James Freeman on wed 18 jul 12
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Randall Moody wro=
te:
Art must have intellectual aesthetics as well as physical aesthetics.
Randall...
Why? I have never understood this idea.
If our goal is to communicate an intellectual idea, then art is a
particularly poor choice of medium. Mathematics or rhetoric are far better
suited to communicating such.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Randall Moody on wed 18 jul 12
Because art with out intellectualism is nothing more than decoration.
Mathematics and rhetoric without beauty (for want of a better term) is also
lacking. It is the combination of both physical and intellectual aesthetics
that we arrive at ART.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Freeman <
jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Randall Moody w=
rote:
>
> Art must have intellectual aesthetics as well as physical aesthetics.
>
>
>
>
> Randall...
>
> Why? I have never understood this idea.
>
> If our goal is to communicate an intellectual idea, then art is a
> particularly poor choice of medium. Mathematics or rhetoric are far bett=
er
> suited to communicating such.
>
> All the best.
>
> ...James
>
> James Freeman
>
> "Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
> -Euripides
>
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>
>
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
Lee on wed 18 jul 12
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Gerholdclay wro=
=3D
te:
> My comment would have been extremely bad manners had it referred to a per=
=3D
son.
>Calling a pot ugly is a judgement. Unless of course one believes that pot=
=3D
s have
> feelings.
Paul,
One of the most acute postmodernist assaults against art has
been relativism and the denial of Beauty. "Just being ironic and
having impact isn't enough to make something art. " Aesthetics matter.
This doesn't mean that hobby potters, retirees or clay therapy
makers don't count. It simply means that you don't have to deny
excellence in order to justify them. Lowest common denominator
aesthetics are as bad as relativism.
The philosopher Huston Smith addresses the postmodern problem in his
book Beyond the Post-Modern Mind. Below is an essay making good use
of some of Smith's quotes:
http://www.integralworld.net/martin-smith2.html
"So too with art: it does not follow that judgments, standards, or
ranking artwork are impossible, as Huston Smith so grandly points out.
As Shakespeare said, therein lies the rub: postmodern critics fail to
see that just being ironic and having impact isn't enough to make
something art. To use only the postmodern criteria for art creates a
flatland, where there is no way to deem anything =3D93better than=3D94
anything else =3D97 everything is left in an egalitarian swamp where
everyone gets a gold star for trying to be an artist, and everyone can
be an artist if they want. Using irony just means you're on the =3D93in=3D9=
4 =3D
=3D97
you =3D93get it=3D94, which does, in fact, make your work a little better t=
han
grandma's painting of ducks in winter."
http://www.integralworld.net/martin-smith2.html
--
Lee Love in Minneapolis
http://mingeisota.blogspot.com/
"Ta tIr na n-=3DF3g ar chul an tI=3D97tIr dlainn trina ch=3DE9ile"=3D97tha=
t is, "T=3D
he
land of eternal youth is behind the house, a beautiful land fluent
within itself." -- John O'Donohue
Randall Moody on wed 18 jul 12
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Lee wrote:
> Lowest common denominator
> aesthetics are as bad as relativism.
>
>
As is making pretty little baubles. There are a great many items out there
that are pretty but that is where they end.
Art must have intellectual aesthetics as well as physical aesthetics. The
problem, as I see it, in ceramics (pottery) is that the intellectual rigor
is many times supplanted with vague spirituality or "feelings". This is the
analogue to the contemporary art world's emphasis on intellectual
(sometimes psuedo-intellectual) rather than well crafted work.
This is not to say that spirituality or intellectualism has no place in
art.
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on thu 19 jul 12
Hi Randall, James, Euripedes, all...
I still maintain, that 'Art' is ( the unambiguously redemptive, and high
quality of ) 'how' something is done, and, ( is ) not
the thing itself.
The thing or result itself may be said to be 'a work of Art', and, probably=
,
this is
where everyone got confused.
Phil
Lv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Moody"
> Because art with out intellectualism is nothing more than decoration.
