The Visual Arts: Exploring the History of "Fine Art" and Beyond

I thought I'd cross-post this here on the art thread:

Anselm Kiefer is quite likely the strongest artist (painter/sculptor) since the 1970s. He was born in Germany in the last days of the Second World War, and history... particularly German history... has been the primary focus of his work. Kiefer studied with the conceptual artist, Joseph Beuys and the painter Peter Dreher. His sources of inspiration include Abstract Expressionism, German Romanticism, Abstract Expressionism, Richard Wagner, German History, the Kabbalah and Hebrew mysticism, poets Paul Celan and Ingeborg Bachmann, the Bible, the Nazis and their interest in the occult, Nazi architecture, Velimir Khlebnikov, Robert Fludd, etc...

I'll offer you a look at a few of his works:

Margarethe is an early work of Kiefer's mature style:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/..._margarete.jpg

The painting is clearly rooted in the tradition of American Abstract Expressionism... especially Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...lesResized.jpg

Where Pollock's painting was all paint, Kiefer employs collage elements... in particular, straw. The painting alludes primarily to Paul Celan's poem, Death Fugue:

Black milk of daybreak we drink it at sundown
we drink it at noon in the morning we drink it at night
we drink and we drink it
we dig a grave in the breezes there one lies unconfined
A man lives in the house he plays with the serpents he writes
he writes when dusk falls to Germany your golden hair Margarete
he writes it and steps out of doors and the stars are flashing he whistles his pack out
he whistles his Jews out in earth has them dig for a grave
he commands us strike up for the dance

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink in the morning at noon we drink you at sundown
we drink and we drink you
A man lives in the house he plays with the serpents he writes
he writes when dusk falls to Germany your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith we dig a grave in the breezes there one lies unconfined.

He calls out jab deeper into the earth you lot you others sing now and play
he grabs at the iron in his belt he waves it his eyes are blue
jab deeper you lot with your spades you others play on for the dance

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at noon in the morning we drink you at sundown
we drink you and we drink you
a man lives in the house your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith he plays with the serpents

He calls out more sweetly play death death is a master from Germany
he calls out more darkly now stroke your strings then as smoke you will rise into air
then a grave you will have in the clouds there one lies unconfined

Black milk of daybreak we drink you at night
we drink you at noon death is a master from Germany
we drink you at sundown and in the morning we drink and we drink you
death is a master from Germany his eyes are blue
he strikes you with leaden bullets his aim is true
a man lives in the house your golden hair Margarete
he sets his pack on to us he grants us a grave in the air
he plays with the serpents and daydreams death is a master from Germany
your golden hair Margarete
your ashen hair Shulamith

-Trans. Michael Hamburger

Celan contrasts the blonde Germanic Margarethe (from Geothe's Faust) with the "ashen haired" Shulamith, from the Hebrew Song of Songs:

I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me...

Not only does the term "ashen hair" suggest the dark hair of the Hebrew lover... but it also conveys... horribly... the hair of the Jews turned to ashes in the crematoria of Auschwitz.

Kiefer's painting suggests a German Romantic landscape... strewn with straw by farmers. But the straw is also hair... the blonde hair of Margarethe... the "ashen hair" of Shulamith burnt by a blow torch in the lower regions of the painting... topped with a flame. It also suggests the hair shaved from the victims at the death camps. All of Kiefer's paintings are layered with such multiple allusions.

German philosophy, literature, painting and music all came of age during the period of Romanticism. The landscape was the subject matter of choice... conveying the German love of the land...

Kennst du das Land, wo die Zitronen blühn,
Im dunkeln Laub die Gold-Orangen glühn,
Ein sanfter Wind vom blauen Himmel weht,
Die Myrte still und hoch der Lorbeer steht?
Kennst du es wohl?
Dahin! dahin
Möcht ich mit dir, o mein Geliebter, ziehn.

Kennst du das Haus? Auf Säulen ruht sein Dach.
Es glänzt der Saal, es schimmert das Gemach,
Und Marmorbilder stehn und sehn mich an:
Was hat man dir, du armes Kind, getan?
Kennst du es wohl?
Dahin! dahin
Möcht ich mit dir, o mein Beschützer, ziehn.

Kennst du den Berg und seinen Wolkensteg?
Das Maultier sucht im Nebel seinen Weg;
In Höhlen wohnt der Drachen alte Brut;
Es stürzt der Fels und über ihn die Flut!
Kennst du ihn wohl?
Dahin! dahin
Geht unser Weg! O Vater, laß uns ziehn!

(Do you know the land where the lemon trees blossom?
Among dark leaves the golden oranges glow.
A gentle breeze from blue skies drifts.
The myrtle is still, and the laurel stands high.
Do you know it well?
There, there
would I go with you, my beloved.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X9-Qd7JA9w

The landscape also conveyed a sense of the sublime... and the infinite:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...105friedsm.jpg

In Kiefer's mature paintings, his metaphor of choice was the "Wasteland"... the landscape now burnt and charred and forever sullied by the horrors of WWII. One of the finest of such paintings resides in the Cleveland Museum of Art. The work is entitled, Lot's Wife:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/..._Kiefer-15.jpg

In J.M.W. Turner's great landscapes or the Romantic era, it is nature... the blinding light of the sun... that devours humanity:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...nRailway-1.jpg

In Kiefer's paintings... which certainly owe much to Turner... it is mankind and history that devour nature. The landscape becomes a wasteland.

