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

[miyako73]

You rest your case? LOL. You don't even know any longer what you're talking about, if indeed you ever knew. What part of my "sweeping statement" don't I understand, that you understand, that you understand so much better? Are you suggesting I have contradicted myself? Or .. . what?

But you don't know what you are saying. You are just desperately flailing about because, like most people on the Internet, you want to win an argument rather than have a meeting of minds, and actually learn something.

No, I want to educate you. I was back-reading this thread. two names stood out: One is close-minded and the other is inconsistent and that is you.

[miyako73]

Wow, more incredible stuff!

Yes, we know Miyako has no idea what the hell to think or say, and neither do you! So just go knock yourselves out. Meanwhile Stlukes and i will continue to provide value to this thread while you provide nothing but nonsense.

You see, I don't "imitate" anyone. Like stlukesguild, I am visually educated, so it's reasonable to suppose that some of our opinions will coincide, since we, unlike you, know stuff.

One big pretentious @ss.

[Cioran]

I already gave you a free education on low literature. I should not really take you seriously. You dropped bifurcation fallacy without even understanding what it was all about. You were the one who created reader's digest-shakespeare comparison and you accused me of a fallacy? That's one big sh!t of a bull.

You haven't given anyone an education on anything, except your own inner insufficiencies.

stlukesguild already wrote eloquently on the high art/low art distinction and overlap and provided numerous examples. Did you read it?

Is Reader's Digest as sophisticated and meaningful as Shakespeare? Yes or no? Answer the question.

Let me repeat: To pick Shakespeare and Reader's Digest out are examples, obviously, out of a range of possible texts. Or ... what? Do you think that the only two things ever written in human history are the Reader's Digest and Shakespeare?

LOL at this idiocy.

[Cioran]

One big pretentious @ss.

Yes, we know, you have simply no clue what you are trying to say, you have lost the argument, indeed lost the thread of it, and all you can do now is resort to insults. Very telling.

[Cioran]

No, I want to educate you. I was back-reading this thread. two names stood out: One is close-minded and the other is inconsistent and that is you.

Oh, really? How so?

Well, you have no idea! You don't know what you are talking about.

[miyako73]

Answer your own absurdity why you picked a high/elite literature and pitted it against a low/popular literature.

[Cioran]

I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.

You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.

What you know about art is pretty much nil if you honestly think Structuralism, Marxism, Feminism, etc... have anything at all to do with "looking". Rather, they are about interpreting... through a given cant. They are about imposing a given theory upon a work of art... using a work of art as little more than a means of illustrating a given theory or dogma... not looking at a work of art.

Exactly!

[Cioran]

I'm confident with my art education to the point that I abhor formalism, the easiest way of looking at an art. I'm glad I had Feminist, Marxist, Postmodernist, Structuralist professors who taught me other ways of looking at things.

You've been putting down ftil because of her attempt to monopolize the meaning of beauty, now you want to monopolize the idea of what is beautiful. Be consistent. That is your formalist interpretation of coombs if form, line, color concern you. Some have other concerns. A Lacanian critic, for example, will appreciate coombs' representation of passion and desire, and his is just another interpretation/analysis.

What you know about art is pretty much nil if you honestly think Structuralism, Marxism, Feminism, etc... have anything at all to do with "looking". Rather, they are about interpreting... through a given cant. They are about imposing a given theory upon a work of art... using a work of art as little more than a means of illustrating a given theory or dogma... not looking at a work of art.

One of the reasons for the recent resurgence in traditional art schools and artist ateliers is because the university-based academic approach to art has virtually nothing to do with looking... with the visual. A great many academics are notoriously insensitive to the visual beyond that which they can grasp or codify in words and theory and dogma.

You deem formalism... looking at art in purely visual terms as the easiest way of looking at art... and yet you have already illustrated your own inability to look at art in this way.

Why is Rembrandt one of the most brilliant painters? You cannot answer such questions by employing you favorite theory of the moment, and so it is much easier to dismiss the question by suggesting that there is no good nor bad than it is to actually learn how to look... with your eyes... not through your theory and dogma.

Right.

[miyako73]

I already answered that. Theories make me look at something in a certain angle. It is not only for interpretation but for selective viewing as well. If your concern is everything feminist, why would you look at an angle that is beyond feminism?

[Cioran]

Answer your own absurdity why you picked a high/elite literature and pitted it against a low/popular literature.

There is nothing to discuss. You missed my point.

It is you, and not I, who are importing value judgments to RD and Shakespeare. You can't stand that I won't do this. I have already explained to you why it's not the case that RD is "bad" and Shakespeare "good," but you can't process this because, evidently, the dogma of your miseducation has confined you to reading what people write through the warped prism of your own inculcated dogma. And your lack of visual education confines you to interpretive dogma about the visual arts. See stlukesguild's post on this, which I have just agreed with.

[Cioran]

I already answered that. Theories make me look at something in a certain angle. It is not only for interpretation but for selective viewing as well. If your concern is everything feminist, why would you look at an angle that is beyond feminism?

LOL.

Oh, no reason at all!

Unbelievable.

[Cioran]

You have been sadly miseducated.

[miyako73]

Have you written a thesis with a theoretical framework? If you have, you would know what I'm talking about.

[miyako73]

I find this question by St. Lukes interesting.

"Why is Rembrandt one of the most brilliant painters? You cannot answer such questions by employing you favorite theory of the moment, and so it is much easier to dismiss the question by suggesting that there is no good nor bad than it is to actually learn how to look... with your eyes... not through your theory and dogma."

If I'll be strictly formalist, I will only look at the compositional elements in his portrait paintings: the use of dark tones, the play of light and shadow, the central positioning of the subject, the brightened background, the illumination of the face that creates visual layers, the lines that separate the foreground and the background, the brush strokes that create texture for more visual layers, even the size of the paintings, if I want to be mathematical, I can plot points to measure angles and distance all for finding out about compositional balance, and many more.

But I'm more interested in the "beweechgelickhijt"-- motive or emotion. Is it the core of his idea of natural movement? Is natural movement internal and consequently facial? I don't even have to use a theory in dissecting emotion and motive in his portrait paintings. Is emotion the unseen and the motive the seen? Is the motive related to power and the emotion to passion? Is motive masculine or emotion feminine? Can I see such "gendered" difference in his male portraits or female portraits? If I have to use theories, maybe I'll use what I've learned in psychology about emotion and motivation or even use Stanislavski's emotional memory and physical action considering posing for a painter is performance.

It's easy to BS around with Formalism if you have keen eyes. You can write a paragraph about the different shades of black or red. My God, what for? But it's hard if a theory or a context or a narrative is involved. You really have to prove that Stanislavski's work on emotion and physicality, for example, is applicable. By merely dropping his name won't work. If you're interested in the context, you have to dig a lot of things beyond the painting for the image and your interpretation to connect and make sense. If you want narrative, make sure the story you consider as the subtext of the image makes sense. See, I want to be challenged. I go for the difficult because it's more rewarding.

Will I consider Rembrandt's portraits the best, the most beautiful, the most brilliant, and the most impressive? Nope. For my taste, temperament, penchant for context and narrative, I'll pick Frida Kahlo's self-portraits any day.

[ftil]

Aubrey Beardsley Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5naWu...8AD6242F1EB6D2