
I read your and Annadora's discussions and musings about the time period
of 1880-1933 being a Renaissance period. There has always been creativity,
yes, but I think it can be argued that that time period brought a change in
the focus of the creativity.
Yes, there was a great transition from agrarian to industrial societies.
Such a change brought a more material-based (materialistic) value system.
It was possible to achieve much (status, position, security, possessions)
without needing good character in the way a more agrarian, barter-system
based economy and lifestyle necessitated.
What happened? Did artists reflect that materialistic attitude?
Definitely. The rage was on. Then several artists began to focus on
something else, something 180 degrees away from the industrial revolution:
the spiritual.
It is said that a woman, H.P.Blavatsky, did much to provide searching
artists with "food for thought." In 1880 her enormous work The Secret
Doctrine was published. It was in two volumes; volume 1 dealt with
Cosmogenesis and volume 2 was called Anthropogenesis. She began a society
that was unique in its time: Theosophy. Mondrian studied her books.
Kandinsky had notes on them in his sketchbooks. I don't know enough of
whether she sparked their own searching or gave it direction or miraculously
just coincided with it.
From Mondrian by John Miller, 1992, (pp. 46, 50): "Mondrian's
colleagues at Domburg were interested in theosophy which the mystic Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky originated in 1875...According to theosophical beliefs
matter has arisen from the interaction of universal forces engaged in an
evolutionary progression." Mondrian, it seems to me, first began abstraction
as a way to more accurately portray the spiritual in matter...or matter
evolving back into the spiritual. His first images with some abstraction
seem to be in 1908. Kandinsky's "The Blue Rider" was in 1903.
I'd like to look into Seurat, Einstein's matter-energy theory and
Nicholas Roerich's great Russian works, etc., to see what their time frames
and major influencing concepts were.
I'm definitely in agreement about a Renaissance having occurred during
the turn of the century. I would like to know more about that period for it
truly brought us a more humane, deeper , and more lyrical view of human life
than was present in 1870-1910.
Peace,
Jill
Art Page
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thu, 18 Jan 1996 21:23:45 GMT
Hi Jill,
Reading the name Roerich here I suppose that you know that Nicholas Roerich
was very much inspired by esoteric teachings.
Do you also know that his wife, Helena Roerich wrote many *esoteric* letters
which were published in 2 volumes. I have them right here in my book case.
Warm greetings
Hans Bosman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, 21 Jan 1996 22:31:00 EST
Mme. Blavatsky lived for a while in Philadelphia. Her house, near the
University, is now a very excellent restaurant (White Dog Tavern) and has lots
of interesting memorabilia on view.
Steven Slap
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 26 Jan 1996 21:50:12 -0500
Hello Hans,
Are you also a student of esoteric writings? A warm hello.
A portrait of Helena Roerich, by her son Svetoslav, is amongst my things.
If you would ever like to share part of a letter, please know that I enjoy
reading her thoughts.
Peace,
Jill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fri, 26 Jan 1996 21:50:26 -0500
Hello Steven,
Fun trivia on H.P.Blavatsky. The woman is a fascinating study; I envy you
the chance to have seen some of her personal objects. By the way, do you
remember having seen any clue at White Dog Tavern that suggests what Mme.
smoked?
Peace,
Jill
-------