> Mathematics and rhetoric without beauty (for want of a better term) is
> also
> lacking. It is the combination of both physical and intellectual
> aesthetics
> that we arrive at ART.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Freeman <
> jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Randall Moody
>> wrote:
>>
>> Art must have intellectual aesthetics as well as physical aesthetics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Randall...
>>
>> Why? I have never understood this idea.
>>
>> If our goal is to communicate an intellectual idea, then art is a
>> particularly poor choice of medium. Mathematics or rhetoric are far
>> better
>> suited to communicating such.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> ...James
>>
>> James Freeman
>>
>> "Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
>> -Euripides
>>
>> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
>> http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
> http://wrandallmoody.com
James Freeman on thu 19 jul 12
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Randall Moody wr=
ote:
Because art with out intellectualism is nothing more than decoration.
Randall...
With all due respect, that is merely a restatement of your original
premise. What I am after is an explanation of WHY this should be so, why
"art without intellectualism is nothing more than decoration", why "art
must have intellectual aesthetics as well as physical aesthetics."
I have never yet found a cogent explanation of why this should be so, and
the idea seems to be of very recent vintage. I do concede that everything
produced in art school must have a (real or imagined) intellectual
component if one wishes to pass one's classes, but the requirement seems to
end at the school door. I also concede that much of Modern Art collapses
if one abandons this concept, but that is not evidence that the concept is
valid, but rather merely that Modern Art rests on a relatively weak
foundation.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Robert Harris on thu 19 jul 12
I'm pretty sure that Rembrandt's customers didn't give two farthings about
any intellectual content (sure, they were buying decorative portraits), and
I think it rather dubious to suppose that he did either. He was mostly
concerned about making a decent amount of money.
Without a doubt he certainly painted some less than commercial stuff (at
least it was less commercial before he got famous), and I assume that that
was feeding his "artist's soul", which may include some intellectual
content, but I suspect he just painted stuff that he liked and WANTED to
paint, without some bizarre idea of intellectualism that had to infuse his
work.
Or perhaps you think he was not the great painter that everyone else does,
and thinks he's a more decorator?
What is your definition of intellectualism in a painting? When does a
decorative painting turn into art - on the great continuum of thought what
is the dividing line?
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Randall Moody wr=
ote:
> Because art with out intellectualism is nothing more than decoration.
> Mathematics and rhetoric without beauty (for want of a better term) is al=
so
> lacking. It is the combination of both physical and intellectual aestheti=
cs
> that we arrive at ART.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Freeman <
> jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Randall Moody > >wrote:
> >
> > Art must have intellectual aesthetics as well as physical aesthetics.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Randall...
> >
> > Why? I have never understood this idea.
> >
> > If our goal is to communicate an intellectual idea, then art is a
> > particularly poor choice of medium. Mathematics or rhetoric are far
> better
> > suited to communicating such.
> >
> > All the best.
> >
> > ...James
> >
> > James Freeman
> >
> > "Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
> > -Euripides
> >
> > http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
> > http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
> http://wrandallmoody.com
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Randall Moody on thu 19 jul 12
All of Rembrandt's paintings show a great deal of intellectualism. ( *
Intellectualism* denotes the use, development, and exercise of the intellec=
t )
"Storm on the Sea of Galilee", "Abduction of Europa" for example as well as
most of his etchings show a deep knowledge of the subject. Even the
portraits show this otherwise they would not be as successful as they are.
You would have to provide some evidence that he was "mostly concerned with
making a decent amount of money". While making money was and still is a
part of art it is not the be all and end all of it.
There are some painters out there now that show great technical skill but
that is as deep as they go. Some made massive amounts of money but I
seriously doubt that "cottage in the woods" paintings will ever rise to the
ranks of "Art".
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Robert Harris wro=
te:
> I'm pretty sure that Rembrandt's customers didn't give two farthings abou=
t
> any intellectual content (sure, they were buying decorative portraits), a=
nd
> I think it rather dubious to suppose that he did either. He was mostly
> concerned about making a decent amount of money.