In Lot's Wife the surface of the painting is encrusted in mud and clay and putty and paint suggesting the very land itself... a mire. Train-tracks cut their way through this landscape like the train-tracks cutting across Poland on the way to Auschwitz. The painting itself is on lead as opposed to canvas. Kiefer repeatedly employed lead in an allusion to alchemy and the desire to turn lead to gold... just as the artist struggles equally in vain to convert the leaden history into a golden ideal. The cloud hovering above the charred wasteland is made of salt... which clearly alludes to the story of Lot's Wife... who was told... like the German population... "Don't look back".

A later landscape that continues the "Wasteland" theme is entitled: Velimir Chlebnikov

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...lederVlker.jpg

Velimir Chlebnikov was a Russian Futurist poet (1885-1922) active in the avant-garde before and after the 1917 revolution. Chlebnikov was a mystical theorist, and among his odd ideas was the notion that climactic naval battles occurring every 317 years had cosmic significance for the course of human affairs. He also put forth ideas suggestive of modern TV, Radio and the internet. Kiefer envisions this "future" as a charred landscape choked with brambles and briers of razor-wire

Kiefer is almost even more powerful when he breaks from painting. One of the first images to have grabbed my attention by this artist was the huge woodblock print, Grane:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...CRI_210301.jpg

The form of this work is deceptively simple. Kiefer employs the woodblock... again alluding to the great achievements of German culture: Gutenberg's movable type, and the German tradition of print-making from Durer's Knight, Death, and the Devil (with its similar iconic use of the horse)...

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...ps099783-1.jpg

... through the great German Expressionist woodblock prints of the early 20th century... a literal Renaissance of German art brought to an end by the rise of Hitler:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...anken_1917.jpg
-E.L. Kirchner

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...lfportrait.jpg
-Kathe Kollwitz

Kiefer's print takes the scale and the cruciform shape of an altarpiece. The subject, Grane, is the horse belonging to Brunhilde in Wagner's epic operatic cycle, Der Ring des Nibelungen. Wagner was Hitler's favorite composer. He reveled in the Ring's great Teutonic narrative. But of course Hitler failed to grasp the meaning of the Ring's final opera, Götterdämmerung... the "Twilight of the Gods" in which all comes crashing down on the rulers of Valhalla due to greed and avarice. This collapse is presaged by the famous Immolation Scene in which Brünnhilde is to place her dead lover, Siegfried. She then rides her horse into the flames which flare up and catch fire to the halls of Vahalla signalling the death of the Gods. Undoubtedly, Kiefer grasped the link between the Götterdämmerung and the final days of the Nazis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0PpTPvbr-4

Kiefer is well-known for his huge, lead books... which often refer to various occult and hermetic writings:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...h_images-1.jpg

One of the most powerful works that I have seen in person involving books is Shevirat Ha-Kelim:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...cdc816a2_o.jpg

The piece alludes to a dominant part of Kabbalistic and Hassidic thought formulated by Safed Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-72). The term means "The breaking of the vessels" and tells of a notion that the Divine Light of God was once held on earth by 10 containers... vessels... or books. The upheavals and evils of mankind resulted in the vessels shattering... and the name and Divine attributes of God being forever scattered. Kiefer imagines the Light of God in the form of transparent glass pages fallen from the bindings of leaden books... shattered across the floor. Of course the link with Kristalnacht and the burning of books cannot be ignored.

Another powerful work employing elements of the book is West-Eastern Divan.

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...kiefer-550.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...c96d117c8f.jpg

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...almsonntag.jpg

The title is taken from a collection of poems by Goethe influenced by Muslim poets and poetry. Writing in German, he set out to capture the spirit of the East through sensual descriptions of flowers and plants. Kiefer’s interpretation is based on all these sources. 54 identically sized paintings are sited on two facing walls... each presenting delicate configurations of branches, seeds and pressed flowers set against a background of cracked earth and lead. Some panels include white floating shifts, like lost souls. The coloration is dissonant, conjuring up storms or fires, or just a pale or dark void.

The last painting I'll look at is entitled Andromeda:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/..._andromeda.jpg

Here Kiefer returns to the landscapes of Romanticism and away from the references to WWII. This vast canvas places the viewer, much like Caspar David Friedrich's Monk by the Sea (above, near top) standing before the vast expanses of sea and sky... or space. In the sky we are presented with two contrasting forms of mankind's attempt to understand the unimaginable infinite spaces above... both equally doomed to failure. Kiefer has delineated the astrological system of Andromeda... and contrast these with numbers... assigned by NASA... to identify the stars. Like Andromeda we are chained to this rock before the vast expanses of infinity... a sacrifice to our own kind's hubris.

Bad art that alludes to good art is still bad art, and all those layers of meaning, though they may delight the critic, just make it very intelligent bad art.

After scrolling though your images, there was something familiar in the media, technique, “ashes”, fire, plants, and then I recalled the Modern Art Museum in Fort Worth. Last year I dropped by the museum and was captivated by Kiefer's Ashenblume and not so much by A Book With Wings

A not so good photo I took of Aschenblume:

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...h_IMGP1978.jpg

^Note the large inverted sunflower stalk the roots of which extend above the top edge.
Other materials used include clay, ash and dirt. Here’s the blurb from the museum website:

http://themodern.org/collection/aschenblume/913


A Book With Wings (photo from museum website):
A book taking flight on wings made of lead

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...h_kiefer41.jpg


http://themodern.org/collection/book-with-wings/915


Pope Alexander VI: The Golden Bull (photo from museum website)

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...kiefer2_11.jpg

http://themodern.org/collection/paps...olden-bull/914

The resemblance to Nohoch Mul Mayan pyramid is uncanny:

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...GP1434NR-1.jpg


lastly Quaternity (from museum website)

http://themodern.org/collection/quaternity/912

Bad art that alludes to good art is still bad art, and all those layers of meaning, though they may delight the critic, just make it very intelligent bad art.

Thus its probably a good thing that the judgments concerning what is good or bad in art don't rely upon individuals lacking any real grasp of visual art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Here is one abstract art fact I found earlier.

A painting by abstract artist Mark Rothko has fetched $75.1 million (£47.2m) at an auction in New York.

Attachment 8466

Is that a fine art worthy of the money?

---

This is a meaningless question.

Rothko's art, like all art, exists in a broader context: the rest of the art that he created, the climate of the times, politics, economics, trends, visions.

All art is contextual. Abstract art, which I prefer to call non-representational art since all art is abstract, no matter how realistic, had its roots in the mid-ninteenth century rebellion against a stifling classicism. It's worth reading about the travails of the Impressionists and especially Van Gogh, who was not an impressionist but a majority of one, to see how hard it was to break the dead hand of tradition in art.

As irony would have it, by the 1950s the abstract expressionists had become just as dictatorial as the classicists of the mid-19th century, declaring that all art that even hinted of the figure or of "literary" or "real-life" concerns was to be abjured. A new art church had developed with its own dogmas and its own way of excommunicating heretics.

Happily, that too is history, and in post-modern art anything goes. We'll see how long that lasts.

The pictorial arts, like all arts, cannot be classified. You might as well try to nail a blob of mercury to the wall. Art always eludes our classificatory schemes.

ETA: Er, why is this thread in "General Movies, Music and Television"?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stlukesguild
Thus its probably a good thing that the judgments concerning what is good or bad in art don't rely upon individuals lacking any real grasp of visual art.

---

I just can’t believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that can’t be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them. Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create……. repeaters. But not everybody want to be a repeater. :lol:

Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind.

Bruno, renaissance magician and occultist, explained this with such clarity.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, the bondings arising from vision

The spirit is also bonded through vision, as has been said frequently above, when various forms are observed by the eyes. As a result, active and passive items of interest pass out from the eyes and enter into the eyes. As the adage says, ‘I do not know whose eyes make lambs tender for me’.

Beautiful sights arouse feelings of love, and contrary sights bring feelings of disgrace and hate. And the emotions of the soul and spirit bring something additional to the body itself, which exists under the control of the soul and the direction of the spirit. There are also other types of feelings which come through the eyes and immediately affect the body for some reason: sad expressions in other people make us sad and compassionate and sorry for obvious reasons.

There are also worse impressions which enter the soul and the body, but it is not evident how this happens and we are unable to judge the issue. Nevertheless, they act very powerfully through various things which are in us, that is, through a multitude of spirits and souls. Although one soul lives in the whole body, and all the body’s members are controlled by one soul, still the whole body and the whole soul and the parts of the universe are vivified by a certain total spirit.

Hence, the explanation of many spiritual feelings must be found in something else which lives and is conscious in us, and which is affected and disturbed by things which do not affect or disturb us. And sometimes we are touched and injured more significantly by those things whose assaults we are not aware of than we are by things which we do perceive. As a result, many things which are seen, and forms which are absorbed through the eyes, do not arouse any consciousness in our direct and external sensory powers. Nevertheless, they do penetrate more deeply and lethally, so that the internal spirit is immediately conscious of them, as if it were a foreign sense or living thing. Thus, it would not be easy to refute some of the Platonists and all of the Pythagoreans, who believe that one human person of himself lives in many animals, and when one of these animals dies, even the most important one, the others survive for a long time.

Hence, it would obviously be stupid to think that we are affected and injured only by those visible forms which generate clear awareness in the senses and the soul. That would not be much different from someone who thinks that he is injured more or less only by blows of which he is more or less conscious. However, we experience more discomfort and suffering by being pricked by a needle or by a thorn irritating the skin than we do by a sword thrust through from one side of the body to the other, whose effect is later felt a great deal more, but at the time we are unaware of the injury caused by its penetration of parts of the body. So, indeed, there are many things which stealthily pass through the eyes and capture and continuously intrude upon the spirit up to the point of the death of the soul, even though they do not cause as much awareness as do less significant things. For example, seeing certain gestures or emotions or actions can move us to tears. And the souls of some faint at the sight of the spilling of another’s blood or in observing the dissection of a cadaver. There is no other cause of this than a feeling which binds through vision.
Giordano Bruono, Cause, Principle and Unity, And Essays on Magic. p. 137-138

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

I just can’t believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that can’t be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them. Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create……. repeaters. But not everybody want to be a repeater. :lol:

Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind.

---

By modern art, do you mean modernism, which movement began to end or change around the early 1960s, or merely contemporary art, the art of today, which is a post-modern proliferation of styles and concerns that includes the increasing use of the computer?

Your response tends to reinforce stlukesguild's point, and undercut your own, I'm afraid. If he doesn't get to decide that a visual education is needed to appreciate art, why do you get to decide that modern art (whatever you mean by that) "kills sensitivity to beauty"? Maybe that's true for you, but not for everyone else (and certainly not for me). In essence, you are trying to be as absolutist and normative as you accuse stlukesguild of being.

Your sweeping generalization really does bring out the point that ought to be made: eyes can be educated or uneducated. A visual education can be had, or not had, just like any other kind of education. If one does have a visual education, one can at least appreciate the goals and intentions behind art that one may not like on a visceral level. That is, one who is visually edicated can understand why a piece is appreciated as art even if one doesn't like the work himself.

I don't much care personally for the works of Renoir, but I certainly understand what makes those works great art.

I just can’t believe that you repeat that old slogan again. Are you saying that those who repeat like a parrot what they have learned at university have a grasp on art? There are things in life that can’t be learned at school or university. Sensitivity to beauty is one of them.

Art is a language. Like all languages it is something that must be learned. One learns through experience. This can be had formally through schooling... and/or it can be self-taught. A great deal of of visual sensitivity is self-taught... learned in response to the visual stimuli that are continually around us. But visual artists employ a vocabulary that goes beyond what we might deem as "reality" and uses elements of abstractions, symbols, conventions and traditions of formal structures that are not inherently understood. We all employ the language spoken by our nation and culture and people around us. In my case this is English... yet this does not mean that I could inherently grasp Shakespeare or Donne or Spenser without any prior experience. The language of art is not always the same as the everyday language around us.

Visual Art is first and foremost a visual language. The narratives, the mythology, the occult references, the subject matter are all secondary to the visual form. When an artist looks at a painting the first thing they are looking at is the logic... the aesthetic "beauty" of the artist's organization and manipulation of visual elements: line, color, shape, texture, transparency and opacity... the brushwork, etc... Oscar Wilde put it well in stating "Art finds her own perfection within, and not outside of, herself. She is not to be judged by any external standard of resemblance."

You speak of sensitivity to "beauty", and yet many of the painters you continue to offer up suggest a lack of sensitivity to the difference between aesthetic "beauty", which includes the sublime... even the horrific... and the interpretation of "beauty" as merely that which is "pretty". There is nothing wrong with art that embraces traditional notions of "beauty" offering up images of gorgeous landscapes, flowers, animals, beautiful women, and exquisite still-life objects... but "beauty" is not so limited.

Unfortunately, modern art kills sensitivity to beauty and create……. repeaters.

In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part?

Art has its healing qualities that uplift the spirit or enslave and entrap human mind.
Bruno, renaissance magician and occultist, explained this with such clarity.

Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.

---

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

---

And if you don't study any maths, then a page full of numbers and symbols is apt to strike you as gibberish and you won't like trying to figure it out. But in that case, you can always say that the mathematician likes the stuff because it makes him feel smarter than you. :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stlukesguild

You speak of sensitivity to "beauty", and yet many of the painters you continue to offer up suggest a lack of sensitivity to the difference between aesthetic "beauty", which includes the sublime... even the horrific... and the interpretation of "beauty" as merely that which is "pretty". There is nothing wrong with art that embraces traditional notions of "beauty" offering up images of gorgeous landscapes, flowers, animals, beautiful women, and exquisite still-life objects... but "beauty" is not so limited.

---

Where did I say that I like paintings I have discussed on your Art Thread, for example? My criticism was very obvious and it can’t be misunderstood. Did I say that I like a few painters involved in occult I posted here? Absolutely not. Did I say that I like paintings I posted on my thread? I was very clear why I posted them. How directed do I need to be so that you will not misinterpret my words? BTW, You don’t have any idea what painters I like.

Quote:

---

Luckily for us, the ridiculous and wholly irrelevant ideas of some esoteric Renaissance theorist have no bearings whatsoever upon art or how it is perceived.

---

Ridiculous and wholly irrelevant, eh? You repeat it again. It reminds me about Joseph Goebbels, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. :lol: Have you forgotten what I wrote on Voyeurism in Sex thread? BTW, you have never responded to my post.

Quote:

---

Argue with prof. Dahrendorf, prof. Eliade and his disciple prof. Couliano, who are just the latest scholars who considered De vinculis in genere as a masterpiece of political manipulation. Please don’t forget that the first to recognize the importance of Bruno’s text were the Rosicrucians, as indicated in the texts of P. Arnold and F. A. Yates on the movement’s history.....You would have to reject more people then.
http://www.online-literature.com/for...m-in-Sex/page5

---

I have also shared my experience why I have become curious about the power of images upon our minds and emotional states.

