Guess the work experience.

[RacerX]

i could do my own Atomic Pollock for 5.00 and the cost of the fuckin' paint and the canvas.

[AlexL]

Since I started with Matisse... it's obvious that his first paining is more dark Dutch/Flemish style but he had bad health through his life so he started looking something which would bring joy to him and other people so he started using simple details and pretty colours.

And in his later days, he made his art by sticking pieces of paper on the canvas. He'd put them on a stick, and then dab the paper on the canvas. I assume his age and health prevented him from creating the types of earlier work he did.

I had the good fortune of seeing a Matisse exhibition in New York City many years ago. I was in town doing some video production work, and went to the exhibit with one of the producers. He was very familiar with Matisses work, so he was an excellent guide. Everything was displayed chronologically, so you could see how Matisse's art and perspective evolved and changed over time. I'm more of a Dali guy, but it was a great experience.

- E.

[Endrik]

Yep, he did those paper cutouts mostly lying at his bed, since he was in his 70's. It's really amazing how many different periods he had... early post-impressionist style, fauvism, odalisque erotic painting etc.

But what's really amazing is what he did during his very last years... Chapelle du Rosaire de Vence which is about 10km towards inland from Nice airport. One of the nurses who helped him became a dominican nun and Matisse who although was an atheist was clad to help her and her convent to design a new chapel.

It's very simple outside but once you enter it's an amazing experience. It's nothing like Sistine or any other majestic chapel with grandiose pieces of art which can cause Stendhal syndrome. It's small, humble and very modern but it has made people cry out of joy because how cheerful it is. The stained glass windows were designed to work with the bright Mediterranean light... the light being one of the main "materials", very innovative at its time. These days many great architects and urban designers really love to use light as a material.

[atomic charvel guy]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2272[/ATTACH]

you just made my whole point to his work, thankyou.

[Endrik]

Same with Vernon Reid. He can play very conventionally and do it exceptionally well. But he prefers to be more experimental and flies by the seat of his pants on stage. When it comes off, it is sublime. When it doesn't, it can be catastrophic. But he is fearless and lets it all hang out there on stage.

I believe Vernon practices improvisation in its truest form. When most people improvise they just throw in licks which they already have used bunch of times before.
About hundred years ago André Breton started putting emphasis on purely subconscious creativity, abandoning any kind of thinking and using automatism... and Surrealism writing and specially painting was quite remarkable. In music free jazz carried on that approach the most. Vernon obviously was influenced by those ideas, I've heard him playing the conventional way and he sounds great but I guess it's boring for him.
But the whole automatism improvisation only sounds cool if you can play really well, if you start bursting out all kinds of random notes your tone and feel gotta be good.

[atomic charvel guy]

you should see me improvise when i'm on the phone trying to get a deal with one of my headache customers.

[Nightbat]

Abstract art has absolutely no impact on me
I am one of those "Looked like a 5 year old made it" kind of people, too logical/practical in mindset to appreciate it I guess

[Rsmacker]

I appear to have stumbled into a forum which used to have lots of references to "pud-slapping" and tips on where to buy cheap meat, but now seems to inhabited by Brian Badonde, or worse, Brian fucking Sewell, banging on about poncey pictures.

http://vimeo.com/11006775

[Vass]

I think part of the reason there is an aversion at times to "modern" art is the artist, not the art itself.

My wife is an artist- Parson's School of Design, New School for Social Research, SVA, etc the whole NYC thing. She grew up pretty poor. Not ghetto, but there wasn't a river of money running through her early life. She worked and worked and worked to put together scholarships, which was tough for a 17 year old- and worked an after school job & 2 in the summer to get the $$. They do a full crit to get you in accepted. She blew off other "regular" schools that offered full rides for sports (what can I say athletic & creative life is good) and took loans out to cover what she couldn't cover in scholarship.

And then she gets there and 70% of her fellow students are rich kids who wanted to spend their time doing really bad work, really good drugs, and really obnoxious & uninspiring work. IMO of course.

My point is, if I have one, there are many, many people going to big art schools to basically fuck off for a few years and spend their parent's money. It's just the way it is. Those without talent usually have no technique either. So what do they do? They try to shock, they do "modern" art. THAT DOES NOT MEAN MODERN ART IS SHIT in it's totality. It means that it's EASIER to execute in many cases than fine art (which by the way is the ultimate way to guarantee yourself total poverty...sorry, but it's true). Take E's Matisse example. You can like his still life or his later stuff when he was experimenting with printing technique. But to put it in guitar terms, think of Marty Friedman. You can like his Japanese pop or you can hate it...but it doesn't change the fact that he can shred your face off if he feels like it. He just doesn't feel like it because his interests are leading him elsewhere.

I would suggest to those who find little use for "modern" art to do the following...try to find the guys who you know nothing about their personal lives. I am sure there are those who love Kahlo & Rivera here, so I am not commenting on the quality of their work so much as pointing out that their personal lives and political beliefs have alot to do with their relative fame.

I think the artist I'm thinking of is Magritte.... his success came later in life and virtually all after his death. Why? Because he spent time with the Paris surrealists and thought they were a bunch of drug huffing children. He was a normal guy with an extraordinary talent who got married & had a conventional family & wasn't particularly interested in politics. He just had something to say and he said it with his work. Forgive me if I am confusing Magritte with someone else, but I think that's who I am thinking of. No absynthe, no drama, no affairs, no political polemics, just the work. How boring!

You should have seen the George Bush/ Dick Cheney art that was floating around the city 5 years ago. Boring, boring, boring, boring. But a cheap way to reach out and grab the viewer of the work, for good or for ill, and getting "a reaction" passes for a proper goal to some.