>
> Without a doubt he certainly painted some less than commercial stuff (at
> least it was less commercial before he got famous), and I assume that tha=
t
> was feeding his "artist's soul", which may include some intellectual
> content, but I suspect he just painted stuff that he liked and WANTED to
> paint, without some bizarre idea of intellectualism that had to infuse hi=
s
> work.
>
> Or perhaps you think he was not the great painter that everyone else does=
,
> and thinks he's a more decorator?
>
> What is your definition of intellectualism in a painting? When does a
> decorative painting turn into art - on the great continuum of thought wha=
t
> is the dividing line?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Randall Moody =
wrote:
>
>> Because art with out intellectualism is nothing more than decoration.
>> Mathematics and rhetoric without beauty (for want of a better term) is
>> also
>> lacking. It is the combination of both physical and intellectual
>> aesthetics
>> that we arrive at ART.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Freeman <
>> jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Randall Moody m
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> > Art must have intellectual aesthetics as well as physical aesthetics.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Randall...
>> >
>> > Why? I have never understood this idea.
>> >
>> > If our goal is to communicate an intellectual idea, then art is a
>> > particularly poor choice of medium. Mathematics or rhetoric are far
>> better
>> > suited to communicating such.
>> >
>> > All the best.
>> >
>> > ...James
>> >
>> > James Freeman
>> >
>> > "Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
>> > -Euripides
>> >
>> > http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
>> > http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Randall in Atlanta
>> http://wrandallmoody.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
Randall in Atlanta
http://wrandallmoody.com
James Freeman on thu 19 jul 12
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Randall Moody wro=
te:
All of Rembrandt's paintings show a great deal of intellectualism. ( *
Intellectualism* denotes the use, development, and exercise of the
intellect )
"Storm on the Sea of Galilee", "Abduction of Europa" for example as well as
most of his etchings show a deep knowledge of the subject.
Randall...
We were not discussing "intellectualism", in art or otherwise. Your
allegation was that art must possess intellectual CONTENT, must possess and
convey a deep meaning which transcends mere aesthetics, which is a far
different thing than "intellectualism". It is this notion that art must
possess intellectual content that I am laboring to understand.
Having a deep knowledge of one's subject matter has little to do with
whether or not the resultant work attempts to convey some sort of
intellectual content. Norman Rockwell displayed an incredible level of
knowledge of his subject matter, yet his work is routinely dismissed as
"mere" illustration. Medical illustrators possess an absolutely profound
level of understanding of their subject matter, yet they in no way can be
thought of as trying to communicate some sort of deep message. That a
painting or other work of art rests upon a strong fundamental knowledge of
the subject matter merely demonstrates that the creator did his homework.
It in no way follows of necessity that the resultant work was intended to
communicate a great truth. That is an entirely separate issue.
All the best.
...James
James Freeman
"Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
-Euripides
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on fri 20 jul 12
Hi Robert, Randall, James, all,
While I am either Blessed or Cursed to have had close to no exposure to 'Ar=
t
History' or Art analysis/evaluation, or 'Artspeak', or 'Art Classes', it
would have seemed to
me in apprehending the Paintings of 'Rembrant', that we are seeing a
confluence and harmony of
Literacy, being expressed 'in' Painting, rather than it would ever occur to
me to
'see' these as expressions of 'intellectualism'.
I imagine Rembrant was quite Literate, and enjoyed facility with his
Literacy not only in Painting, but, everywhere else as well...and, that his
Patrons
or Customers were also likely to be quite Literate, and likewise.
And by
this I mean,
they were far beyond what modern schools are satisfied with, for installing
merely the perfunctory skill of reading and writing ( or, reading, and,
printing letters and calling it 'writing') - or, I mean,
they were Culturally literate ( and, were part of a Culture worth being
'literate' in, or about ) and familiar with perceiving, managing and
understanding to whatever depth or layers or relations, the symbols,
allusions, metaphors, grouplings, nuances, alegories, classical references,
associations and related, which
the compositions of Paintings in their day, tended quite ooften to have or
utilize.
I doubt any of which was merely accidental or incidental, even if to-day,
'content' is more often than not left to some unconscious faculty or to a
merely
superficial or cloying political or topical evocation or reference, if it i=
s
to even
occur at all, or, is
merely some basal emotional or intellectual gambit, which then is not on
parr with
this other Sphere of endevor or expression, at all.
I imagine almost all of which Composition of Rembrant's era is lost on us
to-day, and, we merely 'see' a Portraint of a person or persons, with an
incidental
Landscape or Plants or Flowers or Animals, or an arbitrary interior of a
Home, Building or
Room with some knick-knacks or
whatever, and, we suppose it all to be 'quaint'.
Do we take these to always be a literal rendering of a mundane setting for
the Portrait, or view, to show literally the usual scene of the depicted?
I doubt there is any way a person of to-day, could be Literate in the way,
or in the same cognitive or recognitive sense as, in the content, which
Literate people of the
Rembrant's era
had been...in order for anyone 'now', to 'get' these Compositions in the wa=
y
they were both offered, and, recognised in their Day.
It is also possible that 'intellectuals' see, or 'see' so to speak, shades
of 'Brown', where, someone of fuller faculty and sense, sees various shades
of Red, Blue, Green,Orange, and so on, even as so called actual 'Colored
Blindness' is known to be.
...where, however would they know? ( what they are missing? Even when
told? )
Phil
L v
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Moody"
> All of Rembrandt's paintings show a great deal of intellectualism. ( *
> Intellectualism* denotes the use, development, and exercise of the
> intellect )
> "Storm on the Sea of Galilee", "Abduction of Europa" for example as well
> as
> most of his etchings show a deep knowledge of the subject. Even the
> portraits show this otherwise they would not be as successful as they are=
.
> You would have to provide some evidence that he was "mostly concerned wit=
h
> making a decent amount of money". While making money was and still is a
> part of art it is not the be all and end all of it.
> There are some painters out there now that show great technical skill but
> that is as deep as they go. Some made massive amounts of money but I
> seriously doubt that "cottage in the woods" paintings will ever rise to
> the
> ranks of "Art".
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Robert Harris
> wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure that Rembrandt's customers didn't give two farthings
>> about
>> any intellectual content (sure, they were buying decorative portraits),
>> and
>> I think it rather dubious to suppose that he did either. He was mostly
>> concerned about making a decent amount of money.
>>
>> Without a doubt he certainly painted some less than commercial stuff (at
>> least it was less commercial before he got famous), and I assume that
>> that
>> was feeding his "artist's soul", which may include some intellectual
>> content, but I suspect he just painted stuff that he liked and WANTED to
>> paint, without some bizarre idea of intellectualism that had to infuse
>> his
>> work.
>>
>> Or perhaps you think he was not the great painter that everyone else
>> does,
>> and thinks he's a more decorator?
>>
>> What is your definition of intellectualism in a painting? When does a
>> decorative painting turn into art - on the great continuum of thought
>> what
>> is the dividing line?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Randall Moody
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Because art with out intellectualism is nothing more than decoration.
>>> Mathematics and rhetoric without beauty (for want of a better term) is
>>> also
>>> lacking. It is the combination of both physical and intellectual
>>> aesthetics
>>> that we arrive at ART.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:10 PM, James Freeman <
>>> jamesfreemanstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Randall Moody
>>> > >>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Art must have intellectual aesthetics as well as physical aesthetics.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Randall...
>>> >
>>> > Why? I have never understood this idea.
>>> >
>>> > If our goal is to communicate an intellectual idea, then art is a
>>> > particularly poor choice of medium. Mathematics or rhetoric are far
>>> better
>>> > suited to communicating such.
>>> >
>>> > All the best.
>>> >
>>> > ...James
>>> >
>>> > James Freeman
>>> >
>>> > "Talk sense to a fool, and he calls you foolish."
>>> > -Euripides
>>> >
>>> > http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
>>> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
>>> > http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Randall in Atlanta
>>> http://wrandallmoody.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Randall in Atlanta
> http://wrandallmoody.com
| |
|