Quote:

---

A few years ago, I spent a few hours looking at mythology paintings. After, I felt totally depleted and emotionally drained. I wanted to uplift my spirit and to look at different paintings. I spent a few seconds to think what art I wanted to see. I was shocked when I wanted to see Hieronymus Bosh. Well, it took 1 day to look at different art until I have returned to the same emotional state. I knew the power of art and its healing qualities but I didn’t know at that time that art can be used to enslave or to entrap our minds.

---

My experience encouraged me to do intense research how images affect our emotional and mental states and I wanted to know from where C. Jung got the idea about using art in therapy. Luckily, there are many scholars who studied in depth G. Bruno’s work and considered his work as a cornerstone of political thought and mass manipulation. None of the art theory programs teaches that. They teach the theory of Freud and Jung….I have never taken seriously Freud but I didn’t like Jung’s theory either. My research helped me to understand why I felt uncomfortable about his theory.

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

I'll chance being a "repeater" and say again: "In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate most Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part?"

Ridiculous and wholly irrelevant, eh? You repeat it again. It reminds me about Joseph Goebbels, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Have you forgotten what I wrote on Voyeurism in Sex thread? BTW, you have never responded to my post.

Yes... largely irrelevant. As more members that myself have noted, Bruno is a minor figure largely of interest only to those interested in the philosophy, theology, and theories of the Italian Renaissance. I have stumbled upon his name once of twice... far less than you have referenced him. He is rarely mentioned in any major works of literature, philosophy, art history, or art theory... but you continue put him forth as someone that ought to be considered a major player within the discussion of art.

Argue with prof. Dahrendorf, prof. Eliade and his disciple prof. Couliano, who are just the latest scholars who considered De vinculis in genere as a masterpiece of political manipulation. Please don’t forget that the first to recognize the importance of Bruno’s text were the Rosicrucians...

None of your professors... nor the Rosicrucians... have the least relevance to art. You are obsessed with the use of art in political manipulation... and while the Nazis, the Soviets, and even the American Government of the "cold war" era attempted to employ art to their political goals, there was little real success for the simple reason that in most instances the artists of any real merit didn't buy into the program being sold.

I love this thread. I love being an artist, especially now. Art is no longer funded in the public schools where I live. I had to teach myself. I am still and always learning. When I'm not sculpting, painting, or sketching, I am looking at art. As much as I can. People can be very judgmental. Some choose a genre, or an era, or a style that they like or tolerate the most and proclaim everything else to be rubbish. I don't suffer from such an affliction. I want all of it. I want to be it. I don't care how people categorize anything that I do. At least I'm contributing to a precious human tradition and feeding my consciousness.

I love the pictures and information you post, stlukesguild. I feel like I should pay you or something.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stlukesguild
Yes... largely irrelevant. As more members that myself have noted, Bruno is a minor figure largely of interest only to those interested in the philosophy, theology, and theories of the Italian Renaissance. I have stumbled upon his name once of twice... far less than you have referenced him. He is rarely mentioned in any major works of literature, philosophy, art history, or art theory... but you continue put him forth as someone that ought to be considered a major player within the discussion of art.

---

Of course, he is not often mentioned. He is not even mentioned in art therapy programs. :lol: Don’t you think that it is quite strange considering the fact that Carl Jung got his idea from the occult?

But there are number of brilliant scholars who realized the importance of his work, calling it a most intelligent work of political manipulation. Do you really think that they would teach us at school how we have been manipulated and controlled? It would be too dangerous to keep in line people who think for themselves.

Quote:

---

None of your professors... nor the Rosicrucians... have the least relevance to art. You are obsessed with the use of art in political manipulation... and while the Nazis, the Soviets, and even the American Government of the "cold war" era attempted to employ art to their political goals, there was little real success for the simple reason that in most instances the artists of any real merit didn't buy into the program being sold.

---

Oh, St. Luke. It has relevance to art. Art is a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control.
Hmm….. do you call being obsessed my curiosity to find out how images affect our mental and emotional states? I don’t look at art just for pleasure. Actually, masons and occultists helped me tremendously……by deleting my posts or closing threads. I must say thank you to those who couldn’t control anxiety as they gave me many clues......perhaps unintentionally. ;)

Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called “authority” says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but ‘authority” put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Please, you eat that esoteric stuff up. Your favorite type of art is art that makes you feel smarter because nobody else "understands" ie likes it.

I'll chance being a "repeater" and say again: "In other words, you lack the sensitivity to appreciate most Modern art... and so you assume that this is a failing of an entire century of artists and not a failing on your part?"

---

I'm not disagreeing with a whole century of artists, but rather suggesting that your own interpretation is a tad muddled.

I'm not disagreeing with a whole century of artists, but rather suggesting that your own interpretation is a tad muddled.

As it seems that you find my appreciation of Anselm Kiefer to be one example of such "muddled" thinking, how much have you actually looked at Kiefer? How many paintings or sculptures by him have you seen in person? I know, you assume that is irrelevant, but it really isn't. It's hard to gain a grasp of a 20 or 30 foot wide painting from a 4 inch image on the computer screen. In spite of the fact that you would have us believe that Kiefer is an example of "bad" and "esoteric" art, his work is admired by a broad range of curators, art historians, and art critics... including a number that might be deemed "conservative" in their opinions: Robert Hughes, Donald Kuspit, and Hilton Kramer among them. One might also consider the fact that Kiefer demands some of the highest prices per painting or sculpture of any living artist... in spite of the fact that he is largely unknown to the general public, lacking the shock value that makes Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin, or Jeff Koons overpriced art stars.

Of course, he is not often mentioned. He is not even mentioned in art therapy programs. Don’t you think that it is quite strange considering the fact that Carl Jung got his idea from the occult?

Well... you quite know my thoughts on Art Therapy... which even were I to grant it any worth, has absolutely nothing to do with art made by professional artists.

But there are number of brilliant scholars who realized the importance of his work, calling it a most intelligent work of political manipulation. Do you really think that they would teach us at school how we have been manipulated and controlled? It would be too dangerous to keep in line people who think for themselves.

Perhaps the most serious flaw in your theories of artistic manipulation is the fact that you grant the traditional art forms... painting, sculpture, print, etc... far too much power. Appreciation of the traditional... the "fine arts" (?)... have long been relegated to a limited "elite" audience. In the past, this was a social and economic elite: the church, high-ranking clergy, the aristocracy, and the very wealthy. Today this is an "elite" I might term as being of an elective affinity: a group who make the conscious choice that the fine arts are something that interests and concerns them... something they are passionate enough about to invest the time and effort... and in some circumstances... the money to appreciate. There were surely examples of "public art" employed as a means of reinforcing the hold of the church and the aristocracy. The medieval cathedrals might be seen as the greatest... surely the most successful examples of such... but when art shifted from being produced primarily on demand for wealthy patrons to being produced as a product sold on the open market (and this occurred in the 1600s with the Dutch) art lost much of its impact or ability to be employed for political aims.

The shift from public art to art as luxury object created a great and increasing divide between the larger public and the artists. It is for this reason that the Romantics developed their notions of the artists (themselves) as visionaries and prophets... removed from the base concerns of the middle-class. Regardless of any explicit socio-political aims of individual artists, this gap between the larger audience and the artists has remained... and only increased. With the late 19th/early 20th century we had the stereotype of the Bohemian artists and the Bourgeois. The Bourgeois couldn't fathom the experiments of the Bohemian artists... and thus painting and sculpture became increasingly irrelevant within the larger culture. At the same time, the artists realized that the Bourgeois audience was largely irrelevant to their career... and so they continued in increasingly esoteric experiments... thumbing their noses at the larger audience and playing to the wealthy collectors... and the small "elite" audience of art lovers who are willing to put forth the effort demanded to understand new visual languages.

Film, television, the internet, the radio, arguably recorded music... and possibly still books have a relevance within the larger culture today and a socio-political impact... but to suggest that a painting does is wishful thinking. Most artists since at least the 1960s... if not earlier... have lived with this realization. There are certainly artists who continue to make socio-political statements... but they are largely preaching to the choir. Without a sizable presence of public art, traditional painting/sculpture/etc... is largely impotent to effect any of the socio-political manipulations you obsess over. The last real period in which such might have been possible was under the WPA when artists were paid by the government to create great murals in post-offices, banks, town-halls, libraries, etc... across the nation. Many of these paintings had an explicit socio-political content... glorifying the efforts of the common man in the creation of the nation. If such art had any real impact, it most certainly was that of the great muralists of Mexico: Diego Rivera, David Siqueiros, José Clemente Orozco, etc... whose efforts to establish an equivalent of the great murals of Italy coincided with Mexico's efforts to estblish itself as a nation in the shadow of the US.

It has relevance to art. Art is a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control.

To be a powerful tool of mass manipulation and control, the art must reach a mass audience and have a relevance to that audience. This is not at all the reality of painting or sculpture or most of your traditional visual arts.

Hmm….. do you call being obsessed my curiosity to find out how images affect our mental and emotional states?

The problem is that there is no universal response to a work of art. What one person finds profoundly moving, another may find utterly boring. The emotional content or "meaning" of a work of art is something the individual brings to the work.

I don’t look at art just for pleasure. Actually, masons and occultists helped me tremendously……by deleting my posts or closing threads. I must say thank you to those who couldn’t control anxiety as they gave me many clues......perhaps unintentionally.

What is with LitNet and its ability to attract those obsessed with Masons and Occultists... and let's not forget the Rosicrucians, Templars, Pagans and Neo-Pagans, adherents of the Kabballah and Gnosticism, and surely the Jesuits? Does anyone remember member Musicology?

Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called “authority” says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but ‘authority” put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.

You have yet to give us the name of these many painters and makers of ugly art now placed on a pedestal who were occultists and Masons. Nor have you defined "ugly art"... beyond that which you don't like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Second, I am not a blind repeater who accepts what so called “authority” says. I was also curious about many painters who produced such an ugly art but ‘authority” put them on a pedestal. I was curious about the mental and emotional state of such painters. Many were occultists, including masons.

---

Are you talking about abstract, non-representational art?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stlukesguild
Well... you quite know my thoughts on Art Therapy... which even were I to grant it any worth, has absolutely nothing to do with art made by professional artists.

---

Well, art therapy is therapy. Don’t confuse art making process for healing with making art by professional artists. I can’t look at art without being aware of the impact of art upon our mental and emotional states. There are so many painters whose paintings raise a question of their state of mind.
Very disturb indeed. Even tough I don’t give a damn about C. Jung, godfather of art therapy, I appreciate the knowledge I got as well as the fact that it led me to deeper research. Everything is so bloody crystal clear when we dig deep enough.

Quote:

---

Perhaps the most serious flaw in your theories of artistic manipulation is the fact that you grant the traditional art forms... painting, sculpture, print, etc... far too much power.

---

How many times I should list scholars who studied Bruno’s work so that you see that it is not my theory. Anybody who reads Bruno’s work can see clearly that it is a masterpiece of mass manipulation. It is not only used in art but in images that are used in advertisement or subliminals in movies or video clips.

It is very interesting how much energy you invest to deny it…….I have bad news for you……people are waking up. Perhaps it happens because people are mind controlled as they have never been before and human mind can only hold illusions and lies only for a certain period of time.

Quote:

---

You have yet to give us the name of these many painters and makers of ugly art now placed on a pedestal who were occultists and Masons. Nor have you defined "ugly art"... beyond that which you don't like.

---

Have you forgotten the painters I discussed on you Art thread? I was very clear about that and it was very interesting to see how they were connected with each other. :lol:

Well, it appears ftil is not interested in discussing anything beyond what look to be old grudges from some other thread. His/her posts also sound somewhat like a call to censor art (art no doubt that ftil dislikes or cannot understand).

Maybe ftil will get around to letting us newcomers know what "ugly art placed on a pedestal by occultists and Masons" refers to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Well, it appears ftil is not interested in discussing anything beyond what look to be old grudges from some other thread. His/her posts also sound somewhat like a call to censor art (art no doubt that ftil dislikes or cannot understand).

Maybe ftil will get around to letting us newcomers know what "ugly art placed on a pedestal by occultists and Masons" refers to.

---

Well, I have read your first response to my post……You need to find somebody else to have conversation. I don’t have time for that.

If you are a newcomer , you better take time to read previous posts rather than demanding the answer.
You better get used to the fact that people choose when they want to be engaged in conversation and with whom. :lol:

Enjoy LitNet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Well, I have read your first response to my post……You need to find somebody else to have conversation. I don’t have time for that.

If you are a newcomer , you better take time to read previous posts rather than demanding the answer.
You better get used to the fact that people choose when they want to be engaged in conversation and with whom. :lol:

Enjoy LitNet.

---

Yes, I understand you don't have time to define what you mean by "modern art" (today's art? the art of modernism, which is a 20th century movement? Or?) and you don't have time to defend your idiotic statement that such art is somehow ugly and destroys the soul, or some such. I just asked a question, and of course you are not obligated to answer it. In fact, that is probably best for you. It is better for you to remain silent and be thought a fool, after all, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Well, it appears ftil is not interested in discussing anything beyond what look to be old grudges from some other thread. His/her posts also sound somewhat like a call to censor art (art no doubt that ftil dislikes or cannot understand).

Maybe ftil will get around to letting us newcomers know what "ugly art placed on a pedestal by occultists and Masons" refers to.

---

I was wondering the same thing.

I just can’t believe it…......the same pattern again that has happened on St.Luke’s The Art Thread and my Mythology and religion in art……before threads were closed. :reddevil:

Time to go back to art. Franz Richard Unterberger's paintings may help reduce anxiety for a few. :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ogq8toN4A

If you want a different pattern, maybe you should post in a different way, and drop the defensiveness and antagonism. Why don't you just tell us what you dislike about Modern Art (I assume you mean nonrepresentational art) and why?

BBC's "British Masters" -Wyndham Lewis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZs6tmievRw

More of his paintings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpainti...s/slideshow#/0

So, you like Wyndham Lewis, who is positively steeped in modernism, but you don't like modern art? Or ... ? :confused5:

If you don't want to answer questions from others, or discuss anything, why are you at a discussion board?

Oh, wait, I think I get it. You offered up Unterberger, and then put "air quotes" around "British Masters" for Lewis. Gotcha!

Unterberger's paintings are technically accomplished and fine for his time, but of no real import in the history of art. Lewis's work is vastly superior.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cioran

So, you like Wyndham Lewis, who is positively steeped in modernism, but you don't like modern art? Or ... ?

If you don't want to answer questions from others, or discuss anything, why are you at a discussion board?

---

I had feelings that you wrote in response to my post even though I was clear in my response to your post. Have you heard about ignore list? :lol:
You are in.....You may put me there too...you wouldn't be tempted.

Don't forget that it is art thread....you don't want this thread be closed do you? :reddevil:

Enjoy LitNet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

I had feelings that you wrote in response to my post even though I was clear in my response to your post. Have you heard about ignore list? :lol:
You are in.....You may put me there too...you wouldn't be tempted.

Don't forget that it is art thread....you don't want this thread be closed do you? :reddevil:

Enjoy LitNet.

---

I am not doing anything to close it. That would be you, if anyone. I have no idea why you are so hostile and antagonistic.

You were not clear in response to my post, and I doubt others here have any idea of what you are on about. But you don't like Wyndham Lewis and do like Unterberger, right? Unterberger is insipid, though OK by the unenlightened standards of that time. Lewis was a much better artist. You have a very provincial and narrow view of art, no doubt because you are visually uneducated. Have you ever tried to make art, to see what it is all about?

Actually, the more I read what you write, the more I am convinced that you are off your beam. I gather you got one of stlukesguild's earlier threads closed with your tantrums; I hope that doesn't happen here. He has done remarkable work.

Well, art therapy is therapy. Don’t confuse art making process for healing with making art by professional artists. I can’t look at art without being aware of the impact of art upon our mental and emotional states. There are so many painters whose paintings raise a question of their state of mind.

You are saying one thing... and doing the exact opposite. You agree that one should not confuse art therapy with art... and then you turn about and look at art from a purely sociological/psychological point of view... seeing art merely for its impact upon our emotions and questioning the mental state of the artists.

Very disturb(ed) indeed. Even tough I don’t give a damn about C. Jung, godfather of art therapy, I appreciate the knowledge I got as well as the fact that it led me to deeper research. Everything is so bloody crystal clear when we dig deep enough.

Clear as mud.

Perhaps the most serious flaw in your theories of artistic manipulation is the fact that you grant the traditional art forms... painting, sculpture, print, etc... far too much power.

How many times I should list scholars who studied Bruno’s work so that you see that it is not my theory. Anybody who reads Bruno’s work can see clearly that it is a masterpiece of mass manipulation. It is not only used in art but in images that are used in advertisement or subliminals in movies or video clips.

Regardless of where the theory originates, you have sidestepped the issue that the traditional arts lack any of the power of manipulation and influence on the masses that you suggest.

It is very interesting how much energy you invest to deny it…….I have bad news for you……people are waking up. Perhaps it happens because people are mind controlled as they have never been before and human mind can only hold illusions and lies only for a certain period of time.

I think many would read this as sounding like the thinking of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stlukesguild

You are saying one thing... and doing the exact opposite. You agree that one should not confuse art therapy with art... and then you turn about and look at art from a purely sociological/psychological point of view... seeing art merely for its impact upon our emotions and questioning the mental state of the artists.

---

No, I don’t. You just don’t know what art therapy is.
I am on forum and I am curious about emotional and mental state of artists as I pick up a quite dark energy from their paintings. I bet anybody who picks up such feelings would ask those questions. :lol:

Quote:

---

Clear as mud.

---

LOL! It is bloody crystal clear!

Quote:

---

Regardless of where the theory originates, you have sidestepped the issue that the traditional arts lack any of the power of manipulation and influence on the masses that you suggest.

---

No, I didn’t sidestepped the issue. I have shared my experience with art and how it left me depleted and drained after watching for a few hours. Are you surprised that I started to research how and why art has such a deep and negative impact?

Quote:

---

I think many would read this as sounding like the thinking of a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

---

Oh, are you saying that you don’t know anything about mind control? I bet you think that US government is also involved in conspiracy theory. Are you denying using subliminal in movie and music video? You should read Steven Jacobson’s Mind Control in America. He worked in Hollywood in early 80’s, editing movies. If you know a little about movie production as you claimed, you would know what I am talking about.

Quote:

---

Project MKUltra is the code name for a covert research operation experimenting in the behavioral engineering of humans (mind control) through the CIA's Scientific Intelligence Division. The program began in the early 1950s, was officially sanctioned in 1953, was reduced in scope in 1964, further curtailed in 1967 and "officially halted" in 1973. The program engaged in many illegal activities; in particular it used unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects, which led to controversy regarding its legitimacy. MKUltra involved the use of many methodologies to manipulate people's individual mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially LSD) and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

---

Can we go back to art now? There are so many painters......;)

Might it be possible to have an interesting discussion about art without it being derailed by ftil's rants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

No, I didn’t sidestepped the issue. I have shared my experience with art and how it left me depleted and drained after watching for a few hours. Are you surprised that I started to research how and why art has such a deep and negative impact?

---

I'm sorry art has had a deep and negative impact on you (unless it's banal and insipid art, I guess, in which case it's OK) but the main point is that while this might be true for you, it is untrue for practically everyone else. You shouldn't confuse your personal experiences with general experiences.

Michel Parkes


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkcD7LCWoM8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Michel Parkes


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkcD7LCWoM8

---

Yep, totally insipid paintings, of no significance, but thanks for "sharing," as it were.

I should say a few of them are OK, the ones that tend to be more concerned with abstraction rather than banal literary content.

Oh, Cioran you can’t give up…….even though you know that you are on my ignore list. :lol:

It is a Christmas gift for your persistence….....You are going you like it.

Wojtek Siudmak and L'Infranchissable Obstacle (The Impassable obstacles)


http://theromanticqueryletter.blogsp...log-chain.html

If I am on your ignore list, why are you reading and answering my posts? :lol:

BTW, the paintings that you like are insipid, and of no consequence. :)