Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Thaths]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:14 PM Charles Haynes 
wrote:

> Having recently seen a number of Rothko's works up close at personal
> at the Tate. I now "get" him, and have to agree. You cannot (I could
> not) appreciate Rothko from reading about him, seeing his work
> reproduced in art books, or viewing reproductions of his work. However
> once I was actually *there* with them I was stunned. I sat down and
> didn't move for a good fifteen minutes. I was shocked at my reaction
> frankly.
>

I was reminded[1] of this thread when watching this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aGRHOpMRUg

Thaths
[1] Can't believe I remembered a thread more than a decade old.

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Charles Haynes]

Having recently seen a number of Rothko's works up close at personal
at the Tate. I now get him, and have to agree. You cannot (I could
not) appreciate Rothko from reading about him, seeing his work
reproduced in art books, or viewing reproductions of his work. However
once I was actually *there* with them I was stunned. I sat down and
didn't move for a good fifteen minutes. I was shocked at my reaction
frankly.

-- Charles

On 4/24/07, Deepa Mohan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese.

Deepa.

On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 $46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any
 painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as stripes of
 color.  The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more
 compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or
 even a print or photo of the painting).  You really have to see them
 in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole
 effect.  They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving.
 They are interesting to experience from different perspectives;
 because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision
 with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of
 different color fields resolves in your eye.  Such a simple thing
 (paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully.  Impossible to
 cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the
 layering of color that achieves the end result).  You can actually
 see that it took some time to make each one.  Again as architect
 Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to
 me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that
 makes you sigh when you recognize it.  Rothko was channeling that
 quality in paint and canvas, IMHO.

 Danese

 On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:

  stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth?
 
  apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david
  rockefeller who's selling it.
 
  -rishab
 
  1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg
  2.
  http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm?
  story_id=9061031
 
 

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Srini Ramakrishnan]

On 4/24/07, Lawnun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]

On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these
works of art are high both due to the artistic merit of the piece, and the
status of the prior owner?  When I read the economist piece, it struck me
that part of the allure for both Sotheby's and to that extent, The
Economist, was the fact that you had a consignment by one of the richest
men in America.


Sure, the artist only got paid $10,000 or less.

Cheeni

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Sriram Karra]

On 4/25/07, Abhishek Hazra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jul242005/sundayherald1230252005722.asp


Super...

quote

Subbana always reacted sharply to the criticism that Neenasam's
activities at Heggodu are irrelevant in a poor country like ours. The
hypocrites in the capital talk of culture. When they come to a poor
village, they talk of food shortage. Some of them have a genuine but
naïve concern. They are ignorant.

What they do not realise is the complexities of the human mind and
its requirements. Moreover, Neenasam developed naturally from among
the people here. So where is the question of relevance or
irrelevance?

/quote

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Sriram Karra]

On 4/25/07, Abhishek Hazra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


but i think you will agree that the public is not a apriori
conceptual category. a very specific public is imagined into existence
through specific interventions as shared codes of appreciation do not
emerge spontaneously.


There was a recent thread here regd. The Washington Post's experiment
with Joshua Bell playing at a subway station. It was reported that
every child that passed by wanted to stop, only to be pulled along by
busy parents on their way to work. Would you say that points to the
existence of a shared code of appreciation that's 'just there'?

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Rishab Aiyer Ghosh]

of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder, 
unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is 
malevich:
The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective 
feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void 
beyond this feeling. Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the 
representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that 
feeling had here assumed external form. [1]

-rishab
1. http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html

 On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:09AM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote:
 minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job.
 And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one
 almost seems warranted to ask, what's so great about that black
 square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Venkat Mangudi]

It feels nice that one can get so much good information to understand 
art... Being rather art-illiterate (I can appreciate good landscapes, is 
all), I have newfound respect for art. But, I still do not understand 
art any better than I did yesterday. I guess this is how my wife feels 
when I keep talking about how Queen, Rush, Floyd, Zeppelin  Tull make 
awesome music. :-)


Thank you all very much for the wonderful education. And Danese, you 
rock! That explanation was superb.