[Endrik]

You can find kids who want to waste their parents' money "studying" any kind of profession.... many first year physics students spend most of the time getting shit faced... it doesn't really matter what you study. But at least over here the large majority of art students are from working and middle class families.

I think "modern" is just a general term for everything that's 20th century... give or take... Modern painting and modern classical music started at late 19th century with impressionism, same thing with modern literature, modern architecture started in early 20th century (real modernist things like fundamentalism in the 30's) modernist film in the late 50's. etc.

When you look at the impressionist, people started appreciating them pretty late. Any kind of shock effect or radical ideologies weren't welcomed at all. The art was judged by wealthy traditional haute bourgeoisie or aristocratic folks, most of them couldn't stand anything out of the norm.
Great Vincent Van Gogh died like a bum. He wasn't trying to shock anyone. Many folks humiliated Cézanne who was the shiest person in the world.
Matisse did get fame only because of his talent, he was a very humble and friendly fellow, he did have many lovers but that wasn't anything unorthodox in the culture he grew up.
Picasso had many political statements but that was because his native land was taken over by fascists.
Many artists jumped on each others throats because of their differing views.

Pieces of art are always evaluated later. Some works which were made merely to demonstrate some political or social message are later considered lousy and will be forgotten. The creativity of Van Goghs are discovered sooner or later.

[Vass]

You can find kids who want to waste their parents' money "studying" any kind of profession.... many first year physics students spend most of the time getting shit faced... it doesn't really matter what you study. But at least over here the large majority of art students are from working and middle class families.

I think "modern" is just a general term for everything that's 20th century... give or take... Modern painting and modern classical music started at late 19th century with impressionism, same thing with modern literature, modern architecture started in early 20th century (real modernist things like fundamentalism in the 30's) modernist film in the late 50's. etc.

When you look at the impressionist, people started appreciating them pretty late. Any kind of shock effect or radical ideologies weren't welcomed at all. The art was judged by wealthy traditional haute bourgeoisie or aristocratic folks, most of them couldn't stand anything out of the norm.
Great Vincent Van Gogh died like a bum. He wasn't trying to shock anyone. Many folks humiliated Cézanne who was the shiest person in the world.
Matisse did get fame only because of his talent, he was a very humble and friendly fellow, he did have many lovers but that wasn't anything unorthodox in the culture he grew up.
Picasso had many political statements but that was because his native land was taken over by fascists.
Many artists jumped on each others throats because of their differing views.

Pieces of art are always evaluated later. Some works which were made merely to demonstrate some political or social message are later considered lousy and will be forgotten. The creativity of Van Goghs are discovered sooner or later.

You are right I am sure about students from all callings- But the beauty of hard science is that right is right (generally) and wrong is (generally) wrong. An art student can hang whatever they like, calling it art. The subjective nature of appraisal provides an enormous shelter for all.

Plus, nobody hangs their physics papers at a gallery. Or maybe they do.... hang a physics textbook with a bullet in it, simply titled, "PHYSICS!". I would actually quite enjoy that.

I'm sure you are also quite right that true appraisal only comes after the political is long stripped away by time and change....if an artist was a rabid Jacobite today that would be meaningless except to the extent it offers context to the work, if indeed it added any at all.

Likewise time will tell whether for more recent artists the politics informed the work or the notoriety. If the former, the influence will endure as context. If the latter, it will wash away as a footnote, as will the artist's work itself.

[atomic charvel guy]

impressive woman you have there vass. is she a bronco fan too?

[Vass]

Hah sorry Tommy no go She BARELY pays attention to baseball just to keep me happy. Football she likes "in the background" because it reminds her of being a kid.

She's a bit of a riot- As I alluded to, big soccer & field hockey player in high school. A female family member said, "Oh I bet you were a cheerleader!" when they first met, which obviously is a roundabout nice way of giving a compliment re: looks....She said, "No, no, hehe". Later when we were alone she said "I never wanted to be a cheer leader. I *PLAYED* the sports. Let someone else cheer."

I bring that up because I think it partly explains her lack of interest in watching sports too religiously.

Nothing against the rah-rahs, we all love em, but that answer went a long way to sealing the deal for me.

Thanks for your kind words tho bro...she is one of a kind.

[atomic charvel guy]

those are the kind to scoop up, you've got the eye obviously, i have the eye too, but i'd always find a way to fuck it up.

[Nightbat]

My point is, if I have one, there are many, many people going to big art schools to basically fuck off for a few years and spend their parent's money. It's just the way it is. Those without talent usually have no technique either. So what do they do? They try to shock, they do "modern" art. THAT DOES NOT MEAN MODERN ART IS SHIT in it's totality. It means that it's EASIER to execute in many cases than fine art (which by the way is the ultimate way to guarantee yourself total poverty...sorry, but it's true).

Those that have their head screwed on right mostly started with art after they landed something to pay the bills
Those that don't live off artist 'welfare' where they are decreed to make 'x' works a year (and city archives are already filled to the brim with works of Picasso rejects and van Gogh wannabees)

I found most (and I've met a few) 'students' of art (Music, acting, fashion as well) to lack a sense of realism (pun intended)

You are right I am sure about students from all callings- But the beauty of hard science is that right is right (generally) and wrong is (generally) wrong. An art student can hang whatever they like, calling it art. The subjective nature of appraisal provides an enormous shelter for all.

That's always what I wonder: how do you grade the 'stuff'
Good acting, Music, hell even some Fashion? Sure!
But impressionism and whatever modern abstract art like painting and sculpting?