Good point. Conceptualizing is an important part of creation. The difference is that all movements you mentioned were able to develop the concept to the logical end - skillful work of art.
Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: "Again and again experience has proved that the more deeply verse d an artist is in drawing, the less he is able to paint portraits." (Giovanni Battista Armenini) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:45:13 -0400 The biggest problem since the mid 19th century has been to establish viable criteria by which to establish the quality of art - remember the impressionist were just a bunch of clever conceptualizers of painting - as were the the fauves, cubist, the futurist, etc. seeming being able to re-conceptualize art is a mark of quality On 6/13/10 8:28 PM, "Boris Shoshensky" <[email protected]> wrote: I an talking about quality of art not a quality of a clever conceptualizing which I might like. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: "Again and again experience has proved that the more deeply verse d an artist is in drawing, the less he is able to paint portraits." (Giovanni Battista Armenini) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:04:05 -0400 Do you know if Joseph Kosuth, Bill Viola, Marina Abramovic, Barbara Kruger, or Jeff Wall can draw - does it even matter - and while you may not like their work is that any sign of its quality On 6/13/10 7:52 PM, "Boris Shoshensky" <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, and it is noticeable in the quality. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: "Again and again experience has proved that the more deeply versed an artist is in drawing, the less he is able to paint portraits." (Giovanni Battista Armenini) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:58:53 -0400 Many artist today do not draw nor are concerned with this form of notation On 6/12/10 8:54 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote: Not in my view but I do regard drawing quality as the most obvious indicator of an artist's overall capabilities because it is the chief mode of making visual form. The ability to do portraits well or poorly do depends on the artist's eyes, brain, art supplies and the sympathy and magnanimity of the subject/patron. Berg should stop coming up with quotations that are supposedly expressing universal rules of art. Even some games that do have rules, like chess, enable more possibilities than can be described in any form at all short of infinitude. Portraiture has no rules so how can one even begin to say what is and isn't necessary to it? Can we get past these dumb issues, please? wc ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, June 12, 2010 5:48:19 PM Subject: "Again and again experience has proved that the more deeply versed an artist is in drawing, the less he is able to paint portraits." (Giovanni Battista Armenini) Is that true? -- -- --
