Mando's description of himself as having worked for prestigious clients/ companies forty years- in this missive discribes his position as now being comparable to that of the amateur,/ or retiree who doesn't really care about making culture or contribution to anything other than there own enjoyment - and decides to call what he does art and himself an artist - unlike william who has most of his life as an artist has worked to make a contribution to the lives of others through his work and teaching - producing art as well as encouraging others to pursue their vision
On 11/17/09 12:09 AM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: OK, I like that. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 6:56:59 PM Subject: Re: Where do opinions come from The difference here,is that Congers is a Great Art Professor, and is duty bound the have an answer for every historical event in art, which has occupied a larger portion of his life, and a ready put down for every one that follows a different path. I'm not loaded with all that "kick ass baggage" attitude that he professes & preaches. I'm free to enjoy doing art the way I want. Art is a very simple endeavor for all those that really love to do it, rather than trying to outdo every one else in the attempt to be King of the shaky hill. mando On Nov 16, 2009, at 3:36 PM, William Conger wrote: > Here's my expert comment: Manet's painting of the Bar is poorly composed if we judge it by the conventionalized story-telling art with eros standards of 19C salon painting. His painting is well composed if we judge it by the standards that developed after Cezanne. What makes Manet's compositions interesting in that respect is his prescience and ability to actually present pictorial ideas that had been slowly emerging since the 1860s (ideas centered on the pictorIalism of time vs, the frozen moment of painting, and the slice of life pictorialism that imitated the darting of the eye over the field of sight. In addition Manet purposely quoted other artists, like Courbet, in his work, to underscore the assemblage notion of time, experience, seeing). > > Miller's proclamations to apotheosize the so-called individual opinion, as if it came directly non-stop from God, unaffected by any mortal breath, are ridiculous in a list devoted to discussion and inquiry of ideas, and history. He goes so far as to honor this absurd solipsism as "integrity". If that's what integrity rests on, smug and arrogantly dumbfounding ignorance, then the concept it points to is newly impoverished and shriveled beyond compare. > > The literature re Manet in the history of art and criticism is so abundant, and so varied and so well examined by so many thoughtful and educated people who have actually seen his paintings, etc., that it is the folly of complete fools to interject their unreasoned, unreflective, unknowing, inexperienced, and totally irrelevant opinions into the mix and then, with the splotchy nuttiness of a tyrant insane, to declare such inanities as proof of integrity. With such oddly strange views as Miller's, and Mando's? regarding the Bar composition, one would be better off covering over the painting altogether in an effort to deny that Manet was in fact a great artist who influenced art and to deny that it contradicts their opinions in every stroke of paint. > > Some artists are content to stand aside from art history and do artisanship or shine up yesterday's beauty. Fine. But ambitious artists want to be in the thick of ongoing art history, to make a contribution, to kick 'em in the ass, to help symbolize their time, to lavish praise on the gods for keeping the whole messy reality alive and ever new, complex, paradoxical, promising, frightening, present. Manet is such a great friend to anyone who can actually look at painting. > > wc > > > ----- > > Original Message ---- > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 11:49:11 AM > Subject: Re: Where do opinions come from > > Saul, I challenge you to find a single opinion from the last hundred years, in > print or on the internet, that asserts that "Bar at the Folies Bergere" is a > poorly composed painting by whatever standards the writer advocates. > > (and if, by chance, you actually do find such a person, that person will be > unanimously recognized by us as an eccentric crank) > > Do you even, in your wildest dreams, imagine that a staunchly middle-brow > publication like "American Artist" or "Western Art would publish an article > condemning Manet for poor composition? > > Perhaps a self-acknowledged high-brow, like yourself, would attribute that > opinion to those of a lower class -- but that's not the same as anyone > actually having it. > > The important question is not "where do opinions come from?" -- but "where > does your opinion come from?" > > It's rather clear that Mando's opinion about Manet's composition comes from > his own sense of design, that he's been practicing, for better or worse, for > 60 years. > > Where does your's come from? > > ..................... > > > > >> It was fairly conventional he was comparing traditional standards of a good > composition (balanced) with what Manet was doing - in the sense that for Mando > what manet did in the 1870s was out of the loop", quite outside those > "dominant rules of thought that are necessary to produce a relatively stable > framework which will enable "good" art and mando wanted to get it back to a > norms of finish and composition that still dominates most middle brow views > of good art > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Senior Assisted Living > Put your loved ones in good hands with quality senior assisted living. Click > now! > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=fMfMOX6peesV76FVxeJy5QAAJz6c > l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASUQAAAAA= --