Venkat

Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:

of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder, 
unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is 
malevich:
The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective 
feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void 
beyond this feeling. Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the 
representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that 
feeling had here assumed external form. [1]

-rishab
1. http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html

 On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:09AM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote:
  

minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job.
And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one
almost seems warranted to ask, what's so great about that black
square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?




  

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Abhishek Hazra]

Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the

representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact
that feeling had here assumed external form

this tension between communication vrs intent has a long history and
something that gets hotly contested when in comes to contemporary art
practice.

the crucial point is here that of the public.
avant garde art practice has always fashioned itself under the shadow
of the rupture. they visualised their practice as constantly breaking
new ground and so an initial incomprehensibility was very much a part
of the process.

now, those heroic postures of high modernist avant garde art -
particularly architecture, with its determined refusal to listen to
the voice on the street that actually wanted decorative French
railings instead of stark, minimal facades - has been critiqued and
unpacked in quite a great degree of detail in recent years. i will not
get into that here.

but i think you will agree that the public is not a apriori
conceptual category. a very specific public is imagined into existence
through specific interventions as shared codes of appreciation do not
emerge spontaneously. to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the
Lumiere brothers showed their film of a train pulling into a platform,
it scared their audience who were experiencing the cinematic image for
the first time. They were scared that the train would move into the
theatre and run over them.

I would imagine that the 'public' in the village of Heggodu[1]
wouldn't be that befuddled by say something like absurd theatre .

[1] ttp://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationSubbannaKV.htm
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jul242005/sundayherald1230252005722.asp



On 4/25/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder, 
unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is 
malevich:
The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective 
feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void 
beyond this feeling. Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the 
representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that 
feeling had here assumed external form. [1]

-rishab
1. http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html

 On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:09AM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote:
 minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job.
 And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one
 almost seems warranted to ask, what's so great about that black
 square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?





--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
does the frog know it has a latin name?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Abhijit Menon-Sen]

At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers
 showed their film of a train pulling into a platform

I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've
looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas?

-- ams

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Aditya Chadha]

Is there anything that's not up on youtube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk


On 4/25/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers
 showed their film of a train pulling into a platform

I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've
looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas?

-- ams





--
Aditya (http://aditya.sublucid.com/)

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Abhijit Menon-Sen]

At 2007-04-25 19:53:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Is there anything that's not up on youtube?

Wow. I didn't even *think* of looking on Youtube.

Thank you!

-- ams

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Abhishek Hazra]

Is there anything that's not up on youtube?


super! thanks.

well, if the Lumiere's are there then Feynman has to be there too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfVX3f5q30


On 4/26/07, Aditya Chadha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Is there anything that's not up on youtube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk


On 4/25/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 At 2007-04-25 16:26:37 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers
  showed their film of a train pulling into a platform

 I wonder if the Lumière shorts are available somewhere (online?). I've
 looked for them, but not found anything. Any ideas?

 -- ams




--
Aditya (http://aditya.sublucid.com/)





--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
does the frog know it has a latin name?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Danese Cooper]

$46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any  
painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as stripes of  
color.  The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more  
compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or  
even a print or photo of the painting).  You really have to see them  
in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole  
effect.  They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving.   
They are interesting to experience from different perspectives;  
because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision  
with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of  
different color fields resolves in your eye.  Such a simple thing  
(paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully.  Impossible to  
cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the  
layering of color that achieves the end result).  You can actually  
see that it took some time to make each one.  Again as architect  
Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to  
me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that  
makes you sigh when you recognize it.  Rothko was channeling that  
quality in paint and canvas, IMHO.


Danese

On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:


stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth?

apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david
rockefeller who's selling it.

-rishab

1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg
2.
http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm? 
story_id=9061031

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Deepa Mohan]

That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese.

Deepa.

On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

$46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any
painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as stripes of
color.  The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more
compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or
even a print or photo of the painting).  You really have to see them
in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole
effect.  They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving.
They are interesting to experience from different perspectives;
because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision
with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of
different color fields resolves in your eye.  Such a simple thing
(paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully.  Impossible to
cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the
layering of color that achieves the end result).  You can actually
see that it took some time to make each one.  Again as architect
Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to
me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that
makes you sigh when you recognize it.  Rothko was channeling that
quality in paint and canvas, IMHO.

Danese

On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:

 stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth?

 apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david
 rockefeller who's selling it.

 -rishab

 1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg
 2.
 http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm?
 story_id=9061031

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Lawnun]

Agreed.  An excellent description.  As I've only seen the copies (or images
on the web), I never really saw how a Rothko work commanded the $ that it
does.  I have a new appreciation.

On a side note, does anyone ever speculate that sometimes the price of these
works of art are high both due to the artistic merit of the piece, and the
status of the prior owner?  When I read the economist piece, it struck me
that part of the allure for both Sotheby's and to that extent, The
Economist, was the fact that you had a consignment by one of the richest
men in America.

Obviously, prior ownership translates in Hollywood film memoribilia (e.g.,
Audrey Hepburn's little black dress worn in Breakfast at Tiffany's), but
does the same hold true for art?

Carey

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/05/arts/EU_A-E_MOV_Britain_Hepburns_Dress.php

On 4/24/07, Deepa Mohan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese.

Deepa.

On 4/24/07, Danese Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 $46 million is a ridiculous amount of money for a painting (any
 painting) but I'd hardly characterize a Rothko as stripes of
 color.  The depth and texture Rothko's methods achieved are much more
 compelling than can be communicated by a reductionist description (or
 even a print or photo of the painting).  You really have to see them
 in person, and see them up close and properly hung to get the whole
 effect.  They are calming, soothing and sometimes deeply moving.
 They are interesting to experience from different perspectives;
 because most are quite large, you can surround your field of vision
 with color standing close and then stepping away the separation of
 different color fields resolves in your eye.  Such a simple thing
 (paint on canvas) but carried off so beautifully.  Impossible to
 cheaply copy (because of the surface texture and something about the
 layering of color that achieves the end result).  You can actually
 see that it took some time to make each one.  Again as architect
 Christopher Alexander coined the term, which Bill Joy later taught to
 me, there is a quality with no name that is deeply pleasing and that
 makes you sigh when you recognize it.  Rothko was channeling that
 quality in paint and canvas, IMHO.

 Danese

 On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:

  stripes of red, black, white and purple - how much is it [1] worth?
 
  apparently at least $46 million [2], guaranteed by sotheby's to david
  rockefeller who's selling it.
 
  -rishab
 
  1. http://economist.com/images/columns/2007w16/Rothko.jpg
  2.
  http://economist.com/daily/columns/artview/displaystory.cfm?
  story_id=9061031
 
 

Re: [silk] in the eye of the beholder

[Abhishek Hazra]

thanks for that interesting take on Rothko, Danese.

minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job.
And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one
almost seems warranted to ask, what's so great about that black
square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?

Now, the thing is that for artists like Malevich or Mondrian
(http://www.artchive.com/artchive/m/mondrian/mondrian_blue_plane.jpg)
you cannot just see them just in terms of plain geometry – their
formal language has to be contextualised within the larger history of
20th (as well as late 19th) century art.

Being continually immersed in a media saturated environment, it might
get a little difficult for us to appreciate the revolutionary impact
that the formal experiments of Malevich or Mondrian had on 20th
century visual language.
How it freed painting from the tyranny of representation ( a painting
that looks like a bridge on the river, or a bunch of grapes and
apples) and in thus opening up the space for abstraction,
significantly expanded our visual vocabulary.

A visual vocabulary that is now very much a part of our everyday
'colloquial' usage.
For example, look at the Economist cover with its grey band on top and
the red rectangle on the upper left corner.
Now squint your eyes, defocus on the black text, and just concentrate
on that grey and red rectangle. I will not get into questions of
balance, (a)symmetry etc here, but just alternate your gaze
between the Economist rectangles and some more Malevich paintings and
you will soon get a sense of the complex genealogy that binds the two.

cheers,
abhishek


On 4/25/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 18:39 +0430, Deepa Mohan wrote:
 That was SUCH a good description of Rothko's work Danese.

yes... and it's clearly a more complex than malevich's black square on
white which is (brilliantly) ... a black square on white [1].

-rishab
1. http://www.russianpaintings.net/articlepics/malevich_black.jpg






--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
does the frog know it has a latin name?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